Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Adding new report for 186.9.130.34. (TW)
Line 392: Line 392:


Left a message on My very best wishes' talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=next&oldid=682042168 regarding the IP's behaviour], but the edits and rants are coming thick and fast own my own talk page, etc. This editor is not going to wait for any form of discussion on the article's talk page. [[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Left a message on My very best wishes' talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=next&oldid=682042168 regarding the IP's behaviour], but the edits and rants are coming thick and fast own my own talk page, etc. This editor is not going to wait for any form of discussion on the article's talk page. [[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
:If you want to justify your reverts on the talk page, go ahead. But you're reverting just purely for the fun of it. I doubt you've even looked at the unencyclopaedic nonsense you're restoring. [[Special:Contributions/186.9.130.34|186.9.130.34]] ([[User talk:186.9.130.34|talk]]) 06:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:26, 21 September 2015

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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.

    Unsigned edit warrior at Garage rock article

    Page
    Garage rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2601:241:8001:87a4:acc5:c228:6f53:552 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:241:8001:87a4:8a63:dfff:fec7:f7a5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    There is an unsigned editor engaged in an edit war (from different IP addresses) at the Garage rock, who has now done it three times. I don't know whether his/her intensions are sincerely misguided or if it should be regarded as a case of vandalism. But the situation should be monitored. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs to facilitate administrators. --TL22 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the log (see link [[1]):

    • (cur | prev) 08:05, 19 September 2015‎ Ghmyrtle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,697 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (Undid revision 681732303 by 2601:241:8001:87A4:ACC5:C228:6F53:552. You need to discuss this proposal on the article talk page, and stop edit warring.) (undo | thank)
    • (cur | prev) 04:29, 19 September 2015‎ 2601:241:8001:87a4:acc5:c228:6f53:552 (talk)‎ . . (206,677 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 04:46, 17 September 2015‎ Garagepunk66 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,697 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South: You are engaged in an unconstructive edit war with a knowledgeable editor who understands the Florida 60s rock scene--if your actions continue, I will report the incident to administrators.) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 04:35, 17 September 2015‎ 2601:241:8001:87a4:8a63:dfff:fec7:f7a5 (talk)‎ . . (206,679 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (Undid revision 681370683 by Garagepunk66 (talk)) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 20:37, 16 September 2015‎ Garagepunk66 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,696 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South: wording) (undo)
    • (cur | prev) 03:40, 15 September 2015‎ 2601:241:8001:87a4:8a63:dfff:fec7:f7a5 (talk)‎ . . (206,679 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South) (undo)

    I've never reported an incident before, so I'm not and expert at this kind of notice. Above, I have printed out a log of incidents above. You will notice that both Ghmyrtle and I have tried to appeal to the unsigned editor to stop the warring and discuss the issue on the talk page. We would be very open-minded about hearing that editor's perspective, and even consider finding sources to justify any of his/her proposed changes--if it is done in a civil way according to protocol. But, right now that editor is not going about it in a constructive way. I want to believe that the his/her actions are sincere and well-intended, but with an unsigned editor, we can never rule out the possibility of vandalism. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:楊千呱 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Blocked indef)

    Page
    Rebel Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    楊千呱 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Shows */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring at Rebel Heart Tour */ leave a note about talk page"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "/* HongKong/Macau vs China */ new section"
    Comments:

    Instead of attaining consensus about the matter, the editor chose to continue edit war for the same thing that he/she was blocked, not even 24 hours ago. Same persecution in Born This Way Ball and there are also open suggestions of sockpuppetry. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user continues to lie and keepS changing the originality as well as disregards the discussion to find out a final solution. He/She insists what he/she does is right even tho editor tries to communicate with him/her. He/ she should be blocked as well if he/she disregards the message I tried to convey to him/her. - User:楊千呱 21:21 20 September 2015 (UTC+8)

