Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Tr19ss reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Warned)

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

Breaking 1RR:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

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

• Result: User:Tr19ss is warned they may be blocked if they make any more unsourced changes to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. If you need advice, ask on the map's talk page. Under the sanctions, Tr19ss can be banned from editing the map. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Breaking 1RR twice:

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:21, 24 January 2016 [2]
2. 02:25, 24 January 2016 [3]
3. 02:29, 24 January 2016‎ [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] (also on the article talk page, which includes discussion on the photographs, which Bratland apparently WP:OWNs.)

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19:17, 24 January 2016 [7]

Could I get User:Swarm or User:Ohnoitsjamie or User:GB_fan[8] or User:KrakatoaKatie[9] who are familiar with this "winningest" debacle to look at the situation please? Calton's edit changed "The XR-750 went on to win the most races in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." to "The XR-750 went on to become the winningest race bike in the history of American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) racing." One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars, to be sure! --Pete (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Personal attacks aside, friend Calton, you have joined a long-running edit-war on an article with discussion ongoing on the article's talk page and two different threads on the Manual of Style.[10][11] Can you not wait for discussion to conclude? It is not as if you are unaware of the background, as you demonstrated above. WP:BOOMERANG is something you might usefully consider. --Pete (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is the edit warring report, result and comment that was made against Skyring. [12] A 60 hour block, for editing warring on a topic that they were aware was under discussion " After looking everything over I agree with that assessment of the situation. It's a topic for discussion and it's being discussed; regardless of how you feel about the matter it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus " (blocking admin's comment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, thanks, 72bikers. Of course many of us have particular criticism's of this editor's behaviour in various fields, but in this case it's edit-warring. Bratland introduced various other topics above, but responding in kind just makes the job of the closing editor more difficult because the water is well and truly muddled.

Three reverts in quick succession, while discussion is underway. He knows this is a blockable offence, becuse I was given a hefty block for the same thing two days earlier, and he weighed into that report, and has been crowing over it ever since.[13] He stopped short of four blocks in ten minutes, because he knows that is a bright line. However, he made ten reverts on this article in the past month[14], so that makes it a slow-moving edit-war, and tht's blockable in itself. He also made over a hundred reverts in other connected articles (to restore his preferred wording of "winningest") while discussion is ongoing,[15][16] and he knows discussion is ongoing because he wrote about half of the two long discussions at WP:Manual of Style.[17][18]

There's the issue of fairness, which is going to hit WP:AN in about a day's time, if User:Swarm doesn't respond on his talk page, and there's the certainty that he will continue to edit-war on this point. Looking at the passion and length of his arguments, this one word is something that means a lot to him. And yes, 72bikers, he spreads personal attacks through his rants, but that's a problem that is dealt with elsewhere. --Pete (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes i do not mean to get off topic. But all but his statement about tracking other editor pertains to this topic of the word winningest. And that is what he is guilty of the 3 reverts on. He has done this with me while the discusion is ongoing but stopped short of the 3. 72bikers (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If you are talking about this incident, he broke 3RR but the closing admin didn't notice and there was a delay before it could be pointed out. Editors who act as if they have three free reverts on every article every day are gaming the system and being enabled by admins who are too busy to investigate fully. --Pete (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes and a very acute observation. 72bikers (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It all follows a rather sad pattern. Dennis gets reported for yet another infraction. He doesn't accept that he was wrong, and starts trying to transfer blame by making sock puppet claims (that have already gone to SPI and been proven to be wrong). He brings up totally unrelated disputes and clogs the whole report, until such time as it is stale, because admins can't be bothered to wade through 30 paragraphs of diffs and links to old reports/talk pages/edits. It's a perfect example of an editor gaming the system. I hope that one day this pattern gets dealt with correctly. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 1

Comments:

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

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

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

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

• NOTE: I guess here is as good as any place to note that the filer of this report has, in response to my comments above, reverted back his preferred version (even though it appeared at the article talk page he had agreed to points made at the article talk page here). When I questioned him about it at the article talk page, he admitted to doing it in order to spite me (see here). Swarm recently blocked this editor for 72 hours for edit warring [19]. The filer was, until a little over a month ago, on a 6-month block for edit warring and block evasion. Thirty minutes after his most recent block expired, his first edit was to completely revert the changes I had made at the article [20] (where I had, after making those changes, started another discussion in regard to the changes with specific point-by-point notation about each edit [21]). I had hoped the filer would respond to the comments I made at the article talk page on 1/21/16, however, after several hours had passed, I found out he had been blocked 72 hours for edit warring. After I saw today he had reverted wholesale, rather than getting angry, I reverted back, and invited him by name to the article talk page. After IPs started edit warring and disruptively reverting back to the filer's preferred version of the article, the filer ended up here. Was it a way to game the system further by getting me blocked so he could edit the article in the manner he wanted? I don't know the answer to that question - however - after his most recent reversion back to his preferred version (in spite of the discussion we had been having) it would seem so. But maybe I'm not looking at this objectively.

