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:Prasath94 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: no violation)

Page

Tamannaah filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prasath94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) to 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
   3. 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
   4. 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He continuously adds announced films to the table, when there should only be those films that are in production, thereby violating WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL in the process. This is all happening despite him already being warned once. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation as many of the diffs presented above are consecutive. However if the problematic edits persist, then a block may be required. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Sredina reported by User:Number 57 (Result: warned)

Page: Slovenian parliamentary election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sredina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sredina has repeatedly reinserted patently incorrect and error-strewn text into this article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Amends text so that the section now starts with an incorrect assertion ("The 88 members of the National Assembly are elected by two methods" – there are 90 members, and 88 of them are elected by one of the two methods) and contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors
2. Reinserts problematic text with claim that "it's correctly written"
3. Reinserts again
4. Reinserts again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discussion on user's talk page

No 3RR violation, but reverting patently incorrectly information into the article (especially after being told their text is contains numerous errors) needs addressing. Number 57 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
There are in fact 90 members of the NA, but the first paragraph is about the elections of 88 MPs who are elected differently, than 2 representatives of national minorities, elections of which are explained in the second paragraph of the section.

The last paragraph is written as it is written in the law, which does not state that there must be 35% of female, but 35% of candidates of each gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredina (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not able to comment on the merits of Sredina's edits, but they are clearly edit warring. @Number 57: are you asking for a temporary block of Sredina or would a warning suffice at this stage. @Sredina: do you agree to stop edit warring on this (or any) article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Just a warning for future conduct will do. Cheers, Number 57 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing. Editor has been formally warned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Gekaap reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ‎

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Sexists and rape culture enablers need not comment."
2. 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Okay. Here's your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault It is absolute idiocy to deny that this is sexual assault. Your sexist attitudes do not change the facts."
3. 17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "The contestant does not deny she kissed him against his will. To the contrary, the contestant said he would not have given permission if asked. Just because a 19 year old doesn't know what sexual assault is, does not mean it ceases to be sexual assault."
4. 12:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "This is no mischaracterization. A twitter feed does not define sexual assault."
5. 21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830807381 by General Ization (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Katy Perry. (TW)"
2. 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Katy Perry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor refuses to discuss on the article's Talk page and repeatedly inserts improperly sourced claim reflecting their personal POV. General Ization ^Talk 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Gee, how do I report your for edit warring? You are continually deleting well sourced information, for no reason other than trying to enforce a personal POV, which is FACTUALLY UNTRUE!!!! I've sourced the Washington Post, and have even directly copied statements from other wikipedia entries (along with sourcing). If the info is poorly sourced when I include it on one page, you should be going to delete it from other pages. But that's not what you care about. You only care about enforcing a particular POV in once specific instance, despite the fact that it plainly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Edit warring + BLP issues + attacks on other editors NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LICA98 reported by User:RafaelS1979 (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:2017–18 Serie A table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:LICA98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 9:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC) ‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:42, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
2. 14:23, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
3. 14:05, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
4. 9:51, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎

Comments:

LICA98 has added unsourced material on Template:2017–18 Serie A table. I asked him on his talkpage here to source what he adds to the template but he hasn't replied. He has reverted four times in less than 24 hours and the current revision on the page is his as of 14:42 UTC 18 March 2018, located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A_table&oldid=831095432. I can't revert to the old version because I have already reverted three times; an administrator or another wikipedian must revert to the old version. The informations that LICA98 added are assumptions and are unsourced per WP:SOURCE and should be deleted or sources must be added. RafaelS1979 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. LICA98 was warned a week ago about edit warring and the 3RR rule, so no excuses there. You were correct to stop reverting and wait for assistance from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Crook1 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:04, 18 March 2018‎ (UTC)
2. 14:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 14:39, 18 March 2018‎‎ (UTC)
5. 16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC) - after a request to stop war-editing was posted on user's Talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
2. User_talk:Olonia#3RR policy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User_talk:Olonia#Stop adding your personal website as a reference
2. User_talk:Olonia#3RR policy