    No 3RR violation at the moment, so this report was filed too soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah no need of this report now, in lieu of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gpcv77. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppet. Swarm 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.233.155.197 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

    Page
    Girl Meets World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    99.233.155.197 (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 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) to 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
      2. 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
    2. 13:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    IP user has been recently released from a block for edit warring on the same page (see article's edit history on September 16), and decides to continue making the exact same change(s) to the article which led to the edit war and their block three days ago. MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Swarm 06:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:IndianBio reported by User:楊千呱 (Result: Nominator blocked indef)

    Page
    Rebel Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page
    Born This Way Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    IndianBio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 09:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Shows */"
    3. 10:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 07:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 05:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    6. 13:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "
    7. 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    This user continues to lie and keeps changing the originality as well as disregards the discussion to find out a final solution. He/She insists what he/she does is right even tho I try to communicate with him/her but what I received was his/her hateful speeches. He/ she should be blocked because of violating the 3RR warning as well if he/she disregards the message I tried to convey to him/her. - User:楊千呱 21:21 20 September 2015 (UTC+8)

    See above for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gpcv77. In retaliation. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having two accounts doesn't mean sock puppet. Come on. Maybe you got two or more as well lol —User:楊千呱 —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mendezes Cousins reported by User:Jeh (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page: NEMA connector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mendezes Cousins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: "previous version" is to MC's first edit

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2] misleading edit summary, as he simply copied the removed material to a new article, Twist-locking connectors, losing edit history in the process
    2. [3]
    3. [4] another misleading edit summary, "everything's fixed"
    4. [5] yet another, "already discussed!"

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

    The only response was a declaration that "I'm right" (diff).

    Comments:

    Not just 3RR, but also copying entire article subsection (6000 bytes) to another article hence breaking edit history, and using deliberately-misleading edit summaries. Week-old editor, has even requested adminship! Clearly does not know how WP works. Jeh (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I cannot exactly self-revert because a bonehead that calls himself C Fred has lately entered the edit war and has misused his admin powers to join in the battle. So everyone that edit warred against me including this so-called Jeh person should be questioned for their actions. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Guilty as charged. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm 06:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mahir007 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

    Page
    Binbir Gece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Mahir007 (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 06:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC) to 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "added useful content"
      2. 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */ useful edits"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    I hope an administrator can do something... This is already the second time I come to here. The first time they did nothing. I have already explained to the user about editing and does not want to understand, here is the discussion.While it has already reverted so many times, I don't want to get injured in this, I just am meet the standards of Wikipedia. Philip J Fry (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not violates the law of wikipedia at all. User:Mahir007 —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Blocke)

    Page
    California Chrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681883159 by Softlavender (talk) gee - thanks for giving me zero minutes to respond to the section you opened on article Talk!"
    2. 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681880908 by Softlavender (talk) it isn't a "bold change", removing cutzie, unnecessary decorative quotebox coloring, from encyclopedic article (*adding* them, would be)"
    3. 04:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681879291 by Viriditas (talk) I call BS - why do you waste pixels w/ hollow argument in editsum, when there's space here for inclusion of argument w/ some modicum of substance?"
    4. 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681870461 by Montanabw (talk) "if passed FAC" is not responsive to the reasons I gave for removal (FAC is not omniscient, and, an encyclopedia article is not a coloring book), an"
    5. 02:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "a Featured article s/b "enjoyable to read", yes, but this kind of kitsch decoration (playing with quote box background colors to match jockey uniform colors) belongs in something like "Picture Magazine", not an encyclopedia"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on California Chrome. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This appears to be a deliberate, pointy attempt by the user to harass Montanabw during her RFA. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unnecessary in my opinion. He has already indicated that he has no intention of continuing to edit war, so the block locks purely WP:PUNITIVE. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2.98.142.247 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: protected)

    Page: Jackie Collins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2.98.142.247 (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]

    Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [19]

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

    Comments: Edit warring -- despite warnings about violating 3RR and the editing block that could incur, this newbie editor chose to violate 3RR and I am requesting that he/she be blocked in consequence. Blatant, willful, brazen disregard.

    Quis separabit? 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    As per the talk page on Jackie Collins, I reverted edits back to the original description on the article (which I additionally provide a reference for - and have now also added that she became a US citizen with a reference). The user reporting me for edit warring, has chosen to not wait for consensus. My edits are not vandalism - I merely believe that it is incorrect for someone to change a description, and for them to then repeatedly revert back to their version without consensus. I began dialogue on the talk page to try and seek consensus. I believe the original description should stay in place until there is such consensus.

    Please bare in mind that she because a US citizen in 1960, yet in 2005 still described herself as being English (as referenced), not American or British-American. If this user's rational for changing to British-American is correct, how does one explain why people from the UK are more often than not described as English, Scottish, Welsh or N Irish instead of British, or how there are examples of people born in England being described as being Scottish (which may be correct - but not based on this user's rational is not)? They even state on the talk page that "Collins was English, of course"!

    2.98.142.247 (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    While each case has the potential to be unique, someone who goes through the trouble of naturalizing (or denaturalizing, for that matter) has made a legal claim about his or her nationality, which is binding unless otherwise legally amended. That belies those who are born to a country with which they may not identify, and will therefore usually not call or consider themselves by adjectives which indicate that particularly unwelcome jus soli nationality or citizenship (like Sir James Galway who doesn't consider himself British or Northern Irish, yet accepted a substantive knighthood, or, likewise, Liam Neeson who nonetheless accepted a substantive OBE). Someone who becomes a naturalized citizen of another country -- as Collins is reported to have done, although I don't think 1960 is the correct year, based on a television appearance decades after 1960 in which she mentioned her English passport; just as Christopher Hitchens expressly stated in a televised interview that he had not become a US citizen, but by the time of his untimely tragic death from cancer years later had in fact become one -- has made the conscious choice of accepting that other country's citizenship, with all the rights and responsibilities thereto, which can and should be an identifier. This no longer for the most part, and certainly with regard to the UK, means that original nationality is lost. Having chosen to take US citizenship (if that is true; I was surprised as I assumed she made clear she didn't choose to in that television interview), she did not cease being English but adopted dual nationality. For example, Rachel Weisz and Emily Blunt and Saffron Burrows didn't cease being English or British even though they have taken US citizenship but all the identifiers should be there -- that's why this is an encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 15:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected by another admin --slakrtalk / 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pbfreespace3 reported by User:SyrianObserver2015 (Result: Nominator blocked 2 weeks)

    Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pbfreespace3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [21]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20/09/2015[22]
    2. 20/09/2015[23]
    3. 20/09/2015[24]
    4. 20/09/2015[25]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Under topic ISIS map manipulation [27]

    Comments: This user is constantly breaking the 1 revert per 24 hour rule, also I provide sources accepted by the page ( Al Masdar) but the user Pbfreespace3 continues revert my edits and constantly warring me. I do everything by the book. User also makes multiple edits with twitter sources (or none at all) even though it is not allowed. I am frustrated by this users constantly questioning my edits when I do them with accepted sources, and saying I am breaking the rules when in fact it is he. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am Pbfreespace3. Edits 2, 3, and 4 are not me at all. I have no idea who that is, but it is not me. Just for the record. I provide sources for all of my edits that change the status of towns, whereas SyrianObserver2015 does not. Examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=681932278&oldid=681830368

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=678186013&oldid=678179025 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=677378428&oldid=677371425 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=next&oldid=677378428 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=677350368&oldid=677344109 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=677001878&oldid=676937951

    So these accusations of edit warring make no sense. Edit warring typically involves multiple reverts that are within a few hours of each other. This is not the case. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks also blocked for violating WP:1RR. NeilN talk to me 23:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Målfarlig! reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: )

    Page
    Luciana Maria Dionizio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Målfarlig! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681997395 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
    2. 21:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681948063 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
    3. 13:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681842157 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Ignores WP:INFOBOXREF. Constant replies with personal attacks which fails WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Shows a high tendency of WP:OWN. Have failed 3RR also in Raquel Fernandes, Rosana dos Santos Augusto, Rafaelle Souza and several more. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)Er, you have to be over three reverts. Anyway, the editor making this vexatious report is actively engaged in long-term edit-warring and harassment across dozens of women's football articles. It appears to have been sparked by legitimate comment made by User:Qed237 and I, with the user admitting that their subsequent campaign has been waged in misguided 'retaliation'. The editor suddenly developed their WP:INFOBOXREF obsession, but apparently only applies it to articles recently edited by one editor (me) and not, for some reason, to any others. Clearly these stupid edits are being made to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Whilst I have tried to WP:AGF on the basis that this editor's command of English is tenuous (and they are either very young or have some sort of developmental disorder), my patience has regretfully snapped. I would be grateful for any assistance in bringing this immature editor's infatuation with me to a dignified end. On a practical level the few minutes it takes to revert his nonsense is eating in to my constructive editing time, and I'm also having to do most of my stuff by IP to evade his increasingly creepy stalking. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Breached another 3RR just recently at Portia Boakye. Again revert containing personal attack, and blind revert without even checking the sources available. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean at the BLP where you are edit-warring in unsourced and patently false content? No I'm not over three reverts there either. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite this live report, MbahGondrong is still edit warring at Portia Boakye: WP:BOOMERANG? Målfarlig! (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - To be fair, you both deserve to be blocked when i check the given history of that article, but that is not my area to decide. Discuss first and leave the article alone and don't revert WHILE discussing... Kante4 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:186.9.135.1 reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: )

    Page: The Holocaust in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 186.9.135.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Block evasion: 200.83.84.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by his own admission

    Previous version reverted to: [28]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]
    2. [30]
    3. [31]
    4. [32]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

    Comments:

    An IP from South America used exclusively to cause damage to the article and to abuse editors verbally. – If you can, please remove his highly offensive personal attacks made in edit summaries,[35] from the article edit history. Thank you in advance. Note: This user is a reincarnation of a banned User:200.83.84.155, to which he admits on the article talk page, apparently unaware of the consequences. Poeticbent talk 03:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I edit exclusively to improve articles, as anyone can see by looking at the article history. This user edits exclusively to harm articles by reverting obvious improvements without explaining why. Sure, remove the edit summary. And kindly also remove this grotesque slur made against me by this user. 186.9.135.1 (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a sock puppet of a ban evading user Best_known_for_IP. Volunteer Marek  04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    user:jeh reported by 119.53.109.190 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC) (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Physical Address Extension (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: user:Jeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Address_Extension&oldid=682044603

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Address_Extension&diff=prev&oldid=682044603
    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:"your poor, mistaken head", well, I have no words more to add!

    119.53.109.190 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't make comments about the IP's head. Can we close this and move on? Chillum 05:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:186.9.130.34 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: )

    Page
    Self-arrest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    186.9.130.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "undefined"
    2. 06:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "For fuck's sake. What the fuck are you doing? Do you have ANY fucking clue what an encyclopaedia article is supposed to look like?"
    3. 06:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "undefined"
    4. 06:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682049375 by Denisarona (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Self-arrest. (TW)"
    2. 05:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries. (TW)"
    3. 06:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Left a message on My very best wishes' talk page regarding the IP's behaviour, but the edits and rants are coming thick and fast own my own talk page, etc. This editor is not going to wait for any form of discussion on the article's talk page. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to justify your reverts on the talk page, go ahead. But you're reverting just purely for the fun of it. I doubt you've even looked at the unencyclopaedic nonsense you're restoring. 186.9.130.34 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]