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warring And you are lynching Negroes (Result: Page protected)

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

For some time a couple of users keep restoring deleted unreferenced text and original research while refusing to discuss the objections in article talk page. Latest example: [22] . Please intervene. - üser:Altenmann >t 23:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

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

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

Comments:

Mike Filsaime article has been coming under constant vandalism/ mass removal. several editors undid vandalisms. Some include: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Hi.

There are couple of points here:

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

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

User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: Both blocked for 48h)

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

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

Diffs of reverts by User:Suitcivil133:

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

Diffs of reverts by User:SupernovaeIA

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To me this dispute is quite simple.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC) The references I have provided (which is much many more than she has provided btw) clearly state that for club football records purpose ICFC cannot be counted. The number one reason being?- It was not a open official tournament. Check its history and you see clubs like London XI, which is not even a UEFA/FIFA affiliated club. This tournament was a solely trade fairs friendly tournament meant to promote trade. The articles history log is also there. USer:Suitcivil is a well known Spanish owned catalonia based vandal who has been trying to skew up Barcelonas records with this unrecognized ICFC titles. If you check her edits, it is quite clear she is a fan and violates WP:Bias. This matter was closed with consensus a long time ago. Why are administrators just not viewing this? Anyways, it is worthless to talk with a pro barca vandal so I wont say more. References are there and Suitcivil references are froma unknown spanish based fifa page which doesnt prove anything. It has to say ICFC can be part of a UEFA affiliated club, otherwise it cannot be put. This was the consensus a long time ago if you check the very first talk archives. SupernovaeIA (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

* Blocked – for a period of 48 hours, the warrior whom I blocked last week is still unblocked; the other one blocked; the article fully protected for a week; it is regrettable that nobody responded in more than a day. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Page: Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34] and [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

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

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

Addendum - FCC has apologized and self reverted, and the third revert genuinely appears to have been accidental. FCC's content concerns are serious. I am not requesting a warning and don't believe one is merited in this particular case. -Darouet (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

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

• NOTE: Reviewing admin, please see edit warring report filed directly below this one for related edit warring between the same two editors. In fact, the other editor involved in this content dispute was edit warring at the article referenced here (why he also wasn't reported, I have no idea). This has also been noted below. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Note: should Justinw303 be blocked, removing access to his talk page might be a good idea.

Blocked - 2 weeks by User:Ponyo for disruptive editing. See ANI for the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of Justin303's reverts

1. [41]
2. [42]

Diffs of Joseph Prasad's reverts

1. [43]
2. [44]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

• Four articles - they have been edit warring at four articles today. Add this article and this article, as well.

Speaking of same shit, different day Winkelvi is trying to smear Joseph Prassad. 107.107.59.46 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Winkelvi, please do be careful to avoid any appearance of "piling on" or having a personal issue with any editor. This dispute is over for the time being, as can be seen by reading the above-referenced discussion User talk:Joseph Prasad#Stop. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

ATinySliver, I'm not sure reporting both editors for edit warring at two articles is piling on. They were edit warring at two articles almost simultaneously, that's the fact. Any admin reviewing the report above this one needs to be aware that there are two articles being disrupted by these editors, seemingly without any care by either that they are being disruptive. Justin303 I can understand to a degree because he's fairly new. Prasad, though -- he knows better and is still doing what he seems to always do: get pissed off someone disagrees with his edits and then edit wars over them. He's been warned time and again. After a six-month block and still doesn't stop the behavior? Sorry, but the only piling on I see happening is at least one of the editors being reported piling on the disruptive behavior. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: it very well may appear to the casual reader that you're saying "Both Editor 1 and Editor 2 are guilty. But especially Editor 2." We all should be careful to remember, in the end, that it's about the encyclopedia, not its editors—and even the appearance of something personal can be distractive. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose. Even so, editors who have been around longer and have been blocked numerous times for edit warring should know better. Myself (and you) included, yes? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. At the same time, I know how difficult divorcing myself from something can be, and I have been known to express frustration with those who can't. () Still, it doesn't hurt to just step back and keep an eye on something when it appears defused, then jump in if/when it fails. Cheers! 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is becoming rather absurd at this point. I strongly believe in second chances, third chances, and even fourth chances at a push. But should this report result in the blocking of both users, it will become Joseph Prasad's eighth block for edit warring, all of which have been attained within one calendar year. At what point do we just indefintley ban? How many AN3 reports, 24-72 hour blocks and ANI threads will it take? Upon being released from his block, Prasad made no attempt at continuing the discussion at Talk:Drake discography, most likely because the page had been returned to his preferred version and he saw no reason to discuss, unlike Justinw303 who at least attempted to present his findings. In this case, Prasad cannot blame Winkelvi and accuse him of coaxing him in to edit wars which is usually the story he presents. Prasad has been told time and time again to discuss instead of revert, revert, revert, and has taken absolutely no notice. It's becoming incredibly disruptive and down right annoying. SNUGGUMS, one of the blocks in Prasad's block log is accompanied with the summary "User has agreed to 3 month 1rr restriction and indefinite mentorship under User:SNUGGUMS" has there been any progress in your eyes with the user? Azealia911 _talk 22:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The mentorship ended as soon as he got revoked for going against 1RR. I feel that Joseph has gotten somewhat better and more cautious since his 6-month block by taking matters to talk pages, though am disappointed to see him slip back into edit warring habits (even if temporary). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I would remind the reviewing admin only that the dispute is defused for now, and blocks would strike me as punitive. I have warned Joseph Prasad that he is on his last legs with respect to content disputes; should that behavior resume, I too would recommend a permaban, however much reluctantly. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Martin IIIa reported by User:Stormwatch (Result: Stormwatch warned)

