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:Trackteur reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Not blocked)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trackteur (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 at Charlie Hebdo shooting:

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

And at Arpanet:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: in every revert's edit comment, and on Tracktuer's talk page.

Comments:
These are the exact same edits Trackteur persistently made for which he was slapped with a two-week block—immediately after getting off the block he went back to making the same edits with broken English, repeatedly restoring "print run of 60,000 in French language" no matter how many times he has been told that it is incorrect English—I can't imagine why he would think such wording is acceptable. He tries to hide what he's doing with edit comments like "répétition, space", which have nothing to do with what he's doing to the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin the last time, and having looked through his edits to this article from the end of January up until today I'm not so sure he should be blocked. He has quite a lot of good contribs to it, both before and after the block, and I frankly don't see the issue with the last diff[8]; he removed a duplicated or redundant part of the lead, and that's a good thing in my opinion. I'd like to hear from others on this; as an alternative to blocking some kind of restriction (1RR) might be a better solution for the encyclopedia. I'd also like a comment from Trackteur on this if possible. Bjelleklang - talk 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please look more closely—he replaced "print run of 60,000 in only French" with "print run of 60,000 in French language", which he has done repeatedly, despite being told over and over that this is broken English. I assume it's okay to fix it? Or am I now to be blocked again? Let's remember that Competence is required, and when an editor's English skills are not up to the task, they should step aside and let those of us who know what they're doing handle things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, English is not my native language, and if it is the only topic to discuss, there is no problem criticizing me for that; but when I see the diff [9]; like that I make sure to remove this completely unnecessary redundancy. I just think it might be better cooperation between contributors and Curly Turkey could just rectify my language mistakes instead of proceeding to simple cancellations. Moreover, I note that he gave up his version, which contains some more errors, without any discussion on the page provided for this purpose --> (1RR).

Bjelleklang, thank you for your understanding, especially for your solution on Arpanet to first focus on the readers, not the contributors. Trackteur (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is now being discussed on the article talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Not blocked. The problem seems to have been resolved for the time being.Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Harald Forkbeard and user:CorporateM (Result: Protected)

Page: Sageworks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harald Forkbeard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CorporateM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reporting myself and Herald. The edit-war is regarding this edit, where Harald Forkbeard is insisting that court records are admissible sources. Since this is not a BLP, technically I need to report myself, but I don't see any reason not to follow the same procedure as we would for BLPs and protect the page. After which point someone (perhaps me, perhaps someone else) can explain on the Talk page the whole bit about secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 09:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• The request for a layman historian interpretation of a court case appears nonsensical to me. I would request an explanation of this requirement on the article talk page. Besides, the source reporting the court case is secondary in nature, as indicated by the URL of the reporting website, used as the reference in the article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, I was just commenting at User talk:CorporateM#Your Sagework court case reverts where these two have been discussing, and requesting discussion instead at Talk:Sageworks#Lawsuits and sources that I opened. I would rather the article not be protected so that I and others could make other edits, leaving the contended section about lawsuits alone. I hope/expect the two editors can discuss there, and that no admin action here is needed. If both discuss there, this might be closed "Result: negotiating" or the like. (Otherwise, by my count CorporateM is one revert ahead in the back-and-forth editing, because HF added material and CorporateM began the revert sequence by removing it.) --doncram 11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Fully protected three days due to edit warring. I reverted the article to a previous version which lacks the phrase "without the explicit permission being obtained from the business owners." This amounts to stating in Wikipedia's voice that Sageworks misuses information that has been confided to them. The source does *not* make this statement. The edits of User:Harald Forkbeard don't seem to fully comply with Wikipedia policy, for instance wanting to mention a copyright lawsuit sourced only to court records, and whose significance to the world is unknown. He appears to think that Sageworks' data protection policies are ethically lacking. Does he think the CFOs who submit the information are misbehaving, or that they don't know how the data they submit is going to be used? If this were a BLP article, the unsourced negative information would have to come straight out, and I think this is a similar case. Please use the talk page to negotiate the wording, and use WP:RSN if the quality of sources is an issue. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that Sageworks collects data without explicit consent from the business owners. Instead, it gathers the data from the professional advisers, who are not the actual owners. At a guess, this is teetering on the brink of a law suit at the best of times. I believe this should be spelled out in the article.

As to the law suit, it seems reasonable that a copyright dispute is a noteworthy challenge that should be mentioned in the article. This company is unlikely to attract the attention of secondary sources, as you seem to demand.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) Business owner hires an accounting firm, and provides their confidential data. (2) Accountant then gives the data to Sageworks *without the owner's permission?* Do you have a reference for that? EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do - the reference already provided (and deleted) for the article: [10].