Comments:
User:Olonia as well as User:Regia Marina is the same person, not sure if this is legal here but my guess it's not or definitely should not be. I suspect the Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 is him too judging from the stylistics of the message left on my Talk page. User contributes nothing new, just editing slightly paragraphs and removing perfectly fine references and trying to promote his own personal website instead. As far as I know he is not a renowned historian so not only this unacceptable practice but simply immodest. From his last message he left om my Talk page it is clear he is only here to pick up fights and not to contribute anything productive. After I left a message on his page asking him to stop, he immediately edited the article again. And then again.

Admits he copies and edits out of spite. In response to My message he admits spite. Crook1 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Both editors Olonio and Crook1 have been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. No violation by RegiaMarina although if you can present any evidence (when your block expires) that they are the same person as Olonio (preferably at WP:SPI then the situation will be assessed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F reported by User:Fcrary (Result: blocked)

Page: Skylab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm afraid I'm new at this and can't get the links to previous versions and difference pages to work. This is over Skylab being the "first" versus "only" US space station, as described in the first sentence of the lede.

This editor in question has changed this back six times today and a couple of times yesterday. The description of an early revert of his changes requested moving this to the talk page, but he seems to have ignored that suggestion. Fcrary (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.115.121.50 reported by User:N1CK3Y (Result: blocked)

Page: Cantus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.115.121.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Comments:
This has done nothing else than reverting the same edits on this article 8 times on a single day. Need I say more? N1CK3Y (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm getting the strong impression that Mad_Duke, FGordillo, and 178.148.162.199 were brought by offsite canvassing, that their only purpose is adding the material to promote an organization they're involved in. Yes, the 89.115, did violate WP:3RR, but we don't tolerate this sort of organized WP:ADVOCACY, either. This is why I protected the page instead of blocking.

@Mad Duke, FGordillo, and N1CK3Y: What is your involvement with Board of European Students of Technology? There's no pretending that Mad-Duke and FGordillo are uninvolved, so don't even try it. N1CK3Y, you do have prior edits in unrelated topics, but they're so few and rare that it's unusual that you knew to file a report for some apparently "random" content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, you are correct. We are alumni of the aforementioned organisation. I think. At least, I am. I do not know if one, both, or neither of the two other named contributors are currently members. I do know, though, that the IP that just got blocked is very much a current member. That member is not trying to prevent promotion but, rather, to ensure censorship. Whether the "controversial" statement stays in the article or not does not actually matter much to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@N1CK3Y: see WP:YESPROMO. It's very clear that alumni are trying to "make people aware" of that organization, which is promotion. If there was an independent source that established that BEST was noteworthy for their cantus activity, and the intro of the article mentioned noteworthy cantus-hosting organization, it'd be different. But as it is, it's just holding up BEST and only BEST as equivalent to entire countries. That is promotion, plain and simple. There may be some potentially comparable problems in the article, but that doesn't justify adding more. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:Fair is fair. I see you have protected the article. I agree with your decision. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, Mad_Duke here. All I've done was to put back the mention that they keep on deleting because from their PR standpoint (as an organization which organizes Cantus events) they don't want to be associated with this practice. That is censorship pure and simple. If you take a look, this started on 21:15, 15 May 2017‎ Dragosgaf who is a member of the organization. There is ample evidence that in this huge organization which covers whole of Europe Cantus is regularly taking place. My only involvement is thus adding back the content which was previously deleted @Ian.thomson:. So basically, you got this whole thing backward. Members of the organization are the ones who wish to delete the mention because they don't want to be associated and a few alumni are the ones who keep adding it back because it's a fact that it exists. I don't personally care for the mention of BEST in the article, but I became active after I've found out that the reason why they went and deleted something was because it doesn't work with their image which they are trying to promote. Organizations are not physical individuals and the Europe "right to forget" does not count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

See WP:YESPROMO. The edit war started when 178.148.162.199 added the mention of BEST to the article. It was not there originally. 178.148 was promoting the group, which goes against our policies. This has nothing to do with censorship or "right to forget." Honestly, the idea that you were called in to fight "censorship" of something the article didn't even mention until today is honestly really hard to believe. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Well, this is not a promotion. When a group that works in over 100 universities across Europe organizes this kind of event (Cantus) for decades already then it's a statement of fact. If you could help me how to prove it, without resorting to sticking "hundreds" of external links. The moment when a thing which can be proven to be deleted because someone wants to delete a mention because he is working in PR of that organization then it's called censoring. I can give you the proof of those intentions for the person who has deleted it for example. I'm surely not here to promote an organization I haven't been a part of for 10 years. comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

@Mad Duke: "Statement of fact" is not our standard, citing reliable sources (for this kind of thing, independent reliable sources) are our standard.

No evidence has come up to show that the IP who was removing things works for the PR of that organization, and you would need to be very careful in how you try to prove it. It is obvious that you have a conflict of interest with the organization. It is obvious that your account was registered solely in connection to that organization. There is no denying that you have tried to add a mention of that organization that was not there two days ago, in a way that equated that organization to entire countries, while not mentioning any other organizations that organize cantus activities, without citing any independent sources to show that those activities are noteworthy. To claim that you were not promoting but that the 89.115 is trying to censor the article on behalf of BEST is a Trump-esque level of denial and projection. If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, we will have to assume that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote BEST's activities. If you leave us with that assumption, it would only be reasonable for us to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I hereby reaffirm that I think the decision that was made is fair. Forsooth, adding BEST in this article explicitly does not serve any obvious purpose other than promotion. The goal posited by my comrade hereover has already been fulfilled somewhere else (albeit implicitly, which doesn't change a thing) and that page already has a link on the page being protected. N1CK3Y (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: It appears this edit war has actually been going on for nearly a year.[10] From what I can gather, both parties seem to have been sockpuppeting pretty repetitively ever since. All in all, this seems pretty WP:LAME to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course this edit war is going for a year. It just became better communicated lately. Also, threats of account deletion are lame. First, it's not unlike I don't have a new IP every 24hrs so that doesn't make any sense. If someone wants to do harm. He will do it. Also, expecting hard proof of BEST Cantus from independent sources (like there are news agencies that follow student drinking when nothing bad happens) is double standard because then this whole page can be deleted as well as all other mentions: "Belgian, Dutch, French, Baltic, Afrikaans student organisations, and fraternities. ". By the same logic BEST is bigger than some countries concerning the number of universities present. :) Mad_Duke (talk 00:43 CET - 20.03.2018. —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mad Duke: Blocks apply to the user, not just the account. Once you're blocked, your words it's not unlike I don't have a new IP every 24hrs so that doesn't make any sense. If someone wants to do harm. He will do it. have just given every admin the excuse to block any and all accounts restoring any mention of BEST to the Cantus article as one of your sockpuppets. Seriously, consider this your last warning: either you are here to help, or you can go to hell.

As for sourcing, in-depth coverage from independent sources are our standard, and if you don't like it, you should find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: So, you are threatening all articles containing BEST. because of so called actions (for which you have zero evidence) of one person writing under one account? Have you maybe thought about that I want exactly that. To completely destroy any mention of BEST on this "encyclopedia"? :D That would be a cool win. Then I will proceed to each and every other student organization pages. Pinging you in the process :D Oh, and sorry, but you don't know how the internet works. Every 24 hours (or every 5 minutes with a VPN) I can make a completely new account. Not that I feel like it. People actually need to work also hehe :) Also, this is an attack on me because you didn't answer about the inclusion of "Belgian, Dutch, French, Baltic, Afrikaans student organisations, and fraternities. ". Why are they included. I see no references to independent sources. in-depth especially :)

@Ian.thomson:, I'm FGordillo, I was part of the International Board of the organisation (BEST), and now I'm just an alumnus that cares about having proper and relevant information about BEST in Wikipedia. Cantus is being organised by BEST for years but they are not part of the main activity of the organisation, this is why I believe this reference doesn't belong to the Cantus Wikipedia page. I guess mentioning that Cantus is organised by Belgian student organisations is enough to understand the origins of Cantus and since there are no other organisations mentions I see no point on mentioning only one. The main activity of BEST is providing complementary education to students of technology. Cantus it's just a side activity that happens during some of our events. It's the first time I answer in this type of threads, feel free to adjust it or move it somewhere else if needed. FGordillo (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (CET)

User:Nichts0176 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Wu Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nichts0176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831138938 by Zanhe (talk)"
2. 16:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831066875 by Kanguole (talk)"
3. 14:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831059101 by Kanguole (talk)"
4. 13:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831025517 by Zanhe (talk)"
5. 06:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830679433 by Kanguole (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* "Uesian" */ comment"

Comments:

New single-purpose account edit warring to add poorly sourced WP:NEO to article, despite warnings and explanation of policies by Kanguole and myself. Zanhe (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

A cautiously editted information about an alternative name of the key word of this title has been deliberately deleted again and again. Should it not be me to blame but you? my completion was added according to the original structure of the text and it belongs to a paralell information to the others. It reflects a new knowlege about this entry word and has its source. Zahhe asked for source, and I showed one. I see no reason why he still blame. Kanguole blamed of its neogism, but he should open his eyes to look and understand, that it is a new knowledge, not a new term to be inserted.

they think I am alone and they can bully me!

Nichts0176  —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:PZP-003 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1RR for two weeks )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Alliance for Securing Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PZP-003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Ok, this has gone long enough. Today:

1. [12] (edit summary displays clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach)
2. [13] (edit summary contains false [[WP:NPA|personal attacks)
3. [14]
4. [15]

Slightly outside of the 24 hour window: 5. [16] 6. [17] 7. [18]

Edit warring on a related page:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [22] First discretionary sanctions notification
• [23] First warning about edit warring.
• [24] Second discretionary sanction notification
• [25] Discretionary sanctions block
• [26] 3RR warning
• [27] warning about personal attacks

The user was blocked just two days ago. They resumed their disruptive behavior immediately after the previous block expired.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] (though there are other issues)

Comments:
PZP-003 received numerous warnings, advice and suggestions. They did not heed any of these. They continued with edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND even after getting blocked for it. They also started making personal attacks and attacking other users: [29], [30], [31] and has continued making these despite being asked several times to stop.

This isn't just a edit warring or even a discretionary sanctions problem - it's pretty much WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

notification [32]

• Not sure how to respond to all of this (I am relatively new here, been editing for about 2 months). All I can ask is that any user/admin who may want to block me read through Volunteer Marek's posts/edits and it will become pretty clear what is going on here. He exaggerates and literally just makes things up because I am adding factual NPOV/RS information into articles that he disagrees with politically. Other users have backed me up on this claim (if you need to verify that just read through my talk page and other talk pages I have posted on). PZP-003 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am done making any more edits for today (besides here or on talk pages) so I will not be reverting any controversial edits (even though all of the edits I have made are RS and NPOV contributions intended to add balance to articles which are heavily slanted in one direction) for at least the next 24 hours. I never thought that other users would be able to bully and censor editors by constantly (and selectively) saying "take it to talk page for consensus" or "obtain consensus first", but apparently in the age of Trump this kind of thing is allowed to flourish on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZP-003 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved in the content issues. Have tried to counsel the editor on their UTP and mine, and I've seen no actual evidence that my words have had any effect. Without looking any deeper at the situation, the thing that jumps out at me is I do not "lack competence" above, from an editor with 146 edits. Of course they lack competence, they have 146 edits. I have stressed on both UTPs that it takes years to become even halfway competent, so apparently they didn't believe me. I would like to see them say convincingly that they understand that they do in fact lack competence in virtually every Wikipedia area except the basic operation of their editor of choice. Without that understanding, there is little chance of significant improvement in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Propose site ban.

• • This editor has behaved very badly, and it has not responded to a boatload of guidance and advice (see its talk page). It seems to lack the interest or competence to read Policies and Guidelines. This account is an SPA only interested in POV-pushing edits. I suggest it be banned, and if this user reconsiders and wants to come back with a new ID and a fresh start, good luck next time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• • • The same exact things could be said about editor SPECIFICO (esp. in regard to POV-pushing and SPA). Also I have read through the WP guidelines. And I do not "lack competence"...I'm simply frustrated and outraged at the blatant censorship going on here which is being perpetuated on numerous articles by users like yourself, Volunteer Marek, and a few others. PZP-003 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation here but it's difficult to tell because the diffs are out of order. PZP-003's edits, in order, with timestamps:

1. 14:43, 18 March 2018
2. 20:23, 18 March 2018
3. 00:23, 19 March 2018
4. 01:23, 19 March 2018

The Previous version reverted to has timestamp 00:55, 19 March 2018 and appears to be a revert of PZP-003's 3rd edit. Did you link the right version or was this an addition followed by 3 reverts? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither article is under discretionary sanctions yet so we won't be talking about topic bans here. Trying to decide between a strong warning or block. Volunteer Marek, the earliest diff was part of two edits - one that added info and one that removed accidentally added info. The content that remained seems to be new, yes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by "earliest diff" you mean this one. The content is not new. Rather it's a restoration - a revert - of the same material, just slightly changed in wording. The original content was added here by an account called User:POLITICO. The text was removed by User:Calton here. It was restored, in slightly altered form by PZP-033 in the diff provided. The text under dispute is basically the same - it specifically mentions Bill Kristol and Clinton advisors.

Strangely, even though the original text was added by a different account (and then restored by PZP-033), the person being quoted, Matt Taibbi, was brought up on the talk page by PZP-033, not "POLITICO" [33]. Check user maybe needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see a different sources and different content. POLITICO's (sourced to The Intercept and Rolling Stone) is:

• Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized the ASD, calling it "the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials, and the world's most militant, militaristic, neocons." Matt Taibbi criticized the organization saying they "represent an unpleasantly unsurprising union of neoconservative Iraq war cheerleaders like Bill Kristol and Beltway Democrats like would-be Clinton CIA chief Michael Morell."

PZP-003's (sourced to The Nation) is:

• Other advisory council members include neoconservative political analyst and commentator William Kristol and Hillary Clinton foreign-policy adviser Jake Sullivan.

James J. Lambden (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is correct. What Volunteer Marek posted about my edit is untrue. The edit I restored throughout today is not the same edit that a different user POLITICO restored yesterday. Volunteer Marek seems to be obfuscating things again. PZP-003 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, for the purposes of edit warring, the text does not have to be identical. We look for similar content. You understand that, right? For example, "Mary had a little lamb" would be considered the same as "Mary owned a lamb when she was 13.". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that however the 3 edits I reverted today[34] are not the same as the one from yesterday. The one from yesterday[35] dealt with critcism of ASD and the one from today was simple RS info on current advisory board members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZP-003 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: You've had a pretty rocky start in this area. You say you're done for today. How are you going to change the way you edit tomorrow so we don't end up here again? Will you agree to a voluntary WP:1RR on articles for two weeks? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and several other users I can name (who are all very aggressive and biased with removing NPOV/RS info properly inserted into articles) also agree to it, then I am OK with it. If that is something you are unable to do what are my other options? PZP-003 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A warning that any more reverts without gaining consensus on the talk pages may result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying - that if I revert w/o consensus on ANY article I will be automatically blocked? How long will the block last? The warning on discretionary sanction pages states "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article". So are you saying that I can't revert even once? That seems extremely harsh if that is what you mean. PZP-003 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: I'm saying you may be blocked. The admin handling any future reports (and it may be me) will take into account this warning when deciding to block and if so, for how long. There are no options here that will allow you to edit the way you have been doing. If you don't want to accept any solution that will curtail your reverts, there's always the option of a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

How long will the block last? PZP-003 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to understand that your belief that other editors are "very aggressive and biased" has no relevance. If other editors object to your edits, you need to open a talk page discussion and explain why you believe your edit improves the article, and work to reach consensus that it does. If that consensus rejects your proposed edits, you're not entitled to keep reverting them because you disagree with their conclusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

72 hours. That should give you enough time to closely observe how discussion progresses with these types of articles (one of which I've added 1RR to). But really, a voluntary WP:1RR on all articles for two weeks (observing any extra restrictions already present on an article of course) is probably the best option for you here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK I will agree to the voluntary 1RR for 2 weeks I guess if you think that is more helpful. PZP-003 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, the now-blocked (for name reasons) POLITICO restored the same text that PZP-003 added and then edit-warred (and was blocked for) [36] [37] [38]. This was POLITICO's second edit ever, and was done while PZP-003 was blocked. So maybe a checkuser should weigh in if PZP-003 is going to claim its not him. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record what Calton is claiming above is incorrect (he/she lies and obfuscates in a similar way that Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO frequently do). As James J. Lambden clarified, the POLITICO revert text was different than the text I reverted prior to that during an edit war. PZP-003 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks. Your reaction makes the need for a checkuser's attention imperative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

They are not "personal attacks". Calton literally lied/obfuscated...the same way users like you do throughtout WP - you bully and threaten people (like you just did again right above this edit) and you remove any NPOV/RS info you disagree with and that doesn't suit your political agenda (you even admit to this at the top of your own talk page) PZP-003 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks is exactly what they are. Calton didn't lie about anything, and neither did I. Calton pointed out that a similar edit was made by a different account during the time of your block. What exactly is untrue about that? Similarly, I've asked you several times to either stop accusing me of lying or provide diffs which prove it - you haven't done that and continue to persist in your attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here it is, please don't ask me again: Calton wrote that I: restored the same text, he did not point out a similar edit. He did this to intimidate and try to open a checkuser or get me banned. You all lie in order to censor users you disagree with and further your obvious political agenda, this should be clear to anyone who analyzes your edits. Why admins allow this nonsense and BS to flourish on WP is beyond me. PZP-003 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

BS. Your failure to absorb, understand, and believe what I've already explained shows you are not AGF. I already explained to you that it is what RS say, not my personal political POV, that drives my editing. If an edit is proper and based on RS, I'll fight to help the editor trying to include it, even if it differs from my personal POV. You don't seem to understand how that works, and I doubt it would do any good to explain it again. You are a classic edit warrior, treating Wikipedia as your battlefield. You won't last long. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003 agrees to a two-week WP:1RR restriction on all articles. This does not negate any other restrictions (e.g., consensus required) that have been placed on articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ankurc.17 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: warned)

Page: 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankurc.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talkpage diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff <This was a revert of another user, AFTER the discussion was started.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link User ignored it and reverted

Comments: Ankurc.17 keeps inserting coloured text for teams progressing/eliminated from the tournament, even though I've pointed out on their talkpage that this is against the consensus at WP:MOSACCESS and WP:COLOR NOT to do this. Their last edit to the article now goes to a personal attack and continues to revert, without any sign of a discussion (my talkpage note was reverted). They seem to believe for it to be removed, that I must do it across all articles with this colouring! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The user who goes by the name of Lugnuts has been bullying people. This is not the first time he has had issues with me and for a simple reason he can't stand anyone who doesn't follow his. Lugnuts is a bully who got what he deserves. He would unnecessarily delete info stating lack of sources but won't ever put reasons for his additions. He has also deleted articles and then added them back under his own name to simply get his article count running.

[[39]] - That's just one example of personal attack this so called Lugnuts has done.

Ankurc.17 continued to revert and argue in edit summary rather than in the discussion created on talk page. Seems they have now reverted back to uncontroversial version now. Removing similar report belw, as it is covered by this Spike 'em (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't knew that bullies can gang up so qucikly. Anyways Like Spike said I have reverted my edit and made my point on the talk page

So anyone who disagrees with you is a bully? You took no part in the discussion on the talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As the user has now self-reverted I will close this report with a warning not to edit war in future. Any resumption may be met with a block. I have also warned the user against making personal attacks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologies if I am being rude right now but you might as well block me permanently. I will not stand against anyone bullying and since no action against lugnuts has been taken I do not believe that proper justice can be handed/

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Closed)

Page

Jessica Chastain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "The RfC isn't closed and you can't just ignore process and say "I'm going to put my favorite picture in, so there." If you do this again, I'm opening an ANI case. Subverting RfC is serious"
2. 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "You can't close in favor of your own RfC! That a major violation of process. Also, we don't count votes, and closes are done after 30 days generally by an admin."
3. 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "ou are now at the verge of WP:3RR. One more and I'm reporting you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jessica Chastain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */ format"
2. 16:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */ cmt"
3. 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"
4. 16:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"
5. 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"

Comments:

Began an RFC following an edit-war by the user. 6 editors voted against his preferred choice, following which I changed the image back to the original in good faith, since the article will be on the main page in the next few days (as I stated in the talk page). But instead of respecting consensus, he has begun another edit war. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You are listing two reverts. I'm about to initiate a case showing your four reverts, and the fact you're not waiting for the RfC to close but but unilaterally inserting your favorite image. Subverting an RfC and not following process is not the way Wikipedia works. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not unilateral at all. 6 editors disagreed with your choice and agreed on using the original image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 and Tenebrae: Any chance you two would stop edit warring if the photo in the article when it was promoted to FA was used? [40] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I began the RFC in good-faith, without warring. But don't you think 6 vs 1 should be respected? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'd really like is for the edit war on a soon-to-be TFA to stop without blocking anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with the original image or the one that was used when it was promoted to FA, as long it's not terrible. I'd hate for my work on the article to be ruined by the use of a terrible quality image when featured on the main page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you mean this, I'm OK with it. There's a larger issue here, however, and that is an editor completely undermining the RfC process. A nominator can hardly declare in favor of himself ... particularly after just three days! If nominators can simply do that — without even asking an admin to see if WP:SNOWBALL applies, which after three days and a small number of editors is not so in this case — then why have an RfC process at all. Subverting RfC so brazenly and defiantly needs to be seriously addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no subversion. You undermining the opinion of the majority in favour of your own preference is what needs to be addressed. I repeat, not one person voted in favour of your choice. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already said that consensus is not a matter of votes. Do I need to link to that? And after three days and a small number of editors, there is no consensus. Finally, the proper procedure would be to have asked an admin if it were ready to be closed yet. You can't just close an RfC in favor of YOURSELF. Seriously, dude. That is the definition of subverting the process.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is the matter of arguments, and there were plenty that agreed to use the original image. If you refuse to listen to the opinion of others, then that's something you need to work on. ASAP. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is not up to you, the nominator, to decide in favor of yourself. That's the way dictatorships work — not Wikipedia. If you believe there's consensus after three days and a small number of editors, then you ask an admin to close. You don't go vigilante and take the law into your own hands. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely not upto you to slyly favour your preference over the original image either. The original one stays until you garner consensus to change it. And not ironically, the consensus on talