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:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

User being reported: Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever [1] is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently [2] [3] [4][5][6]).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies

He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later: [7] [8] [9] [10]

As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article [12]).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love#Awards , Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.

I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]) simply revert.

I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup [25] after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz [26], instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize Ronz's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions [27] for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage [28] in addition to my own talkpage [29] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me Scalhotrod, Erpert, Rebecca1990, Gene93k, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts and Dismas among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that Hanswar32 has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion here has already ventured into WP:TLDR territory). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Erpert: Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Wikipedia, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 continues to edit war [30] --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [31]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [32] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [33]. Hanswar32 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - There have been various conversations on article Talk pages as well as on the Porn Project Talk page along with related Project Talk pages and Noticeboards such as the Film Project, DRN, and NPOV. So far it seems acceptable that significant awards like the AVN Award and XRCO (wins and nominations) are OK to list. This leaves the main applicable policy to be that of Notability with regard to content in that it states that it does not apply to content. In other words, listing a win for a non-Notable award is OK as long as its sourced. Furthermore, if analysis or anything past a basic statistic like a {{win}} or {{nom}}, must be sourced by a secondary source. This is just basic application of existing Policy.

The problem here is squarely on the unilateral interpretation of these Policies in much the same way that another User did last year[34]. This instance does not seem to have the tendentiousness that the previous issue did, but it has similarity. One example is this discussion at Talk:Brandi_Love#AVN_has_a_conflict_of_interest where the Accuser claims that the main industry trade publication has a conflict of interest because it is supportive of the subject's non-profit activities and is trying to call into question any of its reporting on the BLP subject. I highly doubt anyone would make that claim (at least a believable one) of the San Francisco Chronicle or the Boston Herald with regards to programs they support and people associated with those programs. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Clarifying and summarizing Hanswar32 was blocked for edit-warring three days after he started editing with his current account. That block was removed based on his promise to stop edit-warring and learn and follow our dispute resolution approaches. He's failed his part of that promise by continuing to edit-war extensively and to use reverts as his main tool for addressing disputes. After being given a formal edit-warring notice for his latest round ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) of edit-warring, his response was to revert. After this discussion was started, his response was to revert. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• What "formal edit-warring notice" you're referring to (dif please)? As for the difs you provided, all I see is the addition of sourced and fairly basic content, an award win. Are you "clarifying and summarizing" that you don't like this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" above. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your last comment Ronz neither clarified nor summarized anything except your own delusional beliefs built on falsehood instead of facts. All the evidence I presented and everything I wrote above proves that I indeed have kept my promise. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  I've provided diffs for everything. Are you contesting that you were blocked, or that you wrote what you did to lift the block, or that you made the many reverts since? --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this a troll attempt Ronz? Because I find it hard to believe that someone could lack this amount of comprehension after I've made myself abundantly clear. I'm not going to dignify your questions with a response except to point out that you've had a history of being blocked for edit-warring [41]. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Boy, that's a dishonest response by Hanswar. Ronz may not be a perfect editor, but his only block for edit warring came in 2007. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Kindly point out where I have been dishonest? That's right, you can't! And your claim is in and of itself dishonest. The one thing you got right though is "Ronz may not be a perfect editor". My only block was a year and a half ago within 3 days of creating my account, so I'd say Ronz and I have a similar history and that was exactly my point. Next time try harder, thanks. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, Wolfo is right about one thing, there's are dishonest statements here, but IMO its Ronz trying to claim that a previous incident is somehow evidence that current edits they do not like amount to Edit warring rather than just focusing on the issue at hand, whatever that is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems Hanswar32 is unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to clarify his aspersions. Seems he would rather attack others or editwar than follow our dispute processes. That's why we're here. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually Ronz, I've answered everything sufficiently and you lacking basic comprehension or trolling is not of my concern. I'd like to see you answer to your transgressions and take responsibility for your false claims and disruptive behavior. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32, I've a suggestion that might help. Please just tell us whether or not you will from now on follow your promise to learn and follow our dispute resolution process rather than reverting. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since I've never broken my promise to begin with, your suggestion seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? I have a suggestion of my own though: tell us whether or not you will refrain from making false accusations in the future and that you have learned your lesson from this miserably failed attempt of silencing those who disagree with you. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note that the edit-warring has continued by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([42] [43]) and Scalhotrod ([44] [45]). Seems that Wolfowitz considers the statements by Hanswar32 and Scalhotrod as reason to go ahead and remove the disputed content once again ([46] [47] [48] [49] [50]). If nothing else, it clearly shows that Hanswar32 has certainly not resolved the dispute with Wolfowitz nor for which Hanswar32 was blocked. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's so much wrong with your comment that I don't know where to even begin. Let me start off by declaring that continuously referencing a 1.5 year-old block that occurred within 3 days of account creation and lasted for only 2 hours due to it being immediately lifted after the admin accepted my appeal request is not only irrelevant for the reasons stated, but a despicable sign of desperation to win a losing argument by grasping at straws. You on the other hand had to serve the entire duration of your block for edit-warring after an admin refused your appeal request [51]. What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that Scalhotrod justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time. Is it fun being Ronz? Stop embarrassing yourself and let it go. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: [52] --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Ronz: Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So no explanation for the continued edit-warring then? --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Take a look at this troll, will you. Asides from the amusement, how do you suggest I proceed to ward off this minor annoyance/harassment? Hanswar32 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Another revert [53] --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that I'm not going to revert you to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. Hanswar32 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  You restored disputed information, in a BLP of all places, without discussion. That's a revert. That's more edit-warring. It is nice you're adding edit-summaries more often. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

  No one has ever disputed the information. It was merely written in an incorrect section under "awards" and I placed it in the correct section under "career". Nice try troll, good luck next time. Oh, and regarding discussion about other issues that were disputed in the past, I've cited above numerous examples where discussion took place and consensus was reached with several editors. You on the other hand are an expert at avoiding discussion as evidenced by your failure to address anything I write above and choose to employ classic trolling/harassing behavior. Amusing, but ultimately pathetic. Hanswar32 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the sections on the article talk pages are efforts to resolve the underlying issues. Specific discussions of removing the tag are at Talk:Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Continuation of Souther Strategy Neutrality Dispute.

Comments:
The editor is engaging in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff [60] is an acknowledgement by the IP that he is also GetOverPops. Note that the 3RR warning issued mentioned specifically the use of IPs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

North Shoreman is being dishonest in this complaint. He is correct that both IP reverts were mine (I had to find my password again). However, he is wrong about the edit war. He is trying to simply prevent edits he doesn't like. Last time he claimed something similar and was found to be wrong. The backdrop is there is an neutrality dispute associated with the article. I was away for a bit and an editor removed the tag even though the neutrality dispute had not been closed. I readded the tag today. It was removed again so I added it again with a statement that the neutrality dispute was not closed. The neutrality dispute had been archived so I will concede there was some merit to the previous removals. However, I have since reopened it and it is now on the current dispute page THUS it is an active dispute and thus the tag is correct (I did change the date). I resent that NS is attempting to use the rules to avoid a discussion of the article flaws. Regardless, so long as the neutrality dispute is active the tag SHOULD be there so my addition should not be seen as an edit issue.

NS has NOT tried to resolve the issue with the dispute tag on the talk page. This is not an edit war and wasn't the last time NS claimed as such. I would ask that because the Neutrality tag SHOULD be there while a neutrality discussion is in progress no action is taken against me for simply returning the tag. Thank you.Getoverpops (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of dishonesty are in bad faith and the evidence is clear that Getoverpops violated the 3RR rule and has returned to edit warring. He also admitted here that this was his IP. [61]Scoobydunk (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I admitted the IP address was mine in the paragraph above. Why are you acting like I'm trying to hide it? You improperly removed the tag after I restarted the neutrality dispute. The other editors would be right to say I let the dispute laps and thus the tag should be removed. However once I restarted the dispute on the dispute page it was 100% proper to add the tag again. You were wrong to remove it. Restoring it was the correct thing to do. My accusations against NS are valid. Previously he incorrectly claimed an edit dispute after just 3 edits (he falsely claimed a 4th which was the removal of obvious vandalism). Given that why shouldn't I believe he is doing this in bad faith?Getoverpops (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You were not cleared -- the referral went stale. As the referral makes clear, your edit warring as an IP had caused the article page to be semi-protected and in a separate issue your IP received a 24 hour block. I never claimed more than 3 reverts -- edit warring can occur w/o a violation of 3RR. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale) for details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

NS, Let's get your story straight. First, do you agree that the article is CURRENTLY the subject of a neutrality dispute, the one you linked to above? If yes, then why are we even here?

For the record, the dispute tag was removed while I was off line for a bit (personal reasons). The dispute itself was never resolved but initially I didn't know the dispute had been archived. So when I saw the tag had been removed I added it. Someone removed it. I added it again with a note that the dispute was not closed. After that I saw that the dispute had been archived. At that point I reopened the dispute and, since the dispute was now open again (and is currently on going) I added the dispute tag back to the article. Are you claiming that an article that is the subject of a neutrality dispute should not have a tag? So I added the dispute tag back because the article was now the subject of an active dispute. Scoobydunk removed the tag for a 3rd time despite the fact that at the time he removed it the dispute was reopened and I had posted this in the article talk section. I would argue that adding it the 4th time was undoing vandalism as much as anything. So unless you think the tag currently does not belong on the article, why are we here?Getoverpops (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

We're here because you were edit warring which is a violation of WP policy and were warring to the extent of violating the 3RR rule which you've been warned about before.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Southern strategy. User:Getoverpops and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275#User:129.59.79.123 reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Semi-protection)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)

His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

Page

John Popper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "FYI, WP:3RR requires 4 reversions within 24 hours, revert once more and you have violated 3RR. also feel free to point to any policy against your claim of self promotion"
2. 00:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "also seems to be a violation of WP:HOUNDING"
3. 00:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "not when it's a better photo, will take to WP:3RR"
4. 15:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "are you serious?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Popper. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Images */ Images"
2. 00:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "/* May 2015 */ BRD"

Comments:

Gage has been edit warring over the infobox image - He's been reuploading images and been adding his name to the end of them which is as far as I'm aware a violation of WP:SELFPROMOTION, I've attempted to discuss the issues and even made him aware of BRD but he's refusued to talk so here we are, –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Pinging MrX, Spartan7W, Lady Lotus who have all had issues with his uploads. –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment 3RR requires reversion of four or more edits within 24 hours, this does not exist. Discussion exists on the talk page for the article, reporter did not engage in that discussion. Clear violation of WP:HOUNDING, in which the user deliberately went through and reverted about 20 edits, this being the only one I took issue with because the image is clearly better. User claims I am violating Wikipedia policy by "self promoting," I have asked the user to point to this policy, but since it does not exist they have not done so. WP:SELFPROMOTION makes no mention of this. Also seems to have some serious WP:OWNERSHIP issues. Gage (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope it doesn't - Just reverting twice is edit warring - Exactly it exists on your talkpage yet you have failed to even bother replying which clearly indicates you have far better things to do like edit war than have a civilised convo over it, I reverted 20 or so because I believed you were and still are violating selfpromo but that's not hounding you in the slightest, "OWNERSHIP issues" is just bs. –Davey2010^Talk 01:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment This is WP:3RR, I did not violate 3RR. Still have not received answer regarding what policy I am violating by your claim of "self promotion." WP:HOUNDING seems to clearly describe your recent editing behavior, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work." I stand by WP:OWNERSHIP claim as well. Gage (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • 3RR as MrX has said is a brightline but doesn't mean you should reach it, I explained the selfpromo above, I reverted 20 or so of the images and since then have not followed you anywhere so no I maintain I wasn't HOUNDING you at all, The OWNERSHIP issues is crap and I think you're looking for excuses now ..... –Davey2010^Talk 01:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Comment Awaiting policy statement regarding self promotion. Rejection of wrongdoing on your part is very childish of you. Gage (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Look right above you, Oh dear petty insults!, See this is the part where I usually get frustrated and write some expletives but meh you're not even worth it, I sharn't be replying unless you have something sensible to say!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Comment Looks to me like your reason for reverting 20+ articles and violating WP:HOUNDING does not exist. Gage (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Your last edit summary strongly suggests that you are trying to WP:GAME the system by staying just this side of the bright line. Although not within the purview of this board, you need to learn to cooperate with other editors and that includes consistently using edit summaries.- MrX 01:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned this board is for edit warring, not just 3R violations, so edit warring, if that's what's been happening, is certainly actionable following a report here. I can't follow up on it right now, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I would argue that Davey2010 is the one that is edit warring. Gage (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Please see my discussion with editor Stemoc, in which I make my argument that his edits relative to GageSkidmore's edits were WP:HOUNDING. As far as I'm concerned, Davey2010 continued the same activity after Stemoc at least temporarily withdrew from it. Whether or not Gage's re-uploading and re-linking of his images with different names was advisable, it was not vandalism, did not violate any policy I've been able to find and should not have been reverted en masse as both editors seemed to be doing vigorously. Stemoc in particular seemed to have nothing but contempt for the established process for addressing this kind of dispute. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I, nor Davey2010, nor MrX are belligerents in edit warring. I completely agree with Davey2010's insinuation: Perhaps you aren't breaking the letter of the regulations here, but you are violating the spirit of them. He doesn't cooperate with other editors, he doesn't respond to talk page posts, requests, etc. His edits, especially with self-promoting pictures, do not add to the quality of the articles. He removes sections, he has done that before. He doesn't use discussion, seek consensus, or describe his edits. How do I know why he did an edit without it? Its not like he's new, its not like he hasn't been politely asked. I know he reads the talk page, because for Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016, I told him he should make transparent his version of her campaign logo, and guess what? It happened. Even if no rules are being explicitly broken, it games the system, and frustrates other editors who follow protocol, style, and gentlemanly cooperation. Spartan7W § 02:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
• I personally don't believe I was hounding but if others believe I was than I apologize for that - I never once said this was vandalism tho?, I said it was selfpromoting which I still believe it is. –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Whether it is true or not, there is no policy against self promotion. You linked a completely unrelated policy. Gage (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also we better go through and remove every photo with "by David Shankbone" in the title. Gage (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• If your name is in the description box and the link goes to the image then why selfpromote?, There's no need too ...., Yeah lets do that shall we. –Davey2010^Talk 02:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Lack of necessity of their edits (in your opinion) is not valid grounds for mass reversion of another editor. If it was, there'd be a whole lot more of it. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You clearly missed my point in mentioning vandalism. Obvious vandalism is the only circumstance in which an editor should summarily and instantly revert multiple of another editor's edits on sight. You did not say Gage's edits were vandalism, but you behaved as if you thought they were (when they were not). Dwpaul ^Talk 02:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Also please see my discussion at the Wikimedia Commons with the Commons admin that Stemoc mentioned to me in our discussion. If I could summarize her comments, she doesn't approve of Gage's re-uploading/re-naming activity, but neither does she think that following him around and reverting all of his edits over this issue is an appropriate use of Wikipedia editors' time. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The user in question is already given "attribution" on commons just like everyone else who provide their images free-of-charge to wikimedia but he also gets his own category because he has provided a lot of images but this user has a habit of thinking he OWNS pages and thus only his version which has his name should be use in article even though images from the same event with better cropping done by more experienced users such as Lady Lotus and myself are removed and replaced by his image with his added name in the image title...how exactly is that NOT SELF-PROMOTION? he previously used to add his name to the image caption on infoboxes too. I did not withdrew from his "vandalism" reverts (yes that is what they are, he is literally "spamming" wikiMedia to promote himself, in general cases we ban users who do that but he gets a lifeline cause of his contribution to commons it seems), I stopped to avoid the 3RR rule....he is also not responsive and rarely uses edit summaries to justify his edits (if there is any justification). I agree with Davey2010 on this and yes Gage, we will happily replace all of David Shankbone's images if it can be replaced by better and/or more recent images. If we allow one user such as you this chance, all we will be left with will be people requesting that their name be attributed to the title or refuse to release their images, we do NOT want to set a precedent.. You are more than welcome to change the license of your images on flickr to a non-free one and we will no longer allow uploads from it if you are so determined to propagate your own personal interests ahead of the principles of Wikimedia... --Stemoc 06:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with Stemoc and Davey. I have no problem when uploading an image by Gage to include his name in the file name but for him to go and completely upload the same exact image and everything JUST to have his name in it and on the article, I don't see that as anything other than self-promotion and unnecessary. He is given the right attribution on every file, so I see no reason to edit war over this if it's just to add his name. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Umm this could be completely unrelated here but judging by this discussion another editor here was arb-blocked for the exact same reason so If one editor was blocked for it why shouldn't this one be too ? (All for I know there could've been more issues with that user and he may of even been blocked for something totally different but thought it was worth mentioning). –Davey2010^Talk 11:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed these comments by Commons administrator Green Giant in that very same discussion (emphasis added): "I'm not sure there is anything preventing filename changes as long as the other aspects of attribution are met, within reason. It could be argued that it is met by WPPilot's name being kept in the author line. However, I do note that there are some files where the authors name is included and it has never been questioned... So my conclusion for the first issue is that there appears to be nothing in [Commons] policies or the licenses that prevents an authors name being included in the filename." Dwpaul ^Talk 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope I read his comment, Reading both discussions despite his comments there looks like there's some confusion with it all, I dunno I just thought it was worth mentioning anyway, –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint raises the question whether User:GageSkidmore has engaged in self-promotion by reverting to add his own photos to articles. If that's all it was, it would certainly cause concern. I read the Commons discussion that someone linked, including what User:Ellin Beltz said (in their role as a Commons administrator). The question whether the photographer's name should be in the file name is certainly one that we can leave to Commons. What we can address here is if someone is trying to force a specific result when it's evident they don't have consensus. I notice five reverts over three days by User:GageSkidmore at the John Popper article. This is, in fact, enough to bring down a verdict of edit warring. I'm leaving a note for User:GageSkidmore to see if he will agree to make no further reverts regarding the photo on that article. If so this complaint might be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the user tried to rename an image from his flickr which I uploaded last year with his name on the end which i declined. The current name of the image indicated the location where it was taken and the year and his request didn't even have a valid reason..and then he tried to replace a better image (not his) of a known actor with a pic of his which was of a poor angle..the user is intentionally trying to "enforce" his images throughout this wiki, generally we will accept it if its good but to "intentionally" upload the same image just to add their name to the image title for self-promotion is indeed not allowed on commons, as i said above and on my talk page, this is a commons issue but since its been brought here, it may as well be solved here...The MAIN problem apart from the image name issue is the user's lack of understanding or possibly intentional habit of not using the edit summary to guise his edits as most users look at edit summaries to know what change was made..The user has a high edit count and nearly 6 years on the wiki so i doubt its the lack of understanding of our rules..--Stemoc 03:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:GageSkidmore is warned that they may be blocked for disruptive editing if they continue the pattern of edits documented in this complaint. In particular, any warring to promote your own photos over those taken by others can be sanctioned. Continuing to revert regarding a picture where it's evident that you don't have consensus may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Started edit-warring immediately after release of 60-hr block and after using IP socks to continue edit-warring during the block. Please see notice on his/her block log. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 month Continued warring about the "15 million" claim at TVXQ. Two previous edit warring blocks since May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for your hard work as an admin. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Joseph Prasad (Result: Advice regarding the link to Title (EP))

