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:UxUmbrella reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Umbrella (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Stop undoing!"
2. 08:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Music video: add Nabil Mechi and CromA interviews, add Synopsis and Awards

Comments:

User has been warned against edit warring several times in the last few days by Aspects, 331dot, and Binksternet, including for edits conducted by at least two IP addresses - 31.15.48.10 and 95.73.223.209 - that presumably belong to him or her. A discussion is going on regarding his/her reverts on the talk page, and the user has been notified of such via talk page comments/edit summaries, but s/he does not seem interested in participating.

There only appear to be two reverts within the last 24 hours, but the page history shows clear edit warring over the last few days. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just made another reversion. UxUmbrella has posted to the talk page discussion, but doesn't seem to really acknowledge the other comments. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 60 hours. This has been going on for several days and there was a previous block on 2 September. It's reasonable to assume that UxUmbrella is the operator of the two IPs that are making the same revert. UxUmbrella is commenting on talk but seems oblivious to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nina Companeez reported by User:Coltsfan (Result:Stale (NAC closure))

Page: Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nina Companeez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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: There is still a discussion going on the talk page of the article Iraq War. The discussion is not even over yet, but the editor Nina Companeez continues to revert. The user was already reverted by another user besides me, but he/she doesn't care and continued with the WP:EW. Coltsfan (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what's going on here but the diffs do not add up Coltsfan has reverted as much as i have. (see history) and i do not clearly understand what the rules are for that. Coltsfan could not refute my new argument and source in any way. And there is a 2:1 consensus against him on the talk page. I think i could reasonably assume there was a consenus to change based on the given discussion. So i edited the article in good faith. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus. The discussion was still going on! The WP:Status quo of the page must be maintained until the discussion is over. Coltsfan (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You did not address the argument that i gave you even i ask you so many times. Someone could reasonably assume that the discussion was over. There was also a majority of editors for the change. I edited in good faith.

As i feel attacked by Coltsfan and this has caused me emotional stress i would like to mention that he has been blocked for edit warring before [2] i just noticed that. Nina Companeez (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I did refute your argument. And it's difficult to argue that you are in good faith when you delete warnings posted in your talk page. Coltsfan (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Coltsfan, the warning template was posted by you and editor involved in the conflict and reverting. I am free to remove this from my talk page as the template did not suggest to me that you want to talk to me. Nina Companeez (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: @Nina Companeez: I've restored the warning. Further, if you remove it, it does not mean that you will avoid a block. Removing a warning from your talk page is a sign of acknowledgement and you may still be blocked. Govern yourself accordingly. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"I've restored the warning."? Coltsfan posted a "notification template" of this discussion [3]. There has never been a warning template. Dusti, to post a warning template now after this discussion here has already been started and i did not edited the Iraq article since the notification from Coltsfan is a bit odd. I suggest you remove it from my talk page. Regards. Nina Companeez (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be an error on my part - I had only assumed you were previously warned and that was the "warning template" you were speaking of above. And no, I will not remove the warning from your talk page as it is a valid warning, hence the reason that you are here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How can it be a valid waring when it comes after this discussion here has already started and i did not edit the article in any way? There was no need for you to post an unnecessary inflammatory warning. Nina Companeez (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice the section above ^ that requests a diff for the 3RR warning? It wasn't given, so I've now given it. You're welcome to remove the warning from your talk page - just heed the advice that it gives and note the information that I gave you above. You're still subject to being blocked - that's entirely out of my hands. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess that diff is meant to be given before someone starts a discusses here or someone shows continues disruptive behavior. I have not shown any behavior after i learned of "Edit warring" through this discussion. I will now remove the unnecessary warning from my talk page. Nina Companeez (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Stale I'm not sure if I'm out of line here, and if I am please revert me and kindly let me know, but the individual being reported has since gone inactive and any blocks here would be punitive. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:173.65.21.238 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )

Page: Haven (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.65.21.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
The user in question has removed the request for ceasing the edit warring, and the notification of this report. I've undone this removal, but it may happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheWhovian (talk • contribs) 04:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: In general, users can remove comments from their own talk page. It indicates that they've read and acknowledged the notice. See WP:REMOVED for more details. Stickee (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware of this. Thanks for the notification. In this case, the user has acknowledged the notice, and refuses to comply, due to them reverting the same edit done by other users after the notice. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:HyperspaceCloud reported by User:VideoGameHistorian (Result: )

Page: Elite (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HyperspaceCloud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]

User has been warned about disruptive editing and reverting several changes at once while making incomplete and incorrect edit comments [19]

No response by the actual reported user, but his co-editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elite_%28video_game%29}

Comments:

The word "seminal" has been moved to precisely the place where it is appropriate, as adjective for the used technology, not for the product as a whole which is violating Rule 2 neutrality standpoint. Involved users opinion is non-neutral, biased, non cooperative. Continually reverting resulted in the destruction of several other additions. Additionally the involved users are keen on deleting the intellectual property the product is derived of, giving the product excessive amount of praise which is not neutral nor is it deserved, as the product is a derivative of three other earlier products, therefore not "seminal" as a whole. Reverts are obviously an act of vandalism and historical revision and have not been sufficiently justified on the talk page. I leave the decision whether these edits and fell swoop reverts have been made in "good faith" up to the noticeboard.

Also informed HyperspaceCloud and Chaheel Riens of discussion.

VideoGameHistorian (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my comments can be initially restrained to pointing to this link here where VGH was reported (by yours truly) for exactly the above. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional - despite the claim above, VGH has not informed Hyperspace of this issue, so I've done it for him. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA reported by User:Shocate (Result: No action)

Page: 2014–15 Liga I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20] (14:00, 16 September 2014‎)
2. [21] (14:04, 16 September 2014)
3. [22] (14:09, 16 September 2014‎ )
4. [23] (18:58, 16 September 2014‎)

• The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Iaşi (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA

Also here:

Page: Template:Fb team CSMS Iași
User being reported: FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24] (13:53, 15 September 2014‎)
2. [25] (14:23, 15 September 2014‎)
3. [26] (14:22, 16 September 2014)
4. [27] (14:26, 16 September 2014)
5. [28] (04:23, 17 September 2014‎‎)

• The official name o CSMS Iasi is "CS Municipal Studentesc Iaşi (IS)", read this on the FRF (the governing body of football in Romania) official web site here, on this page abbreviations are not a allowed, if you want to add please add to all Liga I football teams, not only this team. You don't understand that is same thing with another football team FC Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti. The name of this team was FCSS Bucuresti or Sportul Studentesc Bucuresti??? Team name on the official website is C.S. Municipal Studentesc Iasi- click here can see on top page the banner. 08:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC) User:FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA

Read Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. The name is chosen based on this criterion. Shocate (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that can be resolved through discussion at the appropriate talk page. I have also declined the request for page protection.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please block for 2 weeks user Shocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FCSTEAUABUCURESTISA (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Per User:Philg88's comment above, I am marking this report as closed with No action. The article talk page at Talk:2014–15 Liga I is still innocent of any discussion. If you expect admins to keep an eye on this matter you should write your comments in English. I'm leaving a note for an experienced editor who has worked on this article and speaks Romanian to see if he can help. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Rationalobserver (Result: locked; Ring Cinema warned)

Page: Wikipedia:Consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

Ring Cinema has made 5 total reverts to my edits there since September 9, and three in the last 24 hours. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to reverting me 5 times this week, they also reverted Butwhatdoiknow here. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this subject on the Talk page. The policy on Consensus is that in the absence of a new consensus, there is no change to the current content. That's the policy I'm following. The violator here is Rationalobserver, who wants to impose his new content without finding a new consensus. Since we were discussing the matter, it seems he's trying to "win the argument" by some other method than developing a consensus. I would suggest he return to the discussion and continue it, as I have done. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The 4th diff above concerns a different issue than the change in content proposed by Rationalobserver and not something there is a dispute about, so that's dishonest of him. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, my revert of BWDIK is not germane, since he asked me to make a proposal that I would support instead of returning to the last consensus. First, it's not up to him to mandate the form of my editing. Second, by restoring the status quo I was making the proposal I would support. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Rationalobserver's "warning" about the 3RR rule says that I'd reverted two editors and was simply part of the discussion. So that's a deficient warning, and I'm not edit warring anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is by no means a judgment on the page version, but with respect a one man advantage is not an ideal way of revising a major Wikipedia policy. A RFC is open now, which seem to me to be the best route to a resolution. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• I thank Betty Logan for her wise words, esp. the bit about "revising a major Wikipedia policy". Now, I see that Rationalobserver has a little over a hundred edits, including this report here. I submit that if any editor is going to go and make policy changes, they should have some weight/experience to their credit, and if they're going to edit-war over it, they should expect a tap on the wrist--or a block for discuption. Fortunately they quit, and I hope they keep quitting. Ring Cinema, you're edit-warring here too, of course, but I judge your part in it as defensive, which for a major policy page is a good thing. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was edit warring? No, you have that wrong. I just returned the page to the status quo during the discussion. No warring involved. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• You were edit-warring. If you don't understand that then perhaps you're not competent enough to edit here. Bbb23, perhaps you care to weigh in. It's almost too ridiculous for words. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring to maintain a status quo is still edit-warring, there is no exemption for that. I'm not saying there shouldn't be leeway when it comes to reverting changes to policy pages that lack prior consensus, but it's inaccurate to say that it's not edit-warring, it is per WP:EW. - Aoidh (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring by any definition. Rationalobserver's accusation is bogus. Unless you take the view that all reverts are edit warring, but that is wrong. It is a lot of bother to actually check the diffs; that's what you have to do to make a judgment. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From the lede of WP:EW: Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring". By repeatedly undoing the contributions of other editors you were edit-warring, pure and simple. The edit warring on that page was disruptive to the point that the page had to be full protected to prevent further disruption. That you don't understand that, and assume that anyone who thinks otherwise just didn't "check the diffs" suggests an issue. Please review WP:EW before getting into a dispute with an editor to avoid being blocked for edit warring, because whether you see it as edit warring or not is ultimately irrelevant. - Aoidh (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

You're the one getting schooled here. I wasn't edit warring by any definition. By no definition was I edit warring. No matter which definition you choose, I wasn't edit warring. There was no edit warring done by me, regardless of the definition you choose. Define it how you will, but I wasn't edit warring. In terms of edit warring, I wasn't doing it. The accusation was false, bogus, ersatz, without foundation, wrong, incompetent. Are you getting the picture? I didn't engage in edit warring. If it's too much bother for you to look at the diffs, you shouldn't offer your opinion. I'm not sure if you're an admin, but if you are, I'd like an immediate apology and a promise that in the future you will check the evidence before you make accusations. You'll make fewer errors that way. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it's a basic fact; you were edit warring. You have a long history of edit warring and your extensive block log reflects that, so it's quite clear that you have an established pattern of failing to either understand or follow WP:EW. If you continue this pattern of behavior, you will be blocked again. It is as simple as that. You're not going to convince me that WP:EW somehow doesn't apply to you, especially by just saying "I wasn't edit warring" over and over without even trying to explain how that wasn't edit warring. I'm simply providing advice for the future so that you can avoid being blocked but if that's not advice you're interested in taking, that's fine, but that's on you. Don't resort to personal attacks by calling editors 'incompetent" when they point this out, it's not productive and doesn't reflect well upon your position. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're making a very obvious error in logic. I wasn't edit warring in this case and that's just a fact. Past accusations of edit warring are not evidence in current cases. Or should we say that because you made a mistake once that means that you are always mistaken? I'm sure you're clever enough to realize that's flawed logic, but that's the logic you're trying. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not me your arguing with, it's Wikipedia policy. See Bbb23's closing comment below. - Aoidh (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is interesting to note here that the edit summary of Ring Cinema's first revert states: "these are not scare quotes -- it is not 'emphasis' nor an indication that the apparent meaning is not signified; rather, it's what people say or think". It's interesting because this user now apparently concedes that they were indeed scare quotes that were being used for emphasis. So right from the start this user was reverting me based on their own misunderstanding. Now, they have demonstrated a significant misunderstanding of WP:EW, whereby they reverted me 5 times in a week and 3 times at the same page within 24 hours, yet they do not view this as edit warring. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

No, your diffs don't show that. I'm a little shocked you'd repeat your bogus accusations. And you were mistaken that BWDIK was concurring with you, as he mentioned in the discussion yesterday. You want to correct that mistake too? --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one month by CambridgeBayWeather. First, Ring Cinema was edit warring. Second, in this instance he was right to revert the article back to the status quo considering that the page is a policy (see WP:EP). That said, it would have been far better for him to seek help from an administrator rather than edit war, but I'm not going to block him for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't edit warring. Look at your checklist of necessary conditions for edit warring, then look at the evidence. It's not there. So that's two admins who mistakenly apply the criteria or for some other reason get it wrong. Taken as a group, admins do their work poorly and Wikipedia is suffering for it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I accept your apology. Don't do it again. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I take that as an apology for your earlier mistake, which I accept. Don't do it again. Now I'd like to hear from the other two who got it wrong. I will also accept silence as a concession they were mistaken and will exercise greater care in the future. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, your comments are beyond the pale. Consider this a warning that if I ever see you edit warring again on that page, you risk being blocked without notice. You did not breach WP:3RR, but you reverted 3x and you had reverted earlier as well. Your contention that you were not edit warring shows that you have no understanding of the policy, which after the number of escalating blocks you've received for edit warring, is disturbing. So, drop the stick. Policies such as consensus do not trump the edit warring policy, which has specific exemptions for what does not constitute edit warring and your rationale is not one of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: How many times does Ring Cinema have to be reported to administrator's notice boards for edit warring and personal attacks before something is done that will actually make an impression on him so he will cease such behavior? His block log tells the whole story, as do his comments and attitude here. His edit warring behavior and personal attacks against pretty much any editor that challenges his reverts are nearly Wikipedia legend. Indeed, how long do editors have to continue avoiding articles he edits as well as any interaction with him for fear of being unleashed on? He's disruptive and demonstrates regularly that he has no desire to stop being disruptive and the kind of editor others try to avoid working with. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lovely response to Bbb23. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good point, Winkelvi. Pity I'm no Argus. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• They seem like a good candidate for a 1RR restriction. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dylan Bruner reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked )

Page

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

User being reported

Dylan Bruner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "My edits have been changed, and I want to revert them back to normal."
2. 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Made a compromise between edits."
3. 01:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Made a compromise. (Please don't edit the species number.)"
4. 11:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Made a compromise. I'll look for the resource."
5. 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625801254 by Materialscientist (talk)"
6. 19:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625852868 by McGeddon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Number of species */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring "approximately 6,000 species" to "approximately over 5,000" with weak or absent sources, ignoring talk page thread. McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a silly revert game, where Dylan Bruner is pushing their opinion against the cited source(s), ignoring the opinion of several editors (do they need this number for their school report?), pulling unreliable sources to "support" their number of lizard species.

Support punitive action, can't implement it because I am involved. Materialscientist (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Italian straight nationalist reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Blocked )

Page

Luigi Settembrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Italian straight nationalist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported

Mardochee1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625997893 by Mardochee1 (talk)FAGTIVISM"
2. 21:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625986699 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
3. 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625970200 by Mardochee1 (talk)FAGS"
4. 16:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625963037 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
5. 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625960585 by Mardochee1 (talk)"
6. 15:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625960281 by Mardochee1 (talk)for a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of neutral straight scholars that the description is appropriate"
7. 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625957499 by Mardochee1 (talk) It's not him, it must be a foreign decadent fag like wilde, cocteau or gide, not italian !!!"
8. 15:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625956576 by Mardochee1 (talk)God hates fags and he loved Settembrini, so he was straight !!!"
9. 14:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625955826 by Mardochee1 (talk) fagtivism"
10. 14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625954971 by Mardochee1 (talk)stop your gay agenda!"
11. 14:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625836145 by Mardochee1 (talk)improper category"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Luigi Settembrini. (TW)"
2. 21:12, 17 September 2014‎ (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Luigi Settembrini. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Wow. Blocked – for a period of one week for the egregious violations of both 3RR and WP:NOTBATTLE. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: User:Mardochee1: I will say, you probably ought not have reverted as many times yourself, either...you rather badly violated 3RR yourself, but given the nature of the edits I'll let it slide. Consider this a strong warning, though: In the future, stop at three reverts yourself and bring it to the attention of others if it still needs reverted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and I'm sorry. I believe this "new" user is the same person who, since 2013, makes disruptive edits on pages labeled "LGBT people from Italy" with at least four ranges of IP's you can see in the history of the page about Luigi Settembrini and others like Benvenuto Cellini : 95.74.242.194, 95.74.55.131, 95.75.11.32... 109.52.188.137, 109.52.144.245 ("Stop your gay agenda"), 109.52.190.79... 151.71.19.217, 151.71.19.184, 151.71.16.147... 217.203.129.187, 217.203.129.165... Mardochee1 (talk) 08:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wadaad reported by Acidsnow (Result: Withdrawn (for now) )

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:08, 17 September 2014 - My preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 16:41, 17 September 2014
2. Revision as of 20:01, 17 September 2014
3. Revision as of 20:17, 17 September 2014
4. Revision as of 20:29, 17 September 2014
5. Revision as of 20:38, 17 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Talk Page

