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:Tr19ss reported by User:Tradedia (Result: )

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tr19ss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 ("Hirbnafsah" from "red" to "red-lime-anim")
• Revert 1 (reverts "Hirbnafsah" from "red-lime-anim" to "red") 08:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 ("Ateera" from "red" to "lime")
• Revert 2 (reverts "Ateera" from "lime" to "red") 16:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See my comment below.

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. The user is a POV pusher who has made every single of his edits on the module in support of the same party. You can notice from this user's talk page that he has a history of uncooperative behavior with many users complaining about his lack of edit summaries (including a warning from an admin about it), his lack of sources, or lack of reliable sources. Also, I have personally received a complaint about him (among others) on my talk page from a frustrated user. In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over a long period of time. Tradedia^talk 08:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bruskom reported by User:90.2.252.75 (Result: No result.)

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bruskom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR twice:

• Edit 1 ("Malikia" from "yellow" to "lime-yellow-anim")
• Revert 1 (reverts "Malikia" from "lime-yellow-anim" to "yellow") 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 ("Faysal Mill Factory" from "yellow" to "lime")
• Revert 2 (reverts "Faysal Mill Factory" from "lime" to "yellow") 19:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 3 ("Faysal Mill Factory" from "yellow" to "lime")
• Revert 3 (reverts "Faysal Mill Factory" from "lime" to "yellow") 19:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Turkmen/Opposition Offensive - January

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 6 days before he engaged in 1RR violation. Also, he had been lectured on edit warring by a bureaucrat on his talk page. The user is a POV pusher who makes edits in support of the same party. Although he started editing only in December, you can notice from this user's talk page that he has a large number of users complaining about his edits. Here is a clear example of his bad faith edits where he is caught making up fake information from a foreign language source. Also, there is a complaint about him (among others) on the talk page of the map creator from a frustrated user. In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over a long period of time. 90.2.252.75 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is ancient history already given the activity on that map; it's a thousand edits ago, and that's a good reason for why we have NOT:NEWS, violated every single day in articles on that and other conflicts. Sure, we could apply sanctions for edits to that article, but I don't have time or inclination to figure out who all has and has not violated the rules. If Bruskom is a POV editor or falsifier or whatever, this noticeboard is not the place to report it. Drmies (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:98.90.88.137 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: 1 week)

Page

Heroes (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701251138 by Onel5969 (talk)"
2. 13:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701253856 by Onel5969 (talk)"
3. 13:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701254189 by Onel5969 (talk)"
4. 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701256685 by Onel5969 (talk)"
5. 14:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701259443 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Heroes (TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly violating WP:3RR. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

User has already been blocked, as they have also been vandalizing various articles, and I reported them to AIV as well. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week by Acroterion. De728631 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jobas reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Xtremedood warned)

Page

Mia Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

List of converts to Christianity from Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and comment about the diffs

For the first article, we had this dispute a long time ago and it was agreed upon to include her religious affiliation on the infobox, the discussion may be seen here [6]. The article remained like this for several months, however, the same user user:Jobas has made significant changes to it and I informed him here [7] that he needs consensus to make such a significant change, when I said "Read the consensus on the discussion page. You need consensus to change this. She identifies as such, as indicated from twitter. Non-practicing is already mentioned in the description.", however, he still reverted it after this.

For the second article, we have a discussion going on over here [8], however, he made the reverts before ever engaging in any discussion here, even when I explained it to him over here [9] when I said "Unexplained revision, we have a discussion going on, feel free to join in". He made a revision after this, without properly explaining it again. Several minutes later, however, he made a small message on the discussion, but made the changes before consensus. Xtremedood (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

As explained above, I have tried to reach out to him to properly get consensus before making such radical changes on the first article, as well as for the second article to try and resolve this by discussing it, however, I have not seen such an attempt as of now. Xtremedood (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Well the user:Xtremedood is sock puppet of User:Calm321 a user who tried befor for several times to push his edit as here here.

For the other list you removed the edit while the discussion still on.--Jobas (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion as of 15:10 on Jan 23 when you made your most recent revision had concluded with 2 in favour of the removal and none clearly objecting to the removal. The other user UnequivocalAmbivalence, removed most of it here [10] and I removed what was left. As stated, your revision was on 15:10 and you posted a comment several minutes after at 15:17, while not trying to engage in any discussion before making your revisions. Xtremedood (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It seems the reporter (Xtremedood) has been edit warring just as extensively as the reportee (Jobas). There is no clear bright 3RR violation by either user, but both of them have definitely been edit warring. (For the record, Xtremedood is an active sock-puppeteer who has operated at least three others accounts as well as several IPs). Jeppiz (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually you are incorrect. I did not break the 3rr, however, Jobas did, over here [11]. I also, did not use multiple ips, I used one extra account for safety purposes, as I was being threatened, my rationale may be seen here [12]. Also, don't divert the issue. Xtremedood (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No. To violate 3RR, Jobas would have to repeat the same edit 4 times in less than 24 hours. You both edit warred. And the "excuse" that you need to use socks "for safety purposes" does not speak in your favour. I suggest you both leave the article alone. Jeppiz (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

He repeated the same edit 3 times, which is sufficient. In my edits, I tried to engage with the user by providing useful edit summaries to try and bolster dialogue, however, his edit summaries did not contain any information. This is the edit warring noticeboard, there is another noticeboard for sock puppet investigations, if you want to bring it up so bad. Xtremedood (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No. It's not too much to ask that you read the big guidelines on the top of the page, but let me cite them "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." Reverting the way you both did is edit warring, but none of you violated 3RR. Furthermore, I see no evidence of either of you behaving better or worse than the other. I leave it for the closing admin to evaluate. Jeppiz (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Its open to interpretation. According to what I have personally encountered on this site, an initial edit is considered as a part of the three. However, I too shall leave it for the admin to decide. I also disagree with your assertions that neither of us were behaving better or worse. I tried to engage the user on several occassions through my edit summaries, however, he refused to even write anything in most cases and all except one of his comments so far have been aimed at my alleged sock puppetry and not on the topic. I have started a discussion on the talk page for "Mia Khalifa" [13] to address this issue and he as of yet has only rehashed the same argument, while not staying on topic. I am acting very civil and I am working to try and bolster discussion in the matters. Xtremedood (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sock puppetry account already try to push the religion information in every place in the article - remember the article is about porn star not a religious figure - and some user's removed as here an example here, since it's it's overmentioned and the source was a primary source. With the BBC she said she is no longer practicing, and her religous background is already mentioned in the article. So the article already mention her religous background and that she is not longer practicing, her religious background is toatally irrelevnt with her work, so why you need to overmention her religious backgorund. --Jobas (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And yes i want to bring up the sock puppetry, You accuse me in violation of rules while your account is s an active sock-puppeteer who has operated at least three others accounts as well as several IPs, as far as i know having sock-puppeteer account's is violation of rules.--Jobas (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved IP-Editor (I was registered user in the past "very long time ago"): Bringing accusations of sockpuppetry to this report by User:Jobas, whom I knew very well on other projects of Wikipedia, encouraged me to post this comment here in order to spotlight his astonishing history in deceptive sockpuppetry. This male User:Jobas is the proud sockmaster of 9 (nine) female sockpuppets on Wikimedia commons (check): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sockpuppets_of_Jobas