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Joseph Prasad (talk): WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument or a reason to revert - please discuss on talk page."
2. 04:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Interlude65 (talk): "generally" indicates not always - please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD."
3. 10:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MaranoFan (talk): Please follow BRD at the article talk page, do jot edit war."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "→‎Including Title (EP): new section"

Comments:

Reverted three times on Trainor's page, telling others to discuss on the talk, then refusing to do it himself, and reverts whoever reverts his revert. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RR says an editor cannot perform more than three reverts, i.e. four or more is the violation. You've only provided three reverts. Considering that and the fact that this is now fairly stale, I don't think any action should be taken at this time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Chasewc91, I never said anything about 3RR, I said edit warring. Which can happen without 3RR. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: There has been a revert war on whether to include a See also link to Title (EP) in the main article on the singer Meghan Trainor. A related discussion is happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title (EP). If anyone here continues to add or revert the See also link before consensus is reached, the person doing so is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

To avoid the risk of any participants continuing the edit war while being logged out, I have semiprotected Meghan Trainor for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HENDAWG229 reported by User:herr_chagall (Result: No violation)

Page

Straight Outta Compton (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

HENDAWG229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Special:Diff/661017607

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page

[62]

Comments:

User repeatedly reverted edits on Straight Outta Compton (2015 film) by deleting verified information without substantial or convincing reasoning other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Special:Diff/660942955. He further pasted copyrighted material to the article, which is in violation of WP:COPYVIO - Special:Diff/661017607.

User was already warned on his talkpage but has ignored the points brought forward and responded by planning to report in turn, should the case be pursued. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I continue to revert edits made by talk because the only reference the user can give for their edits is IMDb. User is confusing this film's page (Straight Outta Compton (2015 film)), with the artist this film is about page (N.W.A). I tried to explained that the life of the artists is not being portrayed in this biopic as the life of the artist played out in real life, as the references I have provided to this user shows them. User doesn't understand that filmmakers use creativity when producing a biopic and can put in or "leave out" certain elements of an artists life. As the references I have included in the article and pointed out to this user clearly show, the sixth member of this group that they continue to try to add to the pages intro, has been significantly left out by producers of this film. I challenge this user to find one webpage or source that shows this members involvement in this film and they couldn't. As you can see on their contribution's page, it's hard for this user to take no for an answer... even when they have been proven wrong. For background on the artists depicted in this biopic, WP users can visit their WP page (N.W.A). For information about the film that dramatizes their life, their life after the sixth member left the group, WP users can visit the Straight Outta Compton (2015 film) page. And, yes, I added a quote I saw in article about the film that accurately tells the film synopsis but I thought press releases were released to the public.HENDAWG229 (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User talk:HENDAWG229#Straight Outta Compton (2015_film)