Software vendors must obtain explicit consent from the owners of the data, not their professional advisers. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Business owners hire accountants to help with tax returns and financial advice. Not to disclose their private data to third parties such as Sageworks.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review the Sageworks Talk Page Talk:Sageworks for excerpts from the referenced paper detailing the lack of business owner consent to disclosure of private company data by Sageworks. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Au77ie reported by User:Aronzak (Result: Blocked)

Page

Marie Ficarra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Au77ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649495971 by Dr.K. (talk) only adding it as happened event without details.Seems some armenians are sensitive. So,not putting any reference to azerbaijan.I found they had war - thats why."
2. 05:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649493691 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) Why are you reverting my edition? What is wrong? She is not in the list?Just check the list -available on FM site."
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) to 04:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Fixed revision 649473217 by Aronzak (talk), put more authoritative source which is wikipedia. User Aronzak - paid contributor - attempts to "modify" information about some figures."
   2. 04:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Representative history */"
   3. 04:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Representative history */ Fixed reference. Added more authoritative source. This edition is made after an Armenian paid contributor attempted to distort factual information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Fred Nile. (TW)"
2. 02:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */"
3. 02:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */"
4. 05:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "/* ANI notice */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#BLP violations on Armenian genocide issue. Redlink editor continuously adds material that is unreferenced or uses self-published material on BLP pages, only on one particular controversial issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Similar disruption is occurring at Fred Nile. Au77ie was at 3RR on 2 March 2015 at Marie Ficarra, created sock A rewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to avoid detection for the edit-warring, then when the sock got tagged, waited until today to rekindle the edit-war adding attacking edit-summaries about "Armenians feeling uneasy". Overall typical nationalist POV-pushing disruption. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring, from March 2 through March 4. The editor is trying to force their material in both at Marie Ficarra and Fred Nile. Since these edits mention Nagorno-Karabakh I'm also notifying the editor of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. The references to 'an Armenian paid contributor' also cause concern. Is Au77ie trying to say that User:Aronzak is an Armenian paid contributor? A related complaint was filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#BLP violations on Armenian genocide issue. If User:A rewriter continues to post in these areas an SPI may be warranted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drovethrughosts reported by User:24.79.36.94 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Remember (The Walking Dead) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A block quote was added to a plot section of a TV show. An editor removed it saying there was no good reason to have it in the edit summary. Despite attempts to have this editor discuss this on the talkpage, they continue to edit war and refrain from using the talkpage.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remember_(The_Walking_Dead)&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]
7. [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] [20] [21] [22]

Comments:
There is nothing wrong with having a little style in the plot summary section. This editor is unwilling to use the talkpage to discuss changes because there is no other way but his way. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I just posted on your talk page, before you made this edit. Also, just because you report the other editor does not exempt you from the 3RR rule; you also made over three reverts. Lets take it to the talk page, no need to be so overdramatic. You've blanked my comment on your talk page twice now without responding, it seems you're one the one who doesn't want to have a discussion.. I linked you to the Wikipedia guideline WP:QUOTE, which you seem to be ignoring. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, now that there's a report you become civil. You're are false, and I won't be deceived. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have been civil. Please give an example where I said something to insult you somehow, I'd be surprise. After I posted on your talk page, I got the notification of a talk page message as I hadn't loaded the page yet since I was making a comment to you. Again, you're being overdramatic and taking this too personal. I've linked you to the Wikipedia guideline, but you don't seem to be concerned with that. I've replied on the talk page for the episode article after several attempts (there were edit conflicts), and again, please respect that editors cannot always replies within seconds. I take time in what I have to say and will reread and rewrite it several times. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The diffs of your reverts prove your statements false. It is also false that you know what I have read and considered. It is completely in appropriate and false for you to be trying to change the venue of the discussion to my talkpage so that no one else would see it. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are being paranoid and confrontational and it's making it impossible to converse with you. What do you not understand, I went to your talk page to make a comment, after I finished and posted it, I received the notification (via my talk page) regarding this. I did not "change the venue" as I was not aware of it at the time I was writing the comment on your talk page. Please understand and accept that. Jeez. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm stating the facts as I see them: you're telling me what I think, you're telling me what I have and haven't read (on and on with falsehoods), you deliberately avoided having any discussion on the talkpage until there was a warring report here. There isn't anything paranoid about my reaction to your falsehoods. And I consider your using the term to apply to me to be bullying and personal attack. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"you deliberately avoided having any discussion on the talkpage until there was a warring report here", no you are wrong...why do I have to keep repeating myself...what do you not understand that I didn't complete my comment to your talk page before I saw this? Stop your accusations. You do not get notifications in real-time, I didn't reload the page until I posted my comment (obviously) so I did not see this until after I posted on your talk page. "Bullying and personal attacks", are you serious? I'm sorry if pointing to Wikipedia guidelines hurts your feelings. As for "you're telling me what I think", so what about when you told me "you would use the same lack of reasoning" and "You would rather it was a plain template cookie cutter version of the last episode article". You're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of things I have not done. You're taking this too personal, and it's making it hard to try and reason with you. Talk about bullying, I see you left a message on a user's talk page whom I had a disagreement with before to try and gang-up on me, how mature of you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Both of you need to realize that you are way beyond 3RR now. The only thing stopping me from blocking both of you right now is the fact that you've started to discuss the issue. However, if I see any further reverts I will block you. I'd like you to consider another thing as well; adding the quote implies that it has a special significance, but there is no source that can verify this present in the article, which to me suggests that this might be original research. Bjelleklang - talk 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Drovethrughosts and User:24.79.36.94 were both warned by User:Bjelleklang. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:李建兴 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: )

Page

2015 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

李建兴 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 12:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649984034 by Qed237 (talk)"
3. 12:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649983581 by Kante4 (talk)"
4. 12:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 12:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649976291 by Kante4 (talk)"
6. 08:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding flags against MOS and the template documentation for that infobox. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. QED237 (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment A few weeks/months ago the editor was adding wrong information about China playing in 2011 when it was North Korea. Now the editor added teams when they were already added and really not needed again and editing the infobox like QED said and added above. Kante4 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of discussion, it has not been successful in the past as the editor write in unknown signs and not english but we tried in edit summaries and at my talkpage and his. QED237 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Not commenting on the edit warring, but the user is correct, a flag is valid there as MOS:INFOBOXFLAG allows flags for sporting competition. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if that's true, he added wrong information and added teams that were alrady added. If he stops now doing that (which it seems like), i can live with it. Kante4 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:67.80.218.118 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 13:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649988702 by NeilN (talk) so I can fix some NPOV problems."
3. 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649989286 by NeilN (talk) Over WP:NPOV and the fact that naturopathy works."
4. 15:44, 5 March 2015 dif (no edit note)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

13:34, 5 March 2015 dif

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

talk discussion is here

also discussion on other editors' Talk pages here and here

Comments:

Edit warring warning. Discussion. Basically, a fringe theory advocate. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting this edit summary from the ip: "Fixing naturopathy article, don't revert changes, or you will end up having your edit reverted." Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And that the lead paragraph has been discussed many times on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

And, adding a new revert to the report: [23]   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

added additional dif above, added 3RR warning, and links to article talk page discussion and 2 user Talk discussions above. They should be in main case. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by an IP who does not wait to get consensus on Talk. This article is covered by WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor is still engaged in battlefield behavior and comments. They also edited with another IP:

• 207.241.247.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Now they have finally created an account:

• Young_Naturopath_01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They may need some heavy handed warnings from an admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The named accounts has not used the IPs since creating an account, and the new account announced who they were on the article Talk page. At this point I don't see the need for warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. It's good they created an account, but the behavior hasn't changed. We need to keep an eye on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am no longer in an edit war, and I am trying to fix this problem because there have been NPOV problems on the Naturopathy article. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Jbenjos reported by User:58.7.138.46 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: António de Oliveira Salazar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jbenjos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments: As already expressed here before the user started edit warring, Jbenjos is a POV-pusher who has proclaimed he would "like to see this article read a little more like Adolf Hitler or Stalin". 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Jbenjos does not appear to understand WP:Consensus and WP:Burden, please block them. Two potential sockpuppets, as noted here. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The IP also accused me of being a sock of the said editor that they reported. If you look at my contributions and run a check, it is not likely that I will be identified as a sock of the editor. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:BZero (Result: 24h)

Page: Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

Comments:
Looking at user's contribution history, he seems to have an anti-Kurdistan agenda with his edits. BZero (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Leave me a message on my talk page explaining the anti-Kurdistan agenda if you think it warrants further action. Swarm ^—X— 21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmboy reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Declined)