All his sockpuppets bear "female names". This shows clearly that this User:Jobas belongs to a very special class of sockpuppeteers. I encountered this male Jobas and his female sockpuppets on the Arabic Wikipedia for the first time (later, I encountered him on other Wikipedia projects). On the Arabic Wikipedia, where we met for the first time, I was trolled by one of his female sockpuppets (he named her Tinaliza as I remember) which was used by him as a strawman sockpuppet in order to get me blocked (he used it in a way that made it look as if I am the one socking with it). There is a video on YT that I created myself in 09/02/2015 in order to expose this deceptive troll (check): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sq_J2vvcQOQ . All his sockpuppets (as you can see on Wikimedia commons) bear female names. This a characteristic feature of his pervert behavior.--31.218.181.117 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging User:Xtremedood . I think he needs to see this.--31.218.181.117 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Guss who back here :) .. User:ENT70. This User did not leave me in peace with his insults and harassment. and it's funny when he talk abou tmultiple of accounts since you been blocked form this project as show here: blocked indefinitely because the account owner is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. and here for exmaple, and the one who has been blocked in the Arabic wikipeida.with more than 53 sockpuppeteers, every one can ask the user and the admains in the Arabic Wikipeida about me and about this user as the user:باسم and @Meno25:. Don't tell lies the account Tinaliza was yours so throw lies. Admains in the arabic wikiepdia can tell that about your lies and harassment so enough with that.--Jobas (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just information about this Ip user which it's interesting how he appears now. User:ENT 70 was blocked in English wikipeida and in the arabic wikipeida we found by Sockpuppet investigations in the arabic wikipedia that he has Sockpuppet account which is user:ربيع الغد. User:ربيع الغد or as his Former name user:anti cross is active here. The user:ENT 70 or user:ربيع الغد has cause many problems, vandalism and insults, besides racism and disruptive comments relating in particular to the Christian articles in Arabic Wikipedia. We also suffer for days of harassment by this user in the Arabic Wikipedia. and we concern he will make the same kind of vandalism as he did in the arabic wikipeida espacially that the contributions of this user is controversial and subversive even here. and if there any more Sockpuppet of this user please add it. since he created more than 55 Sockpuppet in the arabic wikipedia. keep your abusing in other places, This video expose whos the troll and your harassment, and remember you been blocked form English and the Arabic wikiepdia.--Jobas (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

See here how the male sockpuppeteer Jobas corrupted the link I provided in my comment to the page of of his "female" sockpuppets. This tells a lot indeed.--31.218.181.117 (talk) 11:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Xtremedood is warned for long-term edit warring. The language that she is a 'non-practicing Catholic' has been in the infobox from time to time, and is properly sourced to an interview with the actress reported on the BBC. People revert that occasionally without proper discussion. There was a discussion on Talk last July that seemed to endorse the 'non-practicing catholic' solution. If you want to change that, as in this revert, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Otherwise you are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment - There is absolutely no evidence and no history to show that consensus was to indicate that she was a non-practicing Catholic in the infobox. I can not think of a single celebrity on Wikipedia that contains on the infobox her level of religiosity. Does it state for Salman Khan that he is a "nominally practicing Hindu and Muslim" or does it state for Mel Gibson how many times a year he goes to church in the infobox? Or for any such celebrity. It is already mentioned in the article and has remained that way for a long time. I think Wikipedia should stop being a place of such unimpartial editing, in which I am sure if the situations are reversed (a woman from a Muslim background referring to Christian symbols as gross and problematic and doing other sacrilegious stuff intended to offend Christians in an adult film that received world wide notoriety) editors would probably not hesitate to point out that she identifies as a Muslim. The fact that Mia identifies as a Catholic is proven and officially stated in her official twitter account. Trying to give Christians special standards of allowing irrelevant details in the infobox not given to others in my view violates WP:NPOV. You are free to warn me as much as you want, but the facts are the facts. Xtremedood (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Skyring (Result: )

Page: Harley-Davidson XR-750 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:21, 24 January 2016 [15]
2. 02:25, 24 January 2016 [16]
3. 02:29, 24 January 2016‎ [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] (also on the article talk page, which includes discussion on the photographs, which Bratland apparently WP:OWNs.)

Comments:

Three reverts in eight minutes on the exact word with this editor has been discussing on MoS and elsewhere for weeks. Discussion continues and consensus seems to be forming, albeit slowly. --Pete (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see 3 reverts from @Dennis Bratland:, so I will warn the editor to cool it. I also see @Zachlita: has passed 3rr on this article today. SQL^{Query me!} 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Ten reverts on this article this month alone, mostly on one word: "winningest". A slow-moving edit war, stopping in this case just short of four reverts, with occasional flashes of passion. I also note over a hundred reverts on similar articles involving this word in the past week. Reverting to an editor's preferred version during ongoing discussions is a serious matter, especially when the offence is so wide-ranging and no notice has been taken of other warning blocks imposed on other editors in the same dispute. An indefinite block might be the way forward here, at least until the seriousness is acknowledged and an undertaking made not to re-offend.

I also note the other party in the edit-war, though fewer reverts were made overall. --Pete (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading through some of the old debates by the last notorious sock puppeteer we had in this same articles: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bridge Boy/Archive. I didn't want to believe that Bridge Boy was back, but it's obvious. The same obsessiveness. The same hounding. The same incredible Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You get told again and again how wrong you are, and it never sinks in. Hound others and then post laughable complaints about their incivility. And always the reverts, endless reverts. And over what? Fine points of wording. British Isles terms, parallel-twin engine, now winningest. You hate American English, and you are only here to fight battles. Technically Bridge Boy is one of Skyring's many, many sockpuppets, not the other way around, since Skyring edited first. As Flyer22 Reborn said, once your latest set of socks is blocked, you'll be back with more. There's no point in repeating SPI investigations over stale socks. Your current puppets, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita, are disposable. They'll get blocked and you'll make more.

You're never going to learn. No matter how many times you fail in your grudge matches against other people, you will never stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that's the case, WP:SSI is the way to go. I would advise you to use restraint in reverting further today. SQL^{Query me!} 20:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in more sock investigations. He'll just make new accounts. I really would ask that Harley-Davidson XR-750 be put back to the stable version, just like the other ~140 US sports articles, until the discussion at the MOS talk page is closed. It's what WP:NOCONSENSUS says we should to. Revert to the stable version, lock it from edit warring, and let the process run. But I hear you: I won't revert this group of puppets any more. I'd appreciate help in dealing with him/them, though. Skyring has been disrupting Wikipedia for 12+ years and he's very good at it. More than one person can handle alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Note for admins: Note that Skyring is fresh off of a 60-hour block for edit-warring on this very issue on different pages. The term "boomerang" comes to mind. --Calton | Talk 08:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. An edit-warring block for an article I've never ever edited.

On that note, may I add in the following revert during ongoing discussion:

19:17, 24 January 2016 [20]

Could I get User:Swarm or User:Ohnoitsjamie or User:GB_fan[21] or User:KrakatoaKatie[22] who are familiar with this "winningest" debacle to look at the situation please? Calton's edit changed "The XR-750 went on to win the most races in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." to "The XR-750 went on to become the winningest race bike in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, to be sure! --Pete (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's so lame, then just drop it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Dennis! I shall follow the inspiring exmple you set for us all to follow. --Pete (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Skyring citing WP:LAME is as good an example of psychological projection as I can imagine. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, friend Calton, you have joined a long-running edit-war on an article with discussion ongoing on the article's talk page and two different threads on the Manual of Style.[23][24] Can you not wait for discussion to conclude? It is not as if you are unaware of the background, as you demonstrated above. WP:BOOMERANG is something you might usefully consider. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the edit warring report, result and comment that was made against Skyring. [25] A 60 hour block, for editing warring on a topic that they were aware was under discussion " After looking everything over I agree with that assessment of the situation. It's a topic for discussion and it's being discussed; regardless of how you feel about the matter it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus " (blocking admin's comment)

Is there anything different in this report, apart from the reported editor is different and the reporting editor is not an admin? And are there any reasons for the same sanctions that were taken against Skyring, should not be taken against Dennis? Because right now I can't think of any.Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Did I miss this little gem of a comment? "Your current puppets, Spacecowboy420, 72bikers and Zachlita, are disposable. They'll get blocked and you'll make more." You've already made a sockpuppet report (proven to be wrong by check user) stating that Flyer, Zachlita and myself are one and the same, but now you've changed your mind and you think I'm a puppet of Pete? I am speechless. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

When I ran sockpuppets, many years ago, it was for a different purpose than the usual, and there was never any doubt that they were mine. It would be pointless for me to attempt to run socks; my writing style is so easily identifiable. Bratland is perhaps more than a little paranoid, but I think this accusation that one of us is a sock of the other is beyond bizarre. Of course he's welcome to head over to WP:SPI, but it seems he'd rather make allegations than stand up and accept he's in error.

I think an indefinite block is in order, to ensure that Bratland makes a commitment to lift his game and work with others - even those he disagrees with - before reinstatement. Wikipedia became such a marvellous creation through editors of diverse views learning to work together, and that must continue. --Pete (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

His attitude is frustrating and disappointing. In one of my earliest edits, I actually posted on his page regarding his knowledge in regards to motorcycles and in some ways looked up to him, because of his experience. He certainly has the potential to be a great wikipedian - however (and this is a huge however) he has to learn that when he doesn't get his way, the correct course of action is to discuss and compromise. Not edit war. Not accuse everyone of being a sockpuppet. Not call people a "fucking liar" Whereas I am confident that he is here to make an encyclopedia, he is not here to work with anyone, listen to anyone or ever accept that wikipedia is sometimes just as much about accepting the opinion of others, as opposed to adding the content that you like.

He's been told this numerous times, and never accepts that his attitude might have some relationship with the drama that seems to turn up on almost every article he edits. I agree that a (long) block would either give him time to reflect, and encourage him to change or, it would make him at least make an unblock request in which he would have to accept his failings. It's not about one article, because based on previous history this situation will happen again, probably on a different article, with different editors, but he will be involved.

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Not looking to pile on but I do feel mr bratlands behavior should be addressed. As he has just informed me of this discussion on a article talk page. His incessant comments of things like this. Asked to stay off your talk page? Nope. I think you're confusing yourself with the other sock/meat puppets. Skyring? Zachlita? Spacecowboy420? Who even knows. You guys edit as a pack and go everywhere together and say the same things. It is easy to imagine you said it when it was really one of them. Or you posting as them? Who can tell? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC) His comments that because we are all one person our vote only count as one. Or his personal attacks on other editors intelligence or even competence to edit as he sees it. He is constantly using bad language in his personal attacks.then you're going to have to get used to having your ass handed to you. There's a limit to how gentle and diplomatic anyone can be when you force them to point out that your claims fly in the face of verifiable fact. Competence is required. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2016 Or this If you're going to spout utter nonsense, like denying the reality of links to books scanned at Google Books pushing hopelessly misguided falsehoods and mangled logic that they need to step back and defer to those who have a grasp of the facts and sound reasoning behind them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC) When all I was asking if he was using a first edition to date a word. That with ever following edition content or format can change such as word change or format from like going from hard back to paper back. And the age was only a trivial point in the whole discussion. He has openly admitted to stalking editors. When someone has brought scrutiny upon themselves for disruptive editing, whether Wikihounding, as in your case, or forum shopping, in Skyring's case, it's necessary to track their contributions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC) As witnessed by him posting on my talk page just moments after another editor he deems disruptive. This is all just a small glimpse at a long line of uncivil behavior. His repeated unsupported false claims that editors are sock or meat or other unsupported claims do seem to verge on some sort of paranoia. He is consistently accusing other editors of the very bad behavior he himself has exhibited. And constantly leaving harassing messages on others talk pages. As I myself am not perfect I will admit to some bad word choices or setting the wrong tone. But by fare am I not guilty of the level of mr bratlands uncivil behavior or any of this sock or meat thing. Or what would seem of his lack of respect of consensus. If others overwhelmingly disagree with him. It would seem he just reverts to his last version or forum shops and canvas other editors till he gets his way. 72bikers (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Chris388 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Warned)