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

Comments:
User has chosen to overrun consensus and revert five times despite being told to stop and being fully aware of the previous discussion. AcidSnow (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have provided an academic source showing the genetic and ethnic affinities of the Rendille to the Somali: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 You have provided me nothing but your opinion. Science shows that the Rendille are related to Somalis. I have got plenty of sources. You have none. Secondly, that previous discussion did not reach 'consensus' at all and it was mainly regarding the listing of the Amhara and Benadiri, not the Rendille. I stick to my scientific based view that the Rendille are highly related to Somalis. You have no right to delete academically sourced material. Wadaad (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"an academic source" which states the same thing as last time. Science also shows that all humans are related. I too, have plenty of sources. As for the consensus, you are to receive it. Seeing how two users disagree, you have yet to obtain it. AcidSnow (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not all humans speak Somaloid languages like the Rendille, nor do all humans show strong genetic affinities to Somalis (high levels of E1b1b and T1). http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 This combination warrants the Rendille to be listed as a related ethnic group to Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rendille speak a Somaloid language, while the Gabra, Sakuye and Gareeh have abandoned their original “Somaloid” language for Borana [104, 105]. There is also an overlap of clan names, rituals and beliefs among these historically “Somaloid” populations and a third set of populations speaking various Somali dialects[104, 105]. The putative center of origin of the eastern Cushitic speakers (including the eastern highland Cushitic speakers that are mostly found in Ethiopia) is in southern Ethiopia [106].

Source: http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/1903/11443 Wadaad (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Either this scientist is lying, or you have an extreme bias. I stick to science over your opinion. Again, you have no right to delete this material.Wadaad (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, the scholar is actually mistaken on that [36]. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking a similar language let alone the same one does not mean both groups are related. Are Jamaicans related to the English, they both speak languages that descend from Old English? Once again you keep leaving out mtDNA which is quite important to this discussion. You might want to see the rest of my replies as well as Middays to see why that's quite pointless. Another tip would be not bringing this dispute here. AcidSnow (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow, I agree with your basic point but there's no need for this. Please withdraw the 3RR so that we may discuss the matter politely on the article's talk page. I know Wadaad and he's a good faith editor. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Rendille have similar haplogroups as Somalis. I have already provided you a source. Just compare the E1b1b+T1 & L/M/N similarity. The Somali have similar maternal DNA as the Rendille see this study http://www.springerlink.com/content/x13323337p155h22/fulltext.pdf or this image Somali mtDNA. Your comparison between the English and Jamaicans is a red herring and totally irrelevant to this discussion as the genetic difference between Jamaicans and the English is much larger than that between Somalis and Rendilles. Lastly, This discussion is not a new one, all the way in 2010 administrator Gyrofrog already chimed in and recognized that it is perfectly fine to add the Rendille as related ethnic group to Somalis.Wadaad (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wadaad, those are just uniparental markers. Their autosomal DNA is not the same, though. Middayexpress (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ladies and gentlemen, you're having a debate over content that SHOULD be held on the article talkpage, not here. AN/3RR is to determine if someone violated either WP:3RR or WP:EW - it doesn't matter here whether you have a source or not, if you edit-war it's a block - period. WP:BRD is the best way to handle things in order to gain WP:CONSENSUS. All editors AGREED to not edit war, and to work towards consensus. Wadaad, regardless of your "source", you were battling to get your preferred version - that's classic edit-warring, and unacceptable - again, we don't care about your source, you may not repeatedly insert your edit, ever the panda ₯’ 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You have once again ignoring the most important pieces of this discussion, the Rendille do not have the same mtDNA as the Somalis. As for my Jamaican and English comparison, it was in response to your use of linguistics to justify your edit; which did not help you. Anyways, this noticeboard is about your disruptive edits and decision to not get consensus and not the content dispute. I am sure you are well aware of this since I had previously informed you about it. I would also like to inform admins as to your decision to make a baseless personal attack against me. AcidSnow (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I will with draw this for now Middayexpress. However, if things continue to remain the same I will continue to press forth. AcidSnow (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have already informed the user about that numerous of times. I enjoyed your intro by the way. AcidSnow (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda the edit war has stopped and we are currently discussing the matter regarding the relationship between the Rendille and Somalis on the respective talk page.Wadaad (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wadaad, I don't give 2 shiney pennies if it's stopped at this moment: you've failed to acknowledge or show ANY type of understanding of your improper behaviour. You're forcing editors to file reports, refusing to recognize the damage you're doing to the article/project, and although (surprise, surprise) you're currently discussing, your insolence makes me think this is merely temporary the panda ₯’ 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda, I am not a frequent contributor to wikipedia, look at my history. I was not aware of all the different rules. Now that I am, I will act accordingly. My contribution to the Somali page regarding the Rendille is in no way trollish or in bad faith. We are currently discussing the matter on the talk page.Wadaad (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wadaad: You were warned about this EXACT same issue on, surprise, the same article in 2011. Claiming ignorance of the rule is, indeed, a lie the panda ₯’ 23:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda I forgot about it. I am human after all. That was almost 4 years ago. Again, what started this all was not in bad faith nor was I at the time fully aware of the rule. Now that I am, I will act accordingly and wish to discuss the matter.Wadaad (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wadaad: You're then expected to self-revert - that is, undo your last WP:EW-violating edit to that article. Now. You may not re-add that information ever until you gain consensus to do so. If you fail to gain consensus, then you're out of luck. I'll await your self-revert the panda ₯’ 23:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: the issue already reached consensus back in 2010. An administrator already had his say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Somali_people/Archive_3#Related_group Wadaad (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is settled for now, but since my name was mentioned, I want to point out that my 2010 comment has been mischaracterized as (1) an administrative action and (2) reaching consensus. It was neither: I was asked for an opinion, and I gave one. I don't see anything resembling consensus in that discussion. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

User:GiorgosY reported by User:FPSTurkey (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)List of wars involving Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)Cypriot intercommunal violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GiorgosY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: The GiorgosY is just messing up the List of wars involving Turkey, List of wars involving Cyprus and Cypriot intercommunal violence by adding unneeded and false edits, also I have told him many times to include non-important conflicts in List of wars involving Turkey#Other armed conflicts involving Turkey but he just ignores me. Thank you --FPSTurkey (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am reporting as well user FPSTurkey for a continues deletion of my edits that have no lies on what so ever, are logical and are well sourced. Is the user FPSTurkey that is doing the war trying constantly to delete my edits and not me. Is him that he is deleting my material and he is trying to report me all the time and not me. I have answered him several times, explained my edits, but yet he thinks, that he has the right to impose other people not to add well sourced and logical material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I am removing your edits because they don't deserve to be in the war section, they deserve to be in List of wars involving Turkey#Other armed conflicts involving Turkey and the Cypriot intercommunal violence did not involve Turkish military action and it was not a Greek victory, neither was the Battle of Tylliria. --FPSTurkey (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Cypriot intercommunal violence results to Greek Cypriots recognized as de jure possessor of Republic Of Cyprus....The immediate geographical result of the conflict in the Tylliria region was that the Kokkina enclave was effectively reduced to approximately 50-60% of its original size and is part of the Cyprus inter communal violence. The turkish airforce bombed Tylliria.

According to user FPSTurkey the are no Turkish defeats or Greek victories and every Turkish defeat or Greek victory should be removed as a Turkish defeat or Greek victory from Wikipedia and written as something else. First of course any user that is daring to write otherwise, he is getting reported by him after deleting his edits constantly. Is the same user that created a page that called a list of wars involving Northern Cyprus, which does not exists by the way as a recognized state by the United nations but is according to the United nations, the illegally occupied areas of the republic of Cyprus from 1974, after 2 invasions and ethnic cleansing, and added as a result of the turkish invasion that Northern Cyprus gained its independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't matter anymore, you're blocked. Leave it out please, let us just apologise to each other and you stop this stupid edit war (that you started). --FPSTurkey (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:GiorgosY is blocked one week and notified under WP:ARBMAC. This is his second block in six days. User:FPSTurkey is warned. EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

95.74.255.42 reported by User:Mardochee1 (Result: Semi)

Page

Luigi Settembrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

There's still an edit war on the page about Luigi Settembrini initiated that evening by IP 95.74.255.42. I strongly suspect this IP to be User:Italian straight nationalist, who has been blocked recently because of his outrageous homophobic reverts : they use the same words over and over, like "improper category". It is clear that he is not open to discussion : he is at least under four ranges of IP's you can see in the history of the page about Luigi Settembrini and others like Benvenuto Cellini, Torquato Tasso, indefinitely protected last year because of him, or Benedetto Varchi : 1. 95.74.242.194, 95.74.55.131, 95.75.11.32... 2. 109.52.188.137, 109.52.144.245 ("Stop your gay agenda"), 109.52.190.79... 3. 151.71.19.217, 151.71.19.184, 151.71.16.147... 4. 217.203.129.187, 217.203.129.165...

I believed this user should be blocked if possible, or the page protected because he is not going to stop his disrupting edits on pages labeled LBGT people from Italy before a lot of years if nobody is going to make something and I'm not going to engage in an edit war. Mardochee1 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

PS : I precised that another user, User:Guido Lonchile has recently been indefinitely blocked by User:Drmies because of his persistant disruptive edits on another page related to LBGT people from Italy, Lucio Dalla and he seems rather close in his words, mind and methods of User:Italian straight nationalist and all these different IP's, stating : "you should have respect for dead people" or "Dalla was a catholic" Mardochee1 (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should stop our gay agenda. That's the best solution: there is no point in verified truth when truthiness is more appropriate to the internet. Anyway, I semi-protected Settembrini. The others are already protected, or not such frequent targets. From the looks of it a range block will be hard to do, though. Incidentally, Torquato Tasso may be the worst important article I've seen on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• I don't really see what you mean by "our gay agenda", especially when the homosexuality or bisexuality are properly referenced by the own hand of the subject ; there's no reason not to mention that fact. We are not trying to make believe, I don't know, that Kennedy, Jesus, Louis XIV or Rocco Siffredi were gay. In the other hand, I can see the homophobic agenda of these users or IP's. Mardochee1 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It was an attempt at humor, Mardochee1. There is no gay agenda; it does not exist. Only homophobes think it exists, because they're ... well, you know. Please see Truthiness. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh well, excuse me, I didn't undertand it was a joke about homophobic people who, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts, thinks there is a gay agenda and that we are part of it, because we mention the documented fact that people like Settembrini were not strictly heterosexuals. :) Mardochee1 (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Torrian2014 reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: Strongly warned )

Page: WWE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Torrian2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: edit at 21:07, 18 September 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18 September 2014 first revert
2. 19 September 2014 second revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: have warned the user

Comments:
This user has already been blocked twice for edit warring on the WWE page July He rolled through three reverts in less than four hours, and while he appears to be offline now I believe that given their past behaviour and similar edits to other pages it seems that this user is determined to edit in a disruptive manner.

It has been a while since I have done one of these, hopefully I have got everything in the right place. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Torrian2014 (talk · contribs) with a very strongly worded, very final warning, making sure to explicitly explain that you can be blocked for edit warring even if you never break three reverts in 24 hours. I'm hesitant to block without first explaining that point explicitly, especially since his previous edit warring blocks were for 3RR violations and it's possible he thinks it's ok so long as you don't make more than three reverts in one day. I also explained if he continues to revert war on this article he will be blocked regardless of whether he makes more than three reverts in 24 hours. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:Adamstom.97 (Result: )

Page: X-Men (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:

Unfortunately, the above diff is not from the article's talk page, because the other user decided to skip that phase and move straight to ANI, which, as pointed out there, should not have been done. I was willing to discuss all of the edits at the talk page, and still am, but unfortunately the other editor does not seem to want a discussion, and instead went ahead with the fourth revert(s). This is very frustrating, as I would rather just discuss this, but WP:EDITWAR advises that this here step be taken. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are questionable: putting unnecessary BR codes without a reason. Changing the text to small size when it comes to movie titles and character name without a reason. Stating that X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine were met with positive by highlighting their dark and realistic tones aren't backed up a source. You also reverted my edit which included an updated box-office gross and removing multiple sources which aren't needed since there was already 1 legit source.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I will continue to reply to these same allegations with the same reasoning, no matter where you post them (though I see you still haven't gone to the most logical starting point, i.e. the article's talk page). I have given you numerous examples of other pages with similar content that use that same formatting, which has been clearly found to work best, whereas your version is messy and less encyclopedic because of it. I have re-written the lead in response to your point about the reception, and I have already eplained that if you wish to add info in such a way as that i will not realize I am removing it, then why don't you just restore it? No need to start an edit war because of such a small mistake.- adamstom97 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that *both* Adamstom.97 and Hotwiki have been edit warring at X-Men (film series). To avoid needing to block both editors, I propose that each person agree not to make *any* X-Men related edits for seven days (neither article nor talk) and try to avoid one other for the same period. Any party who will make that agreement can avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I find your terms fair, and will happily agree to them. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dave077 reported by User:Dsprc (Result: Blocked )

Page

Middle East Eye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dave077 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 1

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 1

Comments:

The user admits to being an employee of the subject of the article, see diff and implying ownership see diff. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition the user is making legal threats if their edits are reverted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention using alternate accounts such as John768 (talk · contribs). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I prefer to get intouch with a high manager please as I am not really getting help or a reasonable response. Dave077 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative self-organising community and does not have managers. An administrator (who is not a manager, but another member of the community who has been trusted by the community to perform certain restricted functions) will be along at some point to review this issue. You might find it useful to read through WP:5 which will explain why you are having difficulties in particular that nobody owns articles, that articles must have a neutral point of view and about conflicts of interest. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely for making legal threats diff. If they retract the legal threat I would be willing to commute to 36 hours if they promise not to continue to edit war. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:C.J. Griffin reported by User:Spumuq (Result: Semiprotection, warning)

Page: Neoliberalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C.J. Griffin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Different edits are reverted each time, C.J. Griffin reverts different things on different articles but now six on Neoliberalism

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] [51] all the reverts are after the first warning, more revert after the second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It gives me an error: «Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.» 5.55.53.225 is edit warring too

Comments:

Okay I admit it, I seem to have violated the 3RR. I had a discussion just weeks ago about avoiding an edit war and now unfortunately I have been dragged into one. I should have known better and will cease and desist as of now. Nevertheless, as you can see from the comments made in the revisions [52], I was attempting to remove/modify the POV edits and undue weight added by User:5.55.53.225, who also violated the 3RR.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not POV and that is not a reason to edit war, nobody else «dragged» you into reverting. Spumuq (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Did I not admit my error in this matter? And emphasising that Monthly Review is a socialist magazine in an article on Neoliberalism is certainly POV and undue. I attempted to resolve the issue by adding a wikilink to Monthly Review and remove undue content on it being a socialist publication but it was reverted. And I don't believe that adding an inline tag to disputed content qualifies as a revert [53] (#4 on the list above).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I suspect that 5.55.53.225, who only started posting as of today and on this subject, also posted under the IP address 5.55.144.51 [54], IP address 5.55.152.48 [55] and IP address 5.55.50.175 [56]. Their edits are almost identical. If this turns out to be the case, perhaps the Neoliberalism article should be semi-protected.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is no doubt in my mind that the IPs signaled here, which all point to the same location, were operated by one editor, who has a history of edit warring in this article. It is clear to me also that both editors are edit warring (3R is not my greatest concern here). C.J. Griffin has been blocked for it before, so they should know the score (it was a long time ago and has little bearing on any sanction, but they know what's up). The IP can be warned, may have been warned in the past, but the fact that they're reporting their opponent here means they know the rules. In other words, both are eminently blockable, though only one admits fault and promises improvement.

  By the way, both are editing in pretty awful ways. The IP's latest reverts do not conform to basic rules of English punctuation, and their edit summary contradicts what they're doing in the article--besides, removing the wikilink to Monthly Review is nonsensical. Griffin's edits to the lead are also partly unhelpful--"an updated version" is unencyclopedic since no chronology is asserted, and one wishes they had removed what are now, in the current version, references 2, 3, and 4.

  I'll leave a decision on blocks to the next passing admin, but I do agree that if Griffin is to be blocked then the IP should be blocked as well, and that also means the article should be semi-protected since they showed no interest in registering, and cannot be allowed to continue editing (under a different IP) when Griffin is prevented from doing so. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: (edit conflict with Drmies, but with the same idea). Article semiprotected. User:C.J. Griffin is warned not to edit war. If there is any more reverting by people who don't participate on the talk page, blocks are possible. The last talk comment was in June 2014, but there are perhaps 20 reverts in September. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:108.254.160.23 reported by User:Dekk01 (Result: No violation)

Page: Quebec referendum, 1995 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.254.160.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
There is presently an editing war going on with the french version of this article. I've recently noticed the addition of some questionable non sourced content on the english article circumventing the french one. Sorry I'm a really new unfamiliar user of this site and didn't know what else to do. The user is not discussing his additions on the Talk page beforehand.--Dekk01 (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. There's clearly no edit-warring going on by this IP. They've made only one series of consecutive edits, and they don't look in the least disruptive to me. I even looked at just a few of their other edits in reverse chronological order, and they looked fine. I'll leave a welcome on Dekk01's talk page, but, putting aside the French wiki, which I'm interested in only when I'm in France (anyone want to fly me there?), I don't even see what the problem is. What "questionable non sourced content"?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Damn it, sorry, my bad. Wrong person!!! I feel so terribad :( arghhhh

This is the unsourced added para in question.

"A federalist rally of about 10,000 people was held at the Verdun Auditorium on Tuesday, October 24, in which Prime Minister Jean Chrétien promised certain quasi-constitutional reforms to give Quebec more power, and in a more startling announcement, declared that he would support enshrinement of Quebec as a distinct society within the Canadian constitution. The sudden reversal of Chrétien's long-standing position on the issue, along with Chrétien's wan complexion and untypically nervous appearance, sparked considerable comment."

The mode was carried out 00:45, 2 September 2014‎ by the user Knoper (if I'm right).--Dekk01 (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Nolantron reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked)

Page

The Bourne Legacy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[57]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
2. 00:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
3. 21:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
4. 18:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
5. 20:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Edit-warring advisory, please discuss at the appropriate Talk page instead of reverting"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Besides edit-warring editor has threatened to hack me and vandalized my Talk page. DonIago (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week for edit warring and other problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)