Page: Backstrom (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helmboy (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. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Previously a problematic editor on Ascension (miniseries), disagreed with multiple editors and has a very edit-war-like personality. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Please post diffs, not links. In any event, the reported user hasn't come close to breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Links changed to diffs. I'm reporting for Edit Warring, not specifically breaching 3RR. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the links to diffs, but I'm still declining it. You've been edit-warring as much as Helmboy, and I'm not keen on blocking you both. I suggest dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well. Dispute resolution with one who refuses to listen to and reverts reasoning given through edit summaries as to why his edits are going against the very guidelines of editing Wikipedia articles, because of the fact that we've had disputes before. Gonna need luck for that! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Locked)

Page

Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649872640 by Pinkbeast (talk) stop editing against consensus!"
2. 17:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649996835 by Charlesdrakew (talk) edit warring against consensus, sources, and Wiki policy"
3. 10:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650060304 by Charlesdrakew (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Renewed edit warring against clear talk page consensus on the same topic after previous blocks. Seems only an indef block or topic ban will stop this disruption. Charles (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at the talk page will show who is edit warring against consensus on this article. Countless users have tried to insert a "result" into this article - in keeping with all other Wikipedia articles - but Charles keeps monitoring the page and threatening anyone who disagrees with him with "bans" for "edit-warring" "against consensus". Clearly, "consensus" in his mind, does not equal a majority of users on the talk page, nor ALL the sources presented on the talk page, but merely his and one other user's own personal opinions. Charles has repeatedly deleted sources, harassed me on my talk page, and followed me around Wikipedia to "undo" whatever edits I attempt to make. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A read of the talk page will show that the above is tendentious nonsense. I have followed clear consensus and I have not deleted sources or harassed this editor.Charles (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=624458356&oldid=624438253 here, Charles deleted an eminent scholarly source which states that the battle was a Pyrrhic Victory. He subsequently reported me here, and had me banned. If you work up from this edit, you'll see he has repeatedly deleted the sources I have added, reverting by claiming a completely non-existent "consensus" (the majority on the Talk page are in fact AGAINST him and Pink.beast). Most unforgivable of all, he simply refuses to engage with the sources I've provided him on the Talk Page. He just screams "CONSENSUS!", reverts, and runs. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. I've also left a clear warning on the article talk page about reverting after the lock expires. Blocks may be handed out if that occurs. As for the report here, what the two editors say here is not completely accurate on either side. Zinedine has been blocked once, not multiple times. Zinedine has labeled other editors' reverts as vandalism, and Charles left a vandalism warning on Zinedine's talk page. None of the reverts constitutes vandalism, so both parties are advised to drop the word. Such accusations may be construed as personal attacks, which are blockable. I also urge Zinedine to make their points without strident language. If nothing else, it doesn't help you. As for consensus, I don't see a clear consensus on the infobox issue. At the article Talk page, I suggested an RfC to establish one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mansourblake11 reported by User:Nick Number (Result: Blocked)

Page: E. A. Juffali and Brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mansourblake11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:11, March 2, 2015‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:26, March 4, 2015
2. 10:35 - 10:38, March 5, 2015
3. 14:09, March 5, 2015‎
4. 15:27, March 5, 2015‎
5. 10:15, March 6, 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

This user is persistently removing a reference and adding an unsourced fact in its place. It is accompanied by a wikilink to List of Arabs by net worth, but that list is out of date and its only source (the Forbes list) does not list the name Juffali.
No explanation has been offered (the edit summaries are all blank) and there has been no response to attempts at discussion. Nick Number (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This is a troubling report as I believe the reported user may be a sock puppet. I also think the edits come very close to vandalism (deliberate insertion of incorrect material). I also think that the article itself is poorly written and virtually unsourced. Finally, List of Arabs by net worth, where the family is listed (added by the probable master), is in horrible shape as well. Based on all that, I am not blocking Nick Number for edit warring, applying a blend of exemptions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:86.169.42.101 reported by User:Hibrido Mutante (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Deconstruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 86.169.42.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Comments:
Anonymous editor adds depreciative notes without further explanations and ignores appeals to discuss the issues on the talk page.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. The three 86.* IPs who have been reverting since 17 February are presumably the same person. Using a fluctuating IP to edit war violates WP:SOCK. Hibrido Mutante, you were edit warring as well and you could have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:49.151.124.167 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:Blocked)

Page: American Sniper (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49.151.124.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]
6. [48]
7. [49] (4th revert in a day)
8. [50] (5th)
9. [51] (6th)
10. [52] (7th)

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Esc2003 reported by User:Steverci (Result: Warned)