Page

Pierre Trudeau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Chris388 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Legacy */ This section has been reverted without explanation for many times."
2. 18:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Added a subsection regarding Pierre's disastrous economic policies"
3. 18:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "How could somebody revert my edits without my consent?"
4. 18:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Economics/NEP */"
5. 18:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Adding a criticism on multiculturalism with reference."
6. 17:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Prime Minister, 1974–79 */"
7. 17:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Multiculturalism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Trudeau */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Edit warring about multiculturalism, economics etc */ new section"

Comments:

Editor has been warned, and a talk page discussion has been attempted, to no avail. As well, edit summaries have been given when his/her edits have been reverted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor is now engaging on talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

However, he/she is still re adding info that has been reverted a number of times. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Chris388 is warned for adding material to the Pierre Trudeau article that seems to be his own personal point of view. The edit war is too stale to take action on. Chris388 has agreed to stop. But if this resumes, file a new report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Krish! reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Bajirao Mastani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krish! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701270240 by Carl Waxman (talk)yeah in your dreams"
2. 09:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid all revision by Human3015 (talk) Padukone's performance has received criticism, mentioned in article body, check reviews and names are formatted according to films credits TW"
3. 09:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701400461 by Human3015 (talk)It has nothing to do with being Chopra's fan I have not written Reviews for Bajirao Mastani, who have criticised her: Another revert and I will report"
4. 10:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "first talk then add"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Hi */ new section"
2. 10:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Talkback (Talk:Bajirao Mastani) (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */ new section"
2. 10:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */ cmt"

Comments:

Excuse me, I was writing a reply on the article's talk page and you reported me. Now let's see who was wrong. You have reverted me 4 times and I have only reverted you three times. So It's not a violation.Krish | Talk 11:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My third edit came because you didnt reach a concensus on the talk page. You added your text without discussing with anyone. While I was busy collecting evidences of my claim, you were busy manipulating?

NOTE: After my second revert, this user said lets talk and when I said not interested on my talk page, the user himself added the text with any discussion, while I was busy writing his replay which took 40 minutes to complete on the talk page of that article.Krish | Talk 11:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is actually an ideal edit war report, he reverted 2 users 4 times. He said in his edit summary that he is not interested in talk. But just now he posted a reply on talk page after this report is filed. He is blaming me for 4 reverts but I did not make 4 reverts, I used talk page. That was very pointless edit war. I request Krish! to self-revert yourself and continue discussion on talk page.--Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  11:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

When I said Im not interested I said it not on my talk page and then rverted without seeing that you have opened a talk page discussion. You should have waited more as we have our real lives also. The rule is to wait for sometime to get a reply for discussion, but you made your mind and reached a concensus in just 10 minutes. While I was writing you re-added those text without \waiting for other users or me. I was writing, collecting and searching evidences for my claims. While I was writing you did this.Krish | Talk 11:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!: But in any case you don't have to revert anyone 4 times. Anyway, keeping good faith with editor, I withdraw this report from my side. Thank you. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  11:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, the editor in question has been clearly involved in edit-wars across many pages for quite sometime. This includes a few personal attacks as well. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's crystal clear that he has made four reverts (in a span of three hours) inspite of being aware of the 3RR. I see no reason to assume good faith in this case. —Vensatry _(Talk) 11:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My fourth revert was indeed in good faith, because I didn't count that other persons revert. If had that in mind, I wouldn't have done that. My Last revert says "Talk on talk page first", when he added without consulting others. That means I saw my fourth revert as third (didnt realize the first one) only to tell the editor that we should talk first and then It should be added. My last revert was not for causing war but for telling the other editor about discussion.Krish | Talk 12:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In what way? As far as I can see, none of your reverts qualify WP:3RRNO. —Vensatry _(Talk) 12:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My last edit says talk before re-adding. I said that in a good faith that please talk before adding anythong. By the way he added it without gaining concensus, read his summary "according to talk page". However, that talk page discussion only had his comments.Krish | Talk 12:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All my reverts were based on well-soucred and unbiased, which I have proved on the article's talk page. That user reverted me without looking at article's bosy which is perfectly sourced, I also explained him. But he was the one who added the text on an assuption best known to himself. He said Padukone's performance was praised more without giving any citations. While that thing was already there in the article's body that her performance was criticised. So now its clear my revert were correct and in good faith, sourced and not biased. While his was unsourced, biased and with an agenda.Krish | Talk 12:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: It should be noted that befor that user reported this. The user himself had violated 3RR SEE first, second, third, and fourth. User:Human3015 broke the rule himself First and despite breaking the rule first he reported about me.Krish | Talk 12:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Krish!: This is pure bad faith by you, I have withdrawn this report still instead of saying me "thank you" or at least keeping calm, you are still blaming me? What you have shown as my 2nd revert is unrelated to our edit war, it was routine revert of misplaced edit. If anyone want to add local name then local name should be on top of the infobox below English name. That is nothing to do with our edit war. I made 3 reverts, not 4. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In the same way, my first revert was not related to you. But you did mentioned it. And. that was also in good faith as everything was sourced in the article. It was you who kept insisting that I am biased and all. I also made 3 reverts and not 4. And, the fourth came becasue you re-added without gaining any concensus on the talk page. You added those thing which should have been decided on the talk page. But you added without asking any one out. Your summary was "as per talk page" but no one really discussed on talk page anything. It was you who started the discussion and witthout waiting for others respone you yourelf decided the result and went on to add into the article, to which I reverted saying "talk first then add". Was that a wrong revert? I don't think so. By the way You cannot withdraw a report. You need to remove the whole text for that.Krish | Talk 14:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krish!: Your first revert was related to our edit war, it was central point of our edit war. It doesn't matter you reverted me or someone else as long as you are reverting same content.--Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  14:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Krish!: We are interacting first time. You have promoted 10 articles to GA status, 8 lists to FL and one article to FA. This really you can proud of and good thing for Wikipedia overall, still why you behave so irresponsible way? You are very good editor but you should act more maturely so that you will get more respect. I don't want to discourage good contributors of Wikipedia thats why I am withdrawing this report. --Human3015 ^{she's baddest girl in town}  14:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. If the user recognized his mistake and was willing to back off, then no block should be necessary. But he continued to fan the flames in his response here. A revert with an edit summary "first talk, then add" is still a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

African Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "(Undid revision 701426201 by Thomas.W (talk) no each article does not stand on it's own and it does matter. each race article has the same template and removing indicator violates that)"
2. 14:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701327572 by Thomas.W (talk) there's your opinion, and if it's not intended for that use why do other pages have it"
3. 22:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701323944 by MShabazz (talk) like i stated, if the indicator is wrong why are you're not fixing the other race pages with the same indicator. it will stay"
4. 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701275273 by MShabazz (talk) all other racial groups have the growth indicator, why not this one?"
5. 16:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR-warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:African Americans#Growth template .28little_green_arrow.29

Comments:

I'm glad to be reported so that editing community can clearly see the error of User Talk:Thomas.W and others who support him. They need to stop being biased in their editing (which is a violation) and reporting me or me reporting them is the only way. I gave several examples how they are being biased in editing and it of course was ignored and I was given vapid excuses as to why. Please see the African American Talk page for further explanation. This isn't really up for much debate, they are just are being completely unreasonable and unfair.Broadmoor (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that you read WP:3RR. 3RR is a bright line that you crossed, and trying to argue that you're right in a content dispute isn't a valid defense. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you (MShabazz) read Wikipedia:ESDONTS. Personal insults and vulgarity is a bright line you crossed, and trying to argue that you're right in a content dispute isn't a valid defense. Repeatedly (more than once) calling me a "dick" because I'm committed to promoting fair editing was unnecessary and made for a very hostile environment.Broadmoor (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Broadmoor, when you're in a hole, stop digging. You violated 3RR. You also edit warred for your change though it was clear there was no consensus. And now you try to turn this into a forum. Whatever some other user said or didn't is irrelevant. The question here is whether you violated 3RR. The answer is that you did. Even if someone else did this or that, it gave you no right for violating 3RR. Jeppiz (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• To the closing admin As an uninvolved user who only restored African Americans after seeing this report, I think this latest edit by Broadmoor [26] crosses into purely disruptive editing, and I propose the user's behavior after this report was filed is taken into consideration when determining the length of the block. Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a consensus because no one provided a valid reason why it should be moved, therefore it's fine where it is. The best response I got is that it is not in compliance with the template and I proved that it was. Hence, the indicator is fine because there's a precedent for it in the template in question. So Jeppiz the only people in the hole are those who can't back up what they're saying and can't be found guilty of biased editing which isn't me.Broadmoor (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thomas.W has multiple user accounts and is using them all to make me look like the bad guy and him the good guy. Not one of the people who posted here reprimanded MShabazz (who's really Thomas.W) for making derogatory comments and creating a hostile environment. Nor did anyone talk about the content in dispute, everything is simply block Broadmoor. This guy is playing games and should be blocked.Broadmoor (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Broadmoor: If you have valid reasons to believe that MShabazz is a WP:SOCK of Thomas.W, then you should take it to WP:SPI and provide evidence; otherwise, do not make any such accusations here, as they clearly fall under WP:NPA. LjL (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is getting totally ridiculous. Malik Shabazz/MShabazz being sock accounts of mine? Jeeez... Thomas.W ^talk 16:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that it seemed in any way likely, just that he better have evidence to present in the appropriate place if he wants to proceed with that accusation. LjL (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually Broadmoor , you've convinced you should be blocked indefinitely. Don't you understand that this is not the place for a content dispute? Moreover, you have vandalized this report twice by now [27], [28]. I've tried to assume good faith, but I can only conclude that you're not here for the right reasons. I have nothing more to add to this discussion, except for saying that the ridiculous accusation of socking against Thomas.W and MShabazz as the same account is a flagrant WP:NPA violation. Jeppiz (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I was (and still am) in support of Broadmoor's change, and like him, I was not impressed by MShabazz calling him a "dick" and me "lying" (see Talk:African American). MShabazz also talks, above, about bright-line rules, yet he came very close to violating WP:3RR himself by reverting 3 times, and he was previously blocked for less-than-civil behavior, which is arguably being repeated here; for this reason, I ask any closing admins to also look at this editor's behavior. That said, the way Broadmoor has been defending his edits by edit warring and the things he's been claiming in this report are quite reproachable, and I will in no way endorse them. LjL (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally vandalizing Jeppiz, I just wanted to notify those in leadership of the multiple users involved in this edit warring (I'm clearly not the only one, I can't go to war with myself). I haven't committed to memory the hundreds of rules of Wikipedia yet and know how to report people or prevent an edit warring so I did the best I can in such short notice. You, Thomas.W, and MShabazz should be block if I'm blocked. Again none of you are addressing the content dispute and the flagrant disrespect (the main things), it's all I should be blocked for a lesser offense at that. That's not a fair exchange and is in fact bullying. I've been open to dialogue but no one has brought anything to the table worth accepting.Broadmoor (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Broadmoor: this particular page is not about content disputes or disrespect, but edit warring, and in particular (but not solely), breaking of the WP:3RR rule. You've broken that rule; others have not. That's a simple fact that you need to accept, and you need to understand that it's not okay to do that, no matter what others do. Showing that you've understood that is, I reckon, the only way you've got to avoid being blocked. LjL (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring on African Americans, ditto on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, and ridiculous accusations.[29]Bishonen | talk 16:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

User:WorldWideNut reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701455199 by Winkelvi (talk) There is obviously no talking to you people about this! You insist on having the wrong version! Other people have already brought this issue up!"
2. 18:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701428655 by Sjones23 (talk)"
3. 11:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701183488 by Sjones23 (talk)"
4. 10:33, January 24, 2016: "I have not done anything wrong. You insist on continuing this issue instead of leaving it alone! Williams' is CORRECT! I guess you RETARDS don't get it!"
5. 11:53, January 24, 2016 Undid revision 701468305 by Sjones23
6. 16:09, January 24, 2016 Undid revision 701505417 by Meters

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Robin Williams. (TW)"
2. 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"
3. 18:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 18:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[30] The talk page thread was started after this 3RR, but WorldWideNut has continued to revert to his preferred version without participating in the talk page discussion. He's now at 8RR today including 1 with the same time stamp as the talk page post, and 3 after it. He self reverted the final one, but too little too late as far as I am concerned. Meters (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Seems hell-bent on getting his way at the article in spite of other editors telling him, "Take it to the talk page" and placing warnings on his talk page. His continual reverts are merely disruptive at this point and he seems to have no intention to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• As I said above, has no intention of stopping: latest revert here. Edit summary states: "I have not done anything wrong. You insist on continuing this issue instead of leaving it alone! Williams' is CORRECT! I guess you RETARDS don't get it!". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Still no intention of stopping the disruption/edit warring: [31]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Another revert here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, continuing to edit war after warning, with a personal attack in the edit summary, but on the other hand, there has been no attempt by anyone to actually discuss this trivial grammar issue on the talk page, and WorldWideNut is actually correct in his grammar analysis. "William's" is clearly incorrect and should be replaced by either "Williams'" or Williams's" (See Apostrophe and note that MOS:PUNCT does not specify a preference for which style to use in Wikipedia.). Once this is settled I'll make the change if it has not already been restored. Meters (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. The edit war is between "Williams's" and "Williams' ". Both are correct and the MOS does not specify one over the other. Meters (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the edit warring user is correct regarding punctuation is not the point of this report and should never be used as a reason to edit war. Especially after being warned numerous times (mind you, the warnings he has received state that being 'right' isn't the point and doesn't excuse edit warring behavior). The user is being disruptive and has been told as much by more than one editor at the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree at all about this being disruptive edit warring. I wouldn't have made any comment at all had I not made the initial mistake of thinking that WorldWideNut was actually correcting a mistake. Sorry. Meters (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Now at 8RR today (one self-reverted) with 1 of them coming at the same time as the talk page thread and 3 afterwards. Has also made the identical edit twice on 8 January 2016 [32] [33], once on 14 December 2015 [34], and part of the same edit on 11 June 2015 [35]. Meters (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Joseph Prasad (Result: Semi)

Page

Drake Bell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): The discussion was started by me, AFTER I made the appropriate changes - take part in the discussion, don't edit war. (TW)"
2. 21:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "(Reverted 1 edit by 107.107.58.183: Never was the "Status quo" - take part in the talk page discussion, please - revert again and we will be taking a trip to AN/I since it's obvious you are targeting my edits for quite some time now, New York IP. ([[WP..."
3. 22:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by 107.107.58.183: Disruptive editing - putting back in content not supported by reliable sources, readding unreliable sources - reporting for disruptive editing at AN/I. (TW)"
4. 22:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by 166.172.61.144 (talk): Yes, you are disruptive - see the ANI report for my comments on the disruption. (TW))"
5. 23:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC): "Reverted 1 edit by 166.172.61.144 (talk) to last revision by Winkelvi. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 1

Comments:

Made five reverts of the Drake Bell article in the past 24 hours, easily violating the three-revert rule. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Please see this AN/I and RPP regarding the situation and reconsider this inappropriate filing, Joseph Prasad. The situation is about intentional disruption by the IPs, not edit warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Winkelvi, interesting. I did not know about this past history. But it is still a 3RR violation. You know I would have reverted their edits myself if you just waited? Edit: Note the editor decided to no longer discuss edits on the page after this report was filed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Context, however, is important. My reasons for doing so are spelled out at the article talk page here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: I guess here is as good as any place to note that the filer of this report has, in response to my comments above, reverted back his preferred version (even though it appeared at the article talk page he had agreed to points made at the article talk page here). When I questioned him about it at the article talk page, he admitted to doing it in order to spite me (see here). Swarm recently blocked this editor for 72 hours for edit warring [36]. The filer was, until a little over a month ago, on a 6-month block for edit warring and block evasion. Thirty minutes after his most recent block expired, his first edit was to completely revert the changes I had made at the article [37] (where I had, after making those changes, started another discussion in regard to the changes with specific point-by-point notation about each edit [38]). I had hoped the filer would respond to the comments I made at the article talk page on 1/21/16, however, after several hours had passed, I found out he had been blocked 72 hours for edit warring. After I saw today he had reverted wholesale, rather than getting angry, I reverted back, and invited him by name to the article talk page. After IPs started edit warring and disruptively reverting back to the filer's preferred version of the article, the filer ended up here. Was it a way to game the system further by getting me blocked so he could edit the article in the manner he wanted? I don't know the answer to that question - however - after his most recent reversion back to his preferred version (in spite of the discussion we had been having) it would seem so. But maybe I'm not looking at this objectively.

My apologies for the wall of text, but I think this report, the history behind it and the behavior exhibited by Joseph Prasad after the filing of it need to be looked at in depth. I have no suggestion for what any administrator should do here. To be honest, I'm still stunned that he admitted to reverting out of spite considering his most recent edit warring block expiring only today. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

p.s. It seems that the IPs causing disruption by edit warring at the Drake Bell article are likely the same individuals who have been banned from editing (see here). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The reverting was not in spite of you and you alone. It was in spite of you refusing the discuss on the talk page any longer. Since no other editor challenged the info, and you dropped out, I readded the information. Along with that, you should know using better source needed templates, or something similar, is better than removing information that can be sourced. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: I'm indefinitely semiprotecting the Drake Bell article. See the gigantic protection log. Joseph Prasad and Winkelvi should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to resolve their disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the weird thing is we were resolving it on the article talk page. Then he filed this without asking what was going on, reverted back to his preferred version in spite of the seeming agreement we had on the talk page, and we are now back at the same place we were a few days ago. Every one of the edits I made at the article were valid and backed by BLP policy. Prasad, however, keeps re-adding bad sources and content that violates BLP. DRN could be the answer. But then, it could just be another exercise in total frustration and stonewalling with the editor in question. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

edit warring And you are lynching Negroes

Page: And you are lynching Negroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For some time a couple of users keep restoring deleted unreferenced text and original research while refusing to discuss the objections in article talk page. Latest example: [39] . Please intervene. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected, see below. Bishonen | talk 11:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Altenmann reported by User:Evrik (Result: Page protected)

Page: And you are lynching Negroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altenmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:30, 21 January 2016‎
2. 11:29, 21 January 2016‎
3. 11:14, 21 January 2016
4. 03:32, 21 January 2016‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

• I tried asking for page protection.
• Altenmann is trolling on the commons. Nominating the main image on the article for deletion and now expanding it to other images. Check out:

• • Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik u stanka US 1930.jpg
  • Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik u stanka - 35 million unemployed in the capitalistic world, 1931, n.8.jpg
  • Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bezbozhnik - Forward to the complete collectivization, November 1, 1930.jpg

--evrik ^(talk) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. Block me. Let unreferenced shit in wikipedia and blatant copyright violations in commons live. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of one week. Content dispute, full protection. Work it out on talk, please. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:108.96.118.198 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Moot, article sprotected and at AfD)

Page: Mike Filsaime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.96.118.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this will do but it still contains links that violate copyright

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff (restores links to copyright-violating links)
4. diff (restores links to copyright-violating links)
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

My attention was called to this article by this posting at COIN by Brianhe.public aka Brianhe.

See this note on Talk about copyvio issues. No response.

Please block the IP and semi-protect the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Mike Filsaime article has been coming under constant vandalism/ mass removal. several editors undid vandalisms. Some include: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

User:Jytdog started editing the article by giving fake edit summaries and summarily making mass removals. Something fishy here.--108.96.118.198 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

obviously conflicted IP editor who has no interest in WP policies. none of my edit summaries were fake. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by Guy in this dif Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:73.40.108.10 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Command Prompt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Command Prompt Revert 1
2. Command Prompt Revert 2
3. Command Prompt Revert 3
4. Command Prompt Revert 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Codename Lisa 3rr warning

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

Comments:

Codename Lisa feels that I should not be permitted to make constructive edits despite my attempts to participate in a constructive manner after a previous block has expired.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.40.108.10 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 25 January 2016‎

Hi.

There are couple of points here:

• The first diff is not a revert. It is the original edit.
• 73.40.108.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a harassment-only IP and is not here to help build an encyclopedia. He was previously blocked for doing the exact same thing. I do not for a single moment believe he is engaged in constructive edit this time because he clearly failed to achieve consensus in Talk:Command Prompt despite a third party joining in. He did exactly what has done before: an "I hate Codename Lisa" edit. See this conversation: Revisions 701556987 through 701563295 in Talk:Command Prompt
• There are evidences that he is one of the many known sockpuppets and is connected to several other IPs; however, the last time I reported him to SPI, he was already blocked, so my report was misfiled. (I will notify the attending admin again.) If this is correct, per WP:EVADE and WP:NOT3RR, anyone can revert him indiscriminately.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note @73.40.108.10: You're edit-warring as well, so you are not beyond reproach here. Also, your recent edit history hints of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which is against Wikipedia policy. @Codename Lisa: Please let Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Codename_MeatCommand run its course before unilaterally determining a user is a sock and claiming the exemption on EW reverts.—Bagumba (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The investigation to which you are pointing concerns MrEWhite, not 73.40.108.10. That SPI case ends with WP:ROPE: He is to be assumed an unrelated editor who chose a very bad editing model. But I have enough evidence pilled up to say that 73.40.108.10 is definitely a sock puppet and definitely a hound. I can show you; but this is not the proper venue.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected by JzG. Codename Lisa (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of wikipedia astounds me. At first I thought it was just Codename Lisa and Fleetcommand, but I see it extends to many others. Not surprising considering the founder's behavior. You might as well indefinitely block me because I have nothing but contempt for wikipedia and its editors and as such see no reason to contribute. 73.40.108.10 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Lowtrucks reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Protected)

Page

Bubble Bobble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701584341 by Soetermans (talk)"
2. 11:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701584029 by Soetermans (talk)"
3. 11:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701583317 by Soetermans (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) to 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 10:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701581519 by Soetermans (talk)"
   2. 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701581201 by Soetermans (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"
2. 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"
3. 11:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"
4. 11:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Bubble Bobble. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Release image */ re"
2. 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Release image */ re"
3. 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Release image */ re"

Comments:

User shows signs of ownership, is heavily involved in editing Bubble Bobble. They made an image of all games released, said that image is not necessary and can easily be made into a list or release table. Have tried communicating through talk page, issued several warnings, to no avail. Soetermans. T / C 11:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days, in lieu of blocking both editors. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: )

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SupernovaeIA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1 (I think this is the last version of the page before this mess started)

Diffs of reverts by User:Suitcivil133:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6

Diffs of reverts by User:SupernovaeIA

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Suitcivil133#January 2016 User talk:SupernovaeIA#January 2016

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

Comments:

The diffs listed above are only the most recent. This edit war has been going on for just over a month now. Both editors continue reverting one another despite warnings, a previous AN3 post here, two rounds of full protection, and a block against SupernovaeIA. I originally took this directly to User:Ymblanter, the sysop who performed all previous administrative actions in this case, here. They are without internet for a few days so can't help, but support blocking in principle. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do when that individual (multiple user btw) is removing sourced material? I have added a primary source from the horse's own mouth (FIFA - highest football authority) that confirms that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is viewed as an official club title by FIFA. Even UEFA recognizes that the tournament was the predecessor of the now defunct UEFA Cup. A simple Google search will further confirm this fact. I have just contacted FIFA (today in fact) and I have no doubt that they will agree with me and themselves!

He on the other hand has not provided any sources. Solely the well-known fact (which is even stated openly in that Wiki article - Football Records in Spain) that UEFA does not consider it as an official title as it was not a tournament arranged by them. That should however not be a problem though as that list includes trophies recognized not only by UEFA but also FIFA and RFEF (Spanish Football Federation).

That guy is a biased Nepali Real Madrid fan who has been using other users on Wikipedia to make the exact same disruptive edits. His writing style is identical too. I am very busy currently but I recall already discussing this subject (multiple double user) a long time ago after similar "edit wars". In each of them the moderation took my side.

If I get banned then I will simply just spread the word to other editors who will continue to adhere by facts and not personal bias.

May I also add that the Inter-Fairs Cities Cup was included as an official trophy on that Wikipedia page for years until he started to revert it. Long before our "edit war".

I also told him long ago that I will take his side the second he provides evidence of FIFA not recognizing the Inter-Fairs Cities Cup as an official trophy. So far he has failed to do so. On the other hand I have used a primary source from FIFA themselves that prove the exact opposite.

To me this dispute is quite simple.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:83.93.114.80 reported by User:DatGuy (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Star Wars Rebels episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701633340 by DatGuy (talk)"
2. 17:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701632931 by DatGuy (talk)"
3. 17:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701632412 by Oknazevad (talk)"
4. 17:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701627374 by Oknazevad (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Clearly a sock of Johannesgotha who was indeffed precisely for edit warring to make these same edits. The exact same IP previously attempted to return to force through these edits (which had been rejected in a discussion on the talk page), only to be stopped when I requested page semi-protection. Now that it has expired, the edit warring resumes. Already reported the IP to WP:AIV, but either way, being that it obviously a static IP, it needs to be blocked as well, as it's a clear sock. oknazevad (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• @Oknazevad: Started SPI so other users will know that the master has assorted to socking. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked – for a period of 1 month by NativeForeigner. 198.108.244.62 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Darouet (Result: )

Page: Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi (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: [51] and [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
FreeatlastChitchat nominated Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi for deletion, and the result was keep. After that, the user removed large portions of content from the article 4 times within 24 hours, and three of these removals were reverts. The user has (at least some) valid concerns about content and can edit productively to address those. However, the 3 reverts in 24 hours after a failed deletion nomination clearly indicates a behavioral issue as well.

I am NOT recommending a block, but kindly request that an admin warn FreeatlastChitchat that this isn't acceptable behavior, and that their concerns can be addressed using other means. I saw they had a raft of blocks recently and a warning for them to cool off and approach this more productively would help all, I think. -Darouet (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment I haven't edited this article, but surprised that FreeatlastChitchat has removed large scale material five times in the last two days given how recently they were warned by Drmies after the ANI monster case. As so often before, FCC is right, concerning the content. Had I seen this article before instead of here, I would have supported FCC's interpretation. I have no recommendation to make (not my place) but I would implore FCC to change behavior. Despite our differences, I don't doubt your knowledge and you often do good things. But edit warring really is big no even when we're right. And in this case, you were right. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Jeppiz. I have no background on Hadith, and am a little underprepared to evaluate the quality of sources that should go into an article about Islamic texts. I appreciate FCC's substantial post on sources, and was reading more about those earlier today. But I was surprised by their deletion of the background section I added in an effort to improve the article, and the edit warring just isn't helpful. I think that if FCC's objective is to improve the article, there are far more constructive ways of using their energy to do so. -Darouet (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have little to offer here: I scolded Freeatlast for their intemperate word choice, not for anything else. I haven't looked at this article since Freeatlast was reverted twice; I thought they started talk page discussion, with an RfC, after I advised them to do so. What I did notice was that some of the sourcing proposed at the AfD (in which I did not participate) was extraordinary weak (vanity/POV publishing), and that is why I was wondering if Freeatlast didn't have a valid point with their removals of information. That doesn't invalidate the charge of edit warring, of course, but it is to say that we're not simply dealing with someone blindly removing well-verified content. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Reading more about the dispute, I think FCC is correct that many provided sources are woefully inadequate. For the most part, Mhossein's rebuttal's of FCC's critique suggest a major competence problem for Mhossein. Nevertheless the blatant edit warring after the failed AfD is a behavioral issue, and the last revert was not supported by policy, nor by content problems. A better use of FCC's time, if they really want to invest in this topic, is exploring what sources are appropriate for commentary on Hadith. -Darouet (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Defence@Darouet and @Drmies I fail to see how this can be called edit warring.

I reverted Mhossein and Nadeem once, which makes two reverts but the third "revert" is not removing anyone's information. It is more of a self revert. I restored the article to a version "BEFORE" the the time I edited. It removed my own edits. I would like to apologize to Darouet if his background section was also removed, but I did not keep in mind that he was editing the article as well. I simply restored the article to a stable version and reverted "MY OWN" edits. You can clearly see that it is not removing anything that is being discussed. I am merely undoing my own work. If in this process I have inadvertantly removed Darouet's background section I can just put it back in. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have reinserted the text by Darouet.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: I accept that explanation, believe you made an honest mistake and thank you for self reverting. Your concerns about sourcing for the article are not trivial. I am curious to know what kinds of texts are available to provide basic sourcing for Hadith and other historical and literary documents that pertain to Islam. This seems to be an important issue, since the Hadith probably deserve to be (neutrally) described on Wikipedia. -Darouet (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Justinw303 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )

Page

If You're Reading This It's Too Late (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Justinw303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701713323 by Joseph Prasad (talk)"
2. 03:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701712565 by Joseph Prasad (talk)"
3. 03:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "Corrected to show that this is an album"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just released from EW block ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User just blanked this section as well. Also see all recent edits, massive 3Rr and EW to numerous articles.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Along with that, the editor's response to the warning of the blanking was "Fuck you." -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

JP, you need to stay far away from this discussion. Your continued involvement will only lead to a 3RR/EW to you as well, no matter the justification.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Justinw303 and User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

Page

Drake discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Justinw303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of Justin303's reverts

1. [58]
2. [59]

Diffs of Joseph Prasad's reverts

1. [60]
2. [61]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No, neither of them have reached 3RR, however, this is just the same shit, different day. Both users are edit warring at two articles currently. Both were just released from a 72 hour edit warring block for edit warring at the same article (history here). Today's edit war just picks up where the other one left off and is in tandem with their edit warring at the article If You're Reading This It's Too Late (see edit warring report above this one). An editor, trying to reason with Prasad, tells him to stop edit warring. In his own typical reasoning, Prasad excuses his own behavior by saying, "It's not a true dispute though, ATinySliver. One, he is using original research. Two, he is ignoring the established consensus that no one else besides him has tried to argue in a while. Three, other editors have reverted him on the exact same content." Discussion can be seen here). Prasad was on a 6-month block until early December for... yes, edit warring. Block after block for edit warring, Joseph Prasad still doesn't get it and continues to blame the other party. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)