I believe that the case is sufficiently clear, as HENDAWG229 has both admitted to deleting information in order to shape the article to his liking and to pasting copyrighted material into a WP article. He fails to understand that verified information is not affected by interpretations of facts -- in this case a biopic. To illustrate the case in point, it says in the introductory paragraph: The film revolves around the rise and fall of the Compton, California rap group N.W.A, whose members include Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, MC Ren and DJ Yella. The member in question, Arabian Prince, was a founding member of the group, regardless of which artistic interpretation of the band's history the movie itself pursues. Following this, he must not be left out, because it cannot be expected from a reader to check if information provided in different articles is contradictory and/or false. This was consensus among editors, if I may add. [63] My suggestion to instead elaborate which members the film focuses on and add it to the main section of the article was declined by HENDAWG229. I am under the impression that he either hasn't fully grasped how WP editing is supposed to work, further indicated by the comments left on his talk page, or that he simply doesn't care. Another aspect to keep in mind is that the movie hasn't been released yet, so his claims are based on pure conjecture. For these reasons alone, POV pushing and information deletion is unacceptable, together with the aforementioned copyright violations, which he restored in lieu of the neutral synopsis I had written. There might even be a case of WP:SOCK, judging from the co-edits by other accounts. He remains adamant about these violations. esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My information is sourced. The information this user is trying to add isn't sourced for this film. This page is about the film not the group. For example, Avengers (comics) list up to 50 past members. The film about this comic (The Avengers (2012 film)) only include the characters that are portrayed in the film. And the intro on the film's page only list the starring characters... not every member of the group being portrayed in the film. The sources to my claims that Arabian Prince is not an important fixture in this film is the film's official website, the film's official trailers, the film's official facebook page, and the fact that there is not one article on the internet, the whole internet, that states that Arabian Prince is being portrayed in this film. Just an uncredited mention on IMDb, which this WP user must not understand is not a reliable source by itself. By viewing this user's talk and contribution's pages, I can see they think they are the see all, know all about N.W.A but as they have stated themselves, the film hasn't been release yet so all we can go on is the sourced information with references about the film... not background information about the group... which is a separate entity from the the film.HENDAWG229 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No violation – Not enough reverts to break 3RR. I encourage all parties to use the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He has copied an entire paragraph of third-party content unaltered into the WP article, how is this not a violation of WP rules? Thanks. -esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Biancacunha92‎ reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Rodrigo Branco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Biancacunha92‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 23:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661171965 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
2. 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with ' {{Infobox biography | name = Rodrigo B'"
5. 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with ' {{Infobox football biography | name = Rodrigo B'"
6. 17:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
7. 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
8. 17:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Warnings

1. 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
2. 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
3. 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Talk:Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"
4. 23:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rodrigo Branco. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Biancacunha92 (talk) to last revision by Fortdj33.

Comments:

The user is attempting to get this page deleted, for reasons that aren't entirely clear, since they kept removing their comments from my talkpage. Repeated blanking of the page, and now repeatedly adding inappropriate PRODs, despite the fact I've contested them. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Many reverts; other problematic editing. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Thewatchfulobserver reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)

Page

David B. Samadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 23:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Someone keeps deleting accurate information"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) to 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Updated Occupation"
   2. 21:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Many areas were missing from before, updated"
4. [64]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "reply"
2. 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on David B. Samadi. (TW)"
3. 23:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David B. Samadi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user keeps adding unsourced, promotional spam. After agreeing to source their edits, they still continued to add content with too few reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: There are no reverts in the last 24 hours, and there is a reasonable discussion on the user's talk page. User:Thewatchfulobserver is warned they may be blocked the next time they add unsourced material or promotional language to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Delibzr reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Both warned)

Page

List of converts to Islam from Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) <--- Primary (I initially put this here, however, this was removed by Delibzr, however I have re-added it, see [65])

Mughal–Maratha Wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Battle of Pavan Khind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Battles involving the Maratha Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

For the first article: [66] [67] [68]

The user also seems to be stalking my contributions and has reverted changes that took me a long-time and were sources. Here are the diffs for his revisions on other articles I contributed on:

[69]<----I spent a long time removing the biased material on this article. The reasons may be found in the edit summaries.[70] Before I came it neglected almost entirely the victories of the Mughals, Nawabs and others against the Marathas. I cited a variety of academic sources and gave my reasons, however User:Delibzr reverted it and did not provide adequate reasoing. I told him to take up any issues with me on the talk page, however he refuses to do so, rather he suggests I deserve to have my sourced edits removed.[71] He says: You are violating BLPs, that means you can be reverted many more times. He does not provide any proof as to what I have violated and he does not provide legitimate critics, sources, and academic discourse to talk about my changes.

[72]<---I also worked hard on this article to remove biased language and provided my details in the edit summaries.[73] He claims it is revert POV editing without providing any justification for this accusation.

[74] <---Heavily biased article with no references was largely removed by me. He reverted it. He did not provide adequate reasoning. He has not once tried to settle this or any issue on the talk page(s).

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[75], [76], [77]

Warnings

[78]

Comments:

• He is violating biographies of living people at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, see this:- [79] he is using rumor sites[80][81] for claiming those people to have been converted to Islam who never converted to Islam. On other articles, he is just whitewashing the history[82][83] and misrepresenting references.[84] He is also making disruptive page moves.[85] Delibzr (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You have not once mentioned any of this on the talk page. That sources was used for Dharmendra and his wife. Here is another source for Dharmendra and his wife from the Milli Gazette [86]. This is however off-topic, since you should have brought this up on the talk page rather than edit war. I am not whitewashing the history. Once again you failed to adequately talk about it. The only source that says it was a Maratha victory (that I have come across) was about.com, which is not reliable. Other, more academic sources treat it as a Guerilla war that continued long after 1707. Also, according to the quote on Wikipedia supposedly by a professor named Stanley,

"the conquest of the Deccan, to which, Aurangzeb devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Aurangzeb's encampment was like a moving capital – a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, with some 250 bazaars, with a 1⁄2 million camp followers, 50,000 camels and 30,000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped the Deccan of any and all of its surplus grain and wealth ... Not only famine but bubonic plague arose ... Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707"

If we look at this, Aurangzeb DID conquer the Deccan territory, so the claim that the Marathas had dominion over the Deccan NEEDS REFERENCING. Once again, we may talk about it on the talk page, however you did not do that. I did not misrepresent the reference. Show me where in the reference it said escape. Read my edit summaries. [87]

Your accusations are baseless, you refuse to talk about it, you revert without proper examination, you neglect my hard-work, etc. This shows bad-behavior. Xtremedood (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties are warned that they may be blocked if they continue to revert at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism without either getting consensus on Talk, or filing at WP:BLPN if you sincerely believe there is a BLP issue. If you want to complain about the other articles, see the instructions at top of page about how to create a proper AN3 report with diffs. Discussions on whether Aurangzeb conquered the Deccan territory don't belong here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:85.211.109.208 reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked)

Page

High fructose corn syrup and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) to 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "nope, it's wrong to dismiss the entire fructose controversy and evidences of fructose's harm with a single sentence in the lead, even with A Citation (your opinion+individual citations ≠ scientic consensus)"
   2. 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "the material is valid and supported by citations, so please don't attack it"
2. 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661163554 by Yobol (talk) to dismiss all the studies cited in the article that do show greater harm from hfcs, with a single unnuanced sentence, makes a mockery of the article and of NPOV"
3. 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661163403 by Yobol (talk) studies about AGEs don't need to mention hcfs; these citations are preceded by proof that hfcs has dicarbonyls, which lead to AGEs"
4. 02:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "fructose is the subject of many of the studies on this page; it is the reason so many scientists and dieticians are interested in HFCS in the first place - they certainly think it's relevant"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[88]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "/* HFCS no more dangerous than sucrose */ r"

Comments:

Saw this all pop up on my watchlist and tried to restore most of the article to the status quo version. It looks like this IP user is still edit warring. By my count, that's at least 8 total reverts in a 24 hour period even after being warned about 3RR with additional reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

Looks like a quick block is more warranted at this point to keep the user from reinserting content while they fail to go to the talk page to get consensus for any edits. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. The IP wants to be sure that fructose is appropriately criticized but has never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:77.132.137.184 reported by User:Samak (Result: Semi)

Page

West Azerbaijan Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Reason

Plz see vandalism 77.132.137.184 IP in West Azerbaijan Province article, for example see history this article.

1)Profanity → donkey....--2)False writing word of Azerbaijani language.--3):Change the entries and numbers.--4):Insist on writing wrong model name of Urmia see 1 to ..4--5):put the [93] youtube, Blog and ... for Ethnic claims--Samək^Talk 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected. The IP is reverting the lead and changing ethnic terminology with no communication on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Update regarding Bob Duff (Result: Article semiprotected)

Could someone look into recent activity on this case please.

2602:306:8034:C990:9832:C377:9DBE:70B2 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: An IP had been warring to include a negative description of Bob Duff's sponsorship of a bill called SB-1. Duff is a member of the Connecticut State Senate. I semiprotected Bob Duff for two months per WP:BLP on a version of the article which doesn't contain the slanted description of this work. Editors on the talk page should try to agree on a more neutral description of SB-1 if they think it is important enough to include. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:M.srihari reported by User:Nick Thorne (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Supercarrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.srihari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:

Nick Thorne ^talk 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours MilborneOne (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph A. Spadaro reported by User:12.193.233.52 (Result: No action)

Page: Deflategate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661196117 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661197079 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661196035 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflategate&diff=661277631&oldid=661193882

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Not multiple diffs, just the text from the same two diffs repeated. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Many many more reverts than these 4, I just don't have time to add all examples removed: The report of the investigation was released in May 2015. The report of the investigation was released in May 2015.

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

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

Comments:

This user has hijacked this page and it is filled with many inaccuracies. When people try to add information or edit inaccuracies, he deletes the correct information— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.193.233.52 (talk • contribs)

A simple glance at the article history shows that the diffs presented are a major misrepresentation of the situation, either out of bad faith or incompetence. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the reporter didn't inform Joseph A. Spadaro, as they are obliged to- I informed them instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There's that too. I'm getting tempted to just non-admin close this and leave a warning on the OP's talk page. There's nothing actionable (even WP:boomerang-able), and the report was filed for the wrong reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to do just that, even if there's not a policy supporting it. Save the admins some work. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: (non-admin closure) No action needed. Individuals reported and reporting did not approach 3rr, report appears to be a mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:71.178.130.74 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: East Coast hip hop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.178.130.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. [105]
5. [106]
6. [107]
7. [108]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110] and User_talk:71.178.130.74 "Discussions" took place primarilly on IP's talk page.

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced content. I had warned the IP about copyright violation, but it turned out to be copy/pasted from a Wikipedia mirror. The copy/pasted information was unsourced. Jim1138 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; was warned prior. Kuru (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cubancigar11 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked )

Page

Equality before the law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cubancigar11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminism */"
2. 08:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661098089 by Roscelese (talk) Reinstating WP:NPOV view before this is settled. Lets discuss on talk page and not wage revert war."
3. 20:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661298069 by Roscelese (talk) - Stop personally attacking me, which appears to be your 'single purpose'."
4. 02:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Added source and expanded section. Removed personal opinion of serial abusers. Go to talk page, this is not your friend's personal blog and everyone else is not your slave forced to promote to promote your opinions."
5. 03:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Feminism */ Ooh it is so much fun to quote the journals of encyclopedia. Little people won't understand the meaning of authoritative. I guess the professors and authors of book are also having only personal opinions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Equality before the law. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [111]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Nick Thorne reported by User:Skyring (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [113] 09:29, 7 May 2015
2. [114] 19:43, 7 May 2015
3. [115] 20:07, 7 May 2015
4. [116] 20:40, 7 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
There seems to have been zero discussion on the talk page about the edit-warring by both sides. I note one paragraph about the content, nothing at all about the escalating conflict.

Comments:

Nick Thorne reported his opponent for 3RR breach, but in the process reverted four times within twelve hours. Looks like both editors got a little hot under the collar. I'd like to see more discussion and less reversion. Thorne seems to have been in the right, content-wise, but this doesn't excuse the breach of 3RR. --Pete (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The original edit in this sequence was not a revert but the removal of incited and/or incorrectly cited material inserted some days earlier with a number of intermediate edits to the effect that a ship INS Vishal is under construction when at best it will be started in 2017 or 2018 and is currently in the planning phase with the design not even finalized. I was unaware of who inserted that info as i did not look at the time, I was just removing incorrect info. Since that edit i have found out that this editor had been edit warring over this and relayed matters with other editors as well. In short I made an edit and then was reverted 4 times, i only reverted 3 times and stopped so add to avoid 3RR,but i note that the other editor reverted a further 2 times and was reverted by other editors. I do not believe I have a case to answer. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

You removed the same material four times in twelve hours, Nick. That's four reverts. You and the other guy were two sides of the same coin on this. Nor did you do anything to resolve the conflict on the discussion page. It looks like you had backup from your fellow editors on this - why not simply pass the baton to one of the others? You were in the right on the content, so it's not as if you were going to come out short of support. Heck, I woulda helped you out if you'd asked. --Pete (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Adsitionally,the other editor had been warned about inserting the incorrect info by others, his insistence on reinserting it in the supercarrier page amounted to vandalism - his refusal to discuss on the talk page bears witness to this. Reverting vandalism is not subject to 3RR. In any case I do not agree with your reading of events. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

On reviewing your edit summaries and sole contribution to the discussion, I find no mention of "vandalism". No warnings, no discussion, no mentions at all. No mention in your reporting of him for edit-warring above. You reverted this guy four times, the last three within an hour, your first appearance on his talk page was to tell him of the discussion here, and even if we accept your interpretation above, you deliberately pushed him over the 3RR limit and reported him here. You've been around a while, Nick, you know better than this. --Pete (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Though User:Nick Thorne broke 3RR, he may have got carried away when responding to User:M.srihari who made a lot more reverts, and seemed to be editing robotically with no attention to feedback. I don't think a block is necessary but Nick Thorne should use caution in the future. The fact that there are no sources to show the Indian carrier is actually under construction makes the edits of M.srihari hard to take seriously. The source he was using says the INS Vishal is "still only a concept". Our own Wikipedia article on INS Vishal says it is "currently in its design phase." Still, Nick Thorne should pay attention to using the term vandalism correctly. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice noted, I'll be more careful on future. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Wintertanager reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page

Mark Ghuneim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]
6. [123]
7. [124]
8. [125]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mark Ghuneim. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]

Comments:

Note these span more than 24 hours, but persistent, protracted EW is clear. The Dissident Aggressor 04:02, 8 May 2015‎

Also note that 79.97.226.247 (talk · contribs) is not me. The Dissident Aggressor 04:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Would welcome other eyes on this page - have documented every edit very transparently on talk page. Wintertanager (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Having never in my history on this WP been flagged in this way (which is disconcerting to me) would like also to defend myself by pointing out the edit history of the editor whose tags I reverted. 79.97.226.247 talk page. I did not instigate, addressed every edit in talk page, and am pretty sure I followed the rules.Wintertanager (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[As I have already pointed out to you], wikipedia is not a forum for the PR that you have inserted at Hugo Barra, Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur), Rick Schwartz, and M. T. Carney. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And therein we disagree, as I do not believe those are 'PR' pages at all, but rather well sourced, neutral and encyclopedic BLPs absolutely meeting notoriety. I am allowed to write or contribute to those, have adhered closely the WPs rules, commented in talk regarding my edits, and expressed enthusiasm for other well reasoned edits towards an improved page. For a few of those pages (some of which I haven't touched for years) I have made stern edits in line with NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Your blanket, cursory sweep of simply tagging pages I have worked on or contributed to is exactly what I reverted. Wintertanager (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I believe a block is in order - it's clear you believe you are entitled to continue removing these tags against consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Against consensus? Um, I think a 'consensus' is the last thing I would use to describe the activity on aforementioned talk pages. Wintertanager (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't recognize that you're an outlier and repeatedly editing against consensus of 3 other editors. (Not to mention you mostly write puff PR pieces about tech execs) You need to be blocked or topic-banned from writing about tech executives. The Dissident Aggressor 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Wintertanager's constant removal of the advert and resume tags from Mark Ghuneim (eight times since April 28) looks like an edit war. It is not up to his sole discretion whether these issues have been resolved. In my opinion he can avoid a block for disruptive editing if he will agree not to remove any more quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I will absolutely agree not to remove any quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May and respect the rules of WP, but I am perplexed by this verdict. Knowing this verdict, Dissident Aggressor is now adding tags to pages I have worked on without any reasoning or specificity, which is all I ever asked for. I hope someone will dig deeper into this. Makes me want to throw in the towel to what I had thought were very positive contributions to WP. Wintertanager (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

He has, since this verdict (5 min ago), tagged the following pages without any explanation in talk. I doubt he knows anything about any of these BLPs, could tell you nothing about the topic of any of these pages. Their only common thread: I've either written or contributed to them.

[Matt Williams]

[Hugo Barra]

Wintertanager (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Voluntary restriction. To avoid a block for disruption Wintertanager has agreed not to remove any more article quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bashahikgt reported by User:VagaboundWind (Result: Indef)

Page

Bangalore Days (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661348116 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)removing sourced content pure vandal"
2. 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "removing sourced content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC) to 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661231637 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)anjali menon did't says that nazriya is the lead"
   2. 14:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 06:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661052919 by Malayala Sahityam (talk)as per lead the audience have to decide who is lead"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on [[Mohanlal]]. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

His account is made for vandalism and promotion of his favourite star Mammootty. A hardcore fan. VagaboundWind (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – By User:Ponyo. This is a complaint about the same editor on a different article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bashahikgt reported by User:VagaboundWind (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661415608 by VagaboundWind (talk)Wikipedia is not a promotional media, you can promote mohanlal in facebook"
2. 10:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661389259 by VagaboundWind (talk)fan boy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on [[Mohanlal]]. (TW)"
2. 09:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
3. 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Mohanlal. (TW)"
4. 15:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Mohanlal, Loham. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Fanboy VagaboundWind (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The subject of this complaint, User:Bashahikgt, made only two reverts, while the submitter made four. According to this evidence we should block the submitter, User:VagaboundWind. Perhaps Vagabound will make an offer to wait for a consensus on the talk page before editing the article again. VagaboundWind's edits appear to be promotional, while Bahsahkigt is attempting to trim them down. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Note that i didn't added any promotional content, i just protected the contents vandalising by User:Bashahikgt, if you investigate you will know the facts. This user is a fanboy of actor Mammootty, and is vandalising his rivalry actor Mohanlals biography and film articles. Also he had made highly promotional edits about his favourite actor like a facebook page. I just found it and protected the contents. Just look at his contributions, and you will know everything. Note that i also suspect he is a sock puppet. VagaboundWind (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Bashahikgt has been indefinitely blocked by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resumption of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive280#User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours ) NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. If this continues a sock case may eventually be needed, just to keep track of the IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Realamigaman / User:AmigaOne reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Semi)

Page: Amiga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Realamigaman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / AmigaOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

As Realamigaman

1. "updating to the facts"

2. no edit summary

As AmigaOne

3. "Undid revision 661384989 by Pavlor"

4. no edit summary

5. no edit summary

Soapbox pushing of some bizarre factual changes to Amiga. Even without knowing Amiga history in detail, some of these just don't make sense when compared to the outside world (such as the Amiga being introduced in 1979, before its 68000 microprocessor was available). Reverted by four separate editors.

Some fairly obvious socking to push it further to 5RR.

I completely agree, all the edits changed start/end dates without sources, and seem to riddle the article with contradictions. Obvious edit warring with additional sockpuppetry. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also this talkpage comment seems really weird too, since if they know the person, they'd know that their edits made no sense and introduced obvious contradictions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

He (they??) is probably only fellow disturbed mind from Amiga community (however, most of us are more sane). Sure, he knew Jay and his real name is Mitchy... To be more serious, his similar edits in other articles: [129], [130] (as Trueamigaman).Pavlor (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: Amiga article semiprotected one month. Both of the probable socks were created on 8 May so this will slow them down a little. User:Trueamigaman only made one edit back in March. The user may never log into the same account twice. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:89.197.13.252 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Semi)

Page: MigrationWatch UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.197.13.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]
4. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Comments:I'm not sure that this is yet a technical violation of the 3RR, but it is clear that the IP editor has no intention of discussing this on the article talk page, and keeps reverting the removal of material that isn't sourced to a reliable source.

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Adding a citation to a blogspot site when asked for a reference isn't persuasive. See WP:UGC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Whyedithere reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139]
2. [140] 2 minutes later
3. [141] 3 minutes later
4. [142] 3 minutes later
5. [143] 3 minutes later
6. [144] 7 minutes later

Second Page: CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [145]

1. [146]
2. [147] 3 minutes later
3. [148] 9 minutes later
4. [149] 5 minutes later
5. [150] 4 minutes later
6. [151] 3 minutes later
7. [152] 2 minutes later
8. [153] 2 minutes later

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

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

Comments: 6 reverts in less than 20 minutes on CSI: Cyber after 8 reverts in less than 30 minutes on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Samanthader reported by User:Haminoon (Result: )

Page

Mockbul Ali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "the limited sources that were removed in the earlier edit were those that had unsubstantiated claims. Therefore in line with the clear Wikipedia guidance on bios it is entirely reasonable to remove these with details that cannot be substantiated"
2. 15:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 661420590 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
3. 07:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 07:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "Please see my talk page for full details why the edits to thos page have been made"
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC) to 11:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 11:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC) "Please see my talk page for the reasons for the edits"
   2. 11:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mockbul Ali. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Have discussed the issue on the user's talk page. -- haminoon (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:203.190.222.222 reported by User:GideonF (Result: )

Page: Mhairi Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 203.190.222.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158]
4. [159]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [160]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [161]

Comments: There is an ongoing disagreement, not confined to this Anon IP, about whether Scottish people's nationality should be described as "Scottish" or "British". There is no site-wide consensus in favour of either, so the current practice is in effect to let whatever was there first stay since a change would require consensus. This anon IP has been changing the nationalities of Scottish National Party MP's from Scottish to British en masse without attempting to seek consensus on talk pages, and in the case of Mhairi Black has violated the 3RR.

GideonF (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:IndianBio reported by User:Brocicle (Result: )

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

I wasn't sure which page was the correct one to report this user so I apologise if this is the wrong section. User IndianBio has violated the three-revert rule on the page American Horror Story: Hotel. They have reverted three times in the past 24 hours and re-added information under the pretence of another unrelated edit as stated in the edit summary. I tried to take it to the talk page but received no response from the user.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]

All of the above reverts occurred within a 24 hour period. Also please note the last diff under 'filming' is where the information was re-added which, if I read the three-revert rule page correctly counts as a revert.

I notified the user of their violation TWICE on their talk page only to have them remove it both times and being told to "get lost".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166] Diff of second edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

I understand that I also violated the three-revert rule so if there is a punishment on me for that I will accept it without protest. Brocicle (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)