Page: Lavash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Esc2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First removed Armenian origin, then added poorly sourced Iranian origin

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:30, 2 March 2015
2. 18:36, 2 March 2015 (also calls user a troll)
3. 19:14, 2 March 2015 (warring an admin)
4. 20:06, 2 March 2015
5. 13:20, 5 March 2015
6. 18:55, 6 March 2015 (also calls user a vandal)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

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

Comments:
Clearly a very aggressive user who's personall attacks and edit warring are harmful to Wikipedia. Just by glancing his talk page, it seems he has a very long history of edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think this person is talking about himself. 1, 2 & 3. His edit wars are similar. And, his contributions are destructive 4. I think should be careful for this status. --Esc2003 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Esc2003 is warned for edit warring. If this continues a block may be issued. Calling people trolls or vandals in your edit summaries could lead to a block for personal attacks. This article is subject to the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:GabbyisEbola69 reported by User:Snowager (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

GabbyisEbola69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Factual statements"
2. 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 00:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 00:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 00:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Gabby. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He/she did personal attacks on certain users, including me. Snowager-Talk to Me! 00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

They're all clear vandalisms, looks like a vandalism-only account to me. Think this should be an indef block for vandalism-only account, rather than a ban for edit warring. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked. Indeffed by Kudpung as vandalism-only account. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:LunarPhyla reported by User:PhantomTech (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "1. That is incorrect. 2. Another strawman. I changed it. 3. I have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia regarding neutrality? This entire article is utterly biased against the topic it is about! You are vandals, not me"
2. 04:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Once again someone is attacking a strawman. Yes, age is dependant on evolution (biological, planetary, cosmological). You know exactly whwhafdtat"
3. 03:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Correct. This is about science, but who's interpretation of it are we talking about? The mainstream evolution and old universe concept (not a theory) is untrue. I removed popular, done attacking a strawman? Even then it doesn't matter, the ARTICLE is crap"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Young Earth creationism. (TW)"
2. 04:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)" by User:McSly

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was told multiple times to discuss the edit on the talk page by each of my reverts and a warning another user placed on their talk page. User's edit summaries indicate a WP:COI. User's edit summaries also seem to be violations of WP:ESDONTS. PhantomTech (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This IP is very likely the same user, so this would add to the numbers above:

• 68.188.225.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding my two-bits here, this definitely appears to be the same user. Not optimistic about this. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and the same for the IP. Bishonen | talk 12:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Dustylappss (Result:blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650265633 by Cleatword (talk)The contentious content has not been added. There is no discussion about the content I added. I removed content which is being discussed."
2. 07:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650264281 by Cleatword (talk)Why dont people TALK before reverting me lol? PLEASE talk talk talk"
3. 07:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 650262748 by Dustylappss (talk) talk first edit later. Talk is ongoing."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on islam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps editwarring and making massive changes even after warnings of edit-war and violation of 3 revert rule Dustylappss (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from freeatlastchitchat

I have done three things to the article. 1)There was some content regarding slavery in the section of family life. The content was causing constant pain, some wanted it removed, some wanted it there. I removed the content from family life and created a new section called slavery. The content in this section was taken from the article on slavery from wikipedia. As this content has already been agreed upon no one will be removing it, and I thought (incorrectly I guess) that everyone will be happy. 2)The second thing I have done is removed "Quran and science" subsection from the section of jurisprudence. The section had no relation whatsoever to Jurisprudence. I put a link to the article Islam and science at the end of the article. 3)The third thing I did was to remove any mention of "wife beating" from the article because it was from biased sources aka an Israeli writer and an online newspaper which itself claims that it is biased. I then started a discussion on the talk page so that the content regarding wife beating can be discussed before we add it.

And out of nowhere three editors who have done almost no editing started to revert me. All three accounts want to revert all of my changes. I repeatedly, again and again asked them to at least discuss on the talk page before reverting my changes, two of which seems to be IN THEIR FAVOR as they want to include slavery in the article, but they still revert me. I would like an admin to please take a look at the history of the page and perhaps help with the discussion. Also I would like to request that someone protects the page with heavy protection allowing only reviewers and admins to add/remove content. When we have reached consensus on the talk page we can just ask the concerned admin to add the content.ThanksFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC).

I only reported FreeatlastChitchat's today's editwarring. This editor has been removing chunk of material & reliables sources from the article for quite a long time (for example here) and justifying it by replacing it with irrelevant information and unreliable sources (such as here). Even after being told not to do so on talkpage (such as here).--Dustylappss (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam. He/she attacks other users[55], even though he/she has been asked not to do this.[56] He/she marks controversial edits as minor.[57][58] During this edit war he felt free to revert other editors' contributions, whilst issuing stern warnings not to revert him whilst the discussion on the talk page is ongoing. This looks like an attempt to game the system. It is hard to have discussion with an editor who reverts edits whose main sources are newspaper articles, but who claims to be reverting original research based on primary sources such as the Koran and hadiths.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:55, 5 March 2015 (Undid revision 649944255 by Cleatword (talk))
2. 06:24, 5 March 2015 m (→‎Family life: Removed biased sources and added text to create neutrality. One source was an Isreali newspaper hence biased and the other was a tabloid just reporting an incident not giving any interpretation.)
3. 09:41, 5 March 2015 m (Undid revision 649963520 by Toddy1 (talk)Talk on the talkpage about sources if you wish. Do not revert sourced material discuss before reverting)
4. 08:36, 6 March 2015 (→‎Family life: Removed POV discussion is ongoing on talk page. DO not revert this or add text untill discussion reaches an end.)
5. 03:46, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650212967 by Dustylappss (talk)Do not edit before the talk page discussion reaches an end. discussion is ongoing. please do not start edit war)
6. 07:27, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650262748 by Dustylappss (talk) talk first edit later. Talk is ongoing.)
7. 7:42, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650264281 by Cleatword (talk)Why dont people TALK before reverting me lol? PLEASE talk talk talk)
8. 07:55, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650265633 by Cleatword (talk)The contentious content has not been added. There is no discussion about the content I added. I removed content which is being discussed.)
9. 09:06, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650270898 by LalaResne (talk)no consensus reached, this content is from wikipedia and already agreed upon.)
10. 09:17, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650271991 by LalaResne (talk)The material from BBC is in science which has no connection to jurisprudence hence removed. Slavery has been mentioned in a new section, not removed .)
11. 09:28, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650273126 by LalaResne (talk)this source is mentioned in the slavery article which is linked here. therefore not needed here)
12. 09:37, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650274028 by LalaResne (talk)slavery has this so not needed in family. talk had no consensus. this is the best way to stop wars. What is wrong with new section btw? it covers sex)
13. 09:55, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650275064 by LalaResne (talk) giving content without context is bias. Slavery has this with context. therefore this is in slavery . I can copy paste to family if you wish)
14. 10:06, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650276429 by LalaResne (talk)that was BEFORE slavery article being added. Now that slavery is here, we have context. without context bias is created)
15. 10:16, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650277122 by LalaResne (talk)There was no consensus. The last thing I am reading on talk page is you being pointed out as an agenda pushing single purpose account user.)
16. 10:22, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650277702 by Toddy1 (talk) stop biased editing plZ)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are my "EDITS"(Where I add content and create neutral POV) included in my "reverts" ? just asking not complaining. I already explained myself and anyone can see that I have done nothing wrong as soon as they look at the articles history. Three editors with nill history of edits gang up and create content which is from biased sources , what am I supposed to do? To be honest an admin should just heavy protect the page and no one should edit till we get a consensus. This holds especially true when these three aforementioned editors use abusive language like saying "I know that most Muslims are taught from a very young age to never question their religion, and be blindfolded bigots" . I have never attacked another user. If you look at my talkpage you will see that I called someone an imbecile once for he wanted to brand terrorists as fundamentalists, and in the heat of the moment i called him that. Even then his edit was reverted by another user who changed the word to insurgent as that is the case. newspaper articles from fringe newspapers which themselves claim to be biased are biased. This is why i wanted a discussion on the talk page about sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The above comment appears to refer to edit No 2 (06:24, 5 March 2015), where you partially reverted another editor, and added some content. If you read Wikipedia:Reverting, it says that "Reverting means reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it."-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, not complaining here. All of the sources presented about domestic violence are biased and will not stand any test. they do not give neutral POV and are therefore revertable. Three users show agenda and are single purpose accounts, one of them is biased as per his own admission and comments. You yourself admit that you do not understand English. Surrounded by all this what am I supposed to do? I created a section on slavery, it is linked to slavery article, highly sourced, why would anyone want to put contentious text inside family life when slavery can exist as a separate section and is sourced? Same with Domestic Violence, why are you pushing for fringe theories and mis interpretations from biased sources? I repeatedly requested that sources be discussed before putting in text? Why dont you guys just discuss sources?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement for sources to be neutral POV. The requirement is for the article to be edited to a neutral POV. See Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You create ALL content from biased sources and the content is biased. why cant we discuss this on the talk page instead of here? Slavery is there. science and Quran has no connection with Shariah. only thing left is wife beating. Lets discuss it on talk page then add it. Why are you being so unreasonable that you have to add biased content? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Two warriors who surpassed three reverts were blocked for 24 hours. Please stop reverting and start discussing.Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Mormography (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Gordon B. Hinckley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Link to version from before edits took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_B._Hinckley&oldid=634159662#Member_of_First_Presidency

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

Somewhere around mid November the section 'Member of The First Presidency' had editing concerns raised, particularly regarding the word 'implicating'. An edit war was determined to have occurred and the section was protected. Discussion occurred on the talk page without resolution. Dispute resolution was requested without anyone volunteering. The reported user AndyTheGrump participated in these events. Under BRD on the current talk page the POV concerns have been formalized. Another editor [user:Trödel] joined the discussion further pushing for their own POV, summed up by the editor declaring the matter a "simple issue". Under the BRD on the talk page Trodel was challenged to defend the assessment "simple issue". Trodel did not do this, what rather removed long standing, secondary-source-cited items that contradicted his POV on the talk page. For example, that several books describe the situation and that an Mormon defender had confessed in publication that the "the whole episode achieved epic proportions." Removal of these cited items served only to help Trodel POV of "simple issue".

The section has been heavily debated on the talk page. Editors have been blocked for the simplest of edits to the section and consensus has been deemed necessary. Trodel has obviously acknowledge the existence of the talk page discussion and the current formalization of POV dispute, but made his edits without discussion on the talk page. Most importantly his edits only served to push his POV and did nothing to address the concerns "implicating" or "on behalf of the church". However, after making his edits Trodel sarcastically wrote "Proposed edit made to resolve issue."

Obviously edit warring, I reverted to the original. AndyTheGrump, having had a contentious back forth with me on the talk page, insisted I play dumb with him or else he would continue the edit war. I refused.

Mormography (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

This so-called 'edit-warring' report is utter nonsense (and incidentally, intentionally misleading, given that only one of the diffs provided is to an edit I made). Trödel made an edit. Mormography reverted it without providing any explanation as to what was wrong with it, instead describing this single edit as 'edit-warring [64] I repeatedly asked Mormography what was wrong with the edit - no explanation was given. Given that the edit removed a lot of confused quote-farming and general poor writing that Mormography had recently added (without the consensus he seems now to be claiming is necessary to edit the article), I restored Trödel's edit. Sadly, Mormography seems to combine his WP:OWN issues concerning the page with an almost complete inability to actually explain in simple English what he wants the page to say - and he seems intent on inflicting his confused wording on our readers too. He is apparently still insisting that the article should assert that we should refer to a "forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging", despite repeated objections to a phrase which simply defies logic. The forgery was intended to implicate Smith, certainly, by all accounts. It was however a forgery - and once we have told the reader it was a forgery, simple common sense says that we cannot then assert that its contents actually implicated Smith. This has nothing to do with the details of the case, and everything to do with writing articles in comprehensible English, for the benefit of readers who don't already know the story. Evidently Mormography cares more about getting his own confused wording into the article than he does about our readers actually being able to understand it, and it seems he is willing to file entirely bogus complaints about imaginary 'edit-warring' to get his way. I have to suggest that the appropriate response is at minimum to close this discussion with a warning to Mormography not to waste people's time in future - though I would suggest that a more appropriate response might be to block Mormography for a while for misuse of this noticeboard with the intention of edit-warring his own content (added without consensus) back into the article by abuse of process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction to the above - the confused quote-farming was already in the article - there was however a clear consensus on the talk page that the phrase about the forgery 'implicating' anything was unacceptable - and it should be noted, Mormography had earlier appeared to accept this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is a frivolous report. Mormography, you're reporting Andy for reverting once at an article where you appear to revert more than anyone else and have an extensive block log for edit-warring, the most recent of which was for doing so in this article. You list two "diffs" (they're links), only one of which belongs to Andy. You are Warned that if you persist in reverting at the article or you file another bogus report in this forum, you may be blocked without notice. You're lucky I'm not blocking you now, although any other administrator is free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Serioiusly? I am not allow to revert at the page but AndyTheGrump is? You have in essence banned me from the page. How do I appeal your unjustified ban? This is not at all a frivolous reportMormography (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidently Mormography has failed to get the message - he is now arguing the toss about this on Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley, reposting the content from here to there, minus Bbb23's statement, making further accusations of edit-warring against Trödel (who it should be noted had made one edit to the article). Since it seems self-evident that Mormography has failed to take note of what Bbb23 said, I formally request that Mormography be blocked from editing for a substantial period - the last block (regarding the same article) was for a week, and that seems to have had little effect. Maybe a month might get the message across? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And on it goes - see User talk:Bbb23#How Do I appeal Your Ban Of Me At Gordon B. Hinkcley. We are clearly facing a basic competence issue here, and I suggest we give this time-waster the boot. Permanently... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Nehemiah Narzary reported by User:George8211 (Result: )

Page

Nehemiah Narzary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nehemiah Narzary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 15:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Nehemiah Narzary. (TW)"
2. 15:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Nehemiah Narzary. (TW)"
3. 15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: )

Page: Languages of Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

User:71.62.102.142 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

Page

Que te perdone Dios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.62.102.142 (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 17:13, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) to 18:29, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:13, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
   2. 17:15, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
   3. 18:29, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
2. 15:51, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"
3. 04:15, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexico broadcast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:30, 7 marzo 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Que te perdone Dios. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Leave you a notice and ignored him. When got rid its Edition for the first time allow in my summary of Edition that the information did not have reliable sources. Back and did the same. Now continue and does not seem to stop. Now I am going to leave a last message to see if it answers. Philip J Fry Talk 19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:24.130.172.5 reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: )

Page: Royal Palaces of Abomey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.130.172.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

^{One of the links is now gone due to it not being a revert. I linked to the wrong thing. However, another revert just happened, and the last link is that revert. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)}

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

Comments:

This anonymous editor claimed that the article that I am talking about in this report is a copyright violation. However, your vandal fighting bot, Cluebot NG, doesn't think so, and so two times, he has reverted the anonymous editor's edits. Another editor came in on this matter too. The article could be copied from somewhere else, but this individual is definitely violating the three revert rule, which is why I have brought him to your attention. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The copyvio is valid and listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 March 6. Both users McDonald of Kindness (talk · contribs) and Joaquin008 (talk · contribs) are in the wrong removing the banner as it specifically states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent.". As for ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) reverting my edits, it's being I'm editing anonymously and effectively blanking the page (normal procedure for a copyright investigation). I've reported the revert as a false positive in both cases. I've contacted both McDonald of Kindness and Joaquin008 on their talk page.

Related:

• WP:ANI#Copyvio - removal of tags by Spearmind
• WP:CCI#Nkansahrexford

24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Also I am not in violation of the 3RR rule as I have not reverted more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for voicing your side of the issue. You probably didn't mean it, but you still violated the three revert rule by reverting more than three times on the same page. This situation would not have taken place if you had started an Articles for Deletion discussion about the article. I believe, that, to resolve this issue, an Articles for Deletion discussion would have done good. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the article itself (via the edit history) and the sourced website, there is certainly a word-for-word copy of text on the "Damages" section. But the rest of the article doesn't seem to have any copyvio issues. The article topic itself is something I am not familiar with. However, if it will resolve peace between all editors involved in this dispute; then I don't mind offering my help to completely re-write that entire section into original words, so that it is in compliance with copyright regulations. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment happened to spawn the same time as mine. Anyways, yeah, a rewrite of that section could also do some good. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've followed all rules for a copyright investigation and not violated the 3RR rule (per "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." WP:3RR). However I'm not going to touch this article anymore until somebody cleans it. I must say that it's a little bit frustrating having regular users revert copyright investigation banners without any kind of explanation and in contradiction with the rules. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With that in mind then, I am assuming that all editors here have no objection to restoring the article to its status prior to this banner being added; so that I have something to work on and improve. Is that OK with everyone? Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with this if you're "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I don't object to this. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

24.130.172.5; the "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent" would be the ones to investigate whether the content is copied from a website. I've intervened as non-admin. Any editor can vastly modify content within an article, if they discover it is a copy/paste of text from a website. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the copyright banner, and making a start on the violating copied content. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 20:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Parsecboy (Result: )

Page: Italian battleship Roma (1940) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Parsecboy#Roma

Comments: Olonia has had problems following basic Wikipedia policy, most relevant to this board is an inability to solve problems without edit-warring. We had an earlier run in on the article Italian cruiser Fiume a few weeks ago which can be seen in the edit history there. He has also begun using personal attacks, as can be seen here. I'd appreciate it if an admin could take care of this, as I am obviously involved. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)