Page: Shockwave Assault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martin IIIa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]

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

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

Comments:

This dispute has come up before, and Martin IIIa just doesn't accept he's in the wrong. Here's my rationale again: the game's original release is Shock Wave, the expanded re-release is Shockwave Assault. Unless there is enough content specifically about the expanded version to grant it its own page, the article should be named after the original release, not the expanded re-release. Similar cases would be games like Unreal and Rune, whose articles are not titled Unreal Gold or Rune Classic. --Stormwatch (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Funny, I was planning on giving Stormwatch one last chance to stop his disruptive editing before reporting him here, but clearly he'd rather deal with the WP administrators. I love how he singles out Martin IIIa here, completely omitting my involvement in the issue; clearly his strategy is divide-and-conquer. Here's the scoop: Back in September 2014, Martin IIIa posted a merge proposal at Talk:Shockwave Assault. He tagged both the target page and the destination page, used the talk page templates, the whole nine yards. He held the proposal open for a whole month, during which it went completely unopposed, then closed the discussion and performed the merge. Stormwatch then reverted the merge within hours of his performing it, with no edit summary, and posted some flame bait on Martin's personal talk page. Naturally, Martin reverted him. Long story short, since then Stormwatch has repeatedly reverted both Martin and my edits with no edit summary, and aside from a (highly confrontational) post just a few hours ago, he has completely ignored our repeated directive to use Talk: Shockwave Assault. Also, you may have to review the article histories carefully to see this, but he actually shifts positions mid-dispute. First he was reverting Shockwave Assault to two separate articles, but now he's pulling for a single article at Shock Wave (video game). Reading his posts, he shows no awareness of having changed his mind - he just flat-out forgot which excuse he was using to antagonize other editors.

In between this, he has taken the time to (irony of ironies) report Martin three times for edit warring. On the first occasion, the responding administrator, Darkwind, opted to preserve Stormwatch's version of Shock Wave (video game) by blocking all editing from the article for six months. Martin posted this message to Darkwind's talk page, requesting an explanation for his blocking of the article and indications on how he was supposed to proceed with the dispute. He never replied. I'd like to believe that Darkwind wasn't simply abusing his power as an administrator, but I can't think of any alternate explanation, and Darkwind has turned down his first opportunity to provide one. I've notified him of this thread at his talk page, so hopefully he'll take the time to pop in here and relieve my suspicions.

If all the above still isn't enough proof that Stormwatch has not been acting in good faith, he apparently considers notifying an editor when you report him here to be optional; on the second occasion he gave Martin no notification at all, and on this occasion he used this happy little post for his notification.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've little to add to NukeofEarl's account, save that in addition to Shockwave Assault and Shock Wave (video game), Stormwatch has been carrying out this pattern of disruptive editing at Shockwave (disambiguation). I think I can succinctly summarize Stormwatch's behavior at these articles with a single observation: Despite this being his third time reporting on this noticeboard, he still doesn't have a single thing he can put after "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:".--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You are in the wrong. The merge you propose makes NO SENSE. Why can't you understand that? --Stormwatch (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Stormwatch is warned. He may be blocked if he makes any further reverts at Shockwave Assault or Shock Wave (video game), unless he has first obtained consensus for his changes on the talk page. Stormwatch doesn't appear to participate very much in discussions. He hasn't replied to anything on his own talk page since 2007. If he intends to work in contested areas, he has to be willing to negotiate. A previous complaint about the same dispute was filed in July 2015. At that time Shock Wave (video game) was fully protected by User:Darkwind. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

What kind of silly argument is that? Of course I don't answer, why waste time with that? If it's a warning about something I can fix, I just go there and fix it, if it's not I just let it be. --Stormwatch (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:104.254.90.19 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: )

Page: The X-Files (miniseries) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 104.254.90.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]
8. [54]
9. [55]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] (and diff of user talk notification of article talk section)

Comments:

User is well aware of article talk section, and has explicitly referred to it in their edit summaries, so is clearly wilfully ignoring invitation to discuss content. GRAPPLE ^X 17:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP is still at it, this time warring with other users, even going so far as to claim that one editor's actions were done "out of spite". [58] [59] [60]--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Dumudumbass reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

R v Elliott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "fixed misleading text"
2. 18:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "removed misleading information"
3. 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "This isn't tumblr. Fixed misleading information regarding legal outcome."
4. 18:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC) "nature of the accusation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing edit-warring by master. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Musclejam. Dr. K. 19:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note the account has been indef'd as WP:NOTHERE by John, and the WP:SPI linked to above was closed as confirmed. This can probably be closed without further action. — Strongjam (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:BJFLAHERTY606 reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: )

Page: Seán McManus (priest) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BJFLAHERTY606 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

While not all reverts by BJFLAHERTY are exact reverts to a prior version, they are all attempts to introduce wildly inappropriate, non-neutral, and promotional text to a page, including at least one case of WP:COPYVIO. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Julio Puentes reported by User:McSly (Result: Blocked)

Page

Objections to evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Julio Puentes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701871232 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
2. 02:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701870503 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
3. 02:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701870333 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
4. 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701869320 by Apokryltaros (talk) not accurate information"
5. 01:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701869087 by Isambard Kingdom (talk)"
6. 01:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701868631 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
7. 01:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 701868081 by Apokryltaros (talk) Sorry, but not unbiased"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */ reply"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: although the Julio Pentes's edits were WP:TEND and just plain wrong, they do fall under WP:NOTVAND since he did what he did because he earnestly believed that was somehow helping the site. Apokryltaros's edits contributed to Julio Puentes going over 3rr, so I'm splitting the block. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:111.95.123.207 reported by User:PK-JIN (Result: )

Page

Sentani Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps making edits on the page claiming that Air PNG operates out of the subject airport. This is false. Despite repeated attempts on my side to contact him using (1) the article talkpage and (2) the user's talkpage, the user keeps making the same edits without a sign of cooperation. PK-JIN (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:106.185.46.30, User:188.254.219.92, User:176.126.71.182 reported by User:Crovata (Result: )

Page: Talk:Kutrigurs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Sandilch (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Zabergan (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 106.185.46.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 188.254.219.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 176.126.71.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 185.8.60.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (New)

Previous version reverted to:

1. Kutrigurs [68] 2. Sandilch [69] 3. Zabergan [70] 4. Huns [71] (New)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Kutrigurs [72], 27 January 2016 - 188.254.219.92
2. Kutrigurs [73], 27 January 2016 - 176.126.71.182
3. Kutrigurs [74], 27 January 2016 - 106.185.46.30
4. Sandilch [75], 27 January 2016 - 106.185.46.30
5. Sandilch [76], 27 January 2016 - 176.126.71.182
6. Zabergan [77], 27 January 2016 - 106.185.46.30
7. Zabergan [78], 27 January 2016 - 176.126.71.182
8. Huns [79], 27 January 2016 - 185.8.60.69 (New, during the writing of this report)
9. Huns [80], 27 January 2016 - 4th revert (before was politely warned by User:Borsoka, but without success)
10. Huns [81], 27 January 2016 - 5th revert
11. Huns [82], 27 January 2016 - 6th revert (won't revert anymore this talk page, already done 3 within 24h)
12. Huns [83], 27 January 2016 - 7th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

check the talk pages Talk:Kutrigurs, Talk:Utigurs, Talk:Sandilch, Talk:Zabergan, Talk:Bulgars, Talk:Onogurs, Talk:Huns, Talk:Dulo clan

Comments:The disruptive edits are not focused on raising new questions and discussion, yet mis-use of talk page - to duplicate content (fringe theories), almost looks like editing of a separate article within the article. This same kind of edits (ie. also topic, behaviour (also personal attack on other editors), lack of signature etc.) previously (before the protection of articles, and block of user accounts and IP) was done by account socks, in beforehand listed articles and specific article's talk page, by blocked User:PavelStaykov, and (his) IPs:

93.152.143.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 188.254.217.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 84.238.240.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 130.204.142.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 46.40.112.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 188.254.217.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) among many.

We are dealing with personal agenda, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, and continous WP:SOCK, since March 2015. Someone need to start sockpuppet investigation. --Crovata (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Bardrick reported by User:emotionalllama (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]

User has been warned repeatedly: [89] and [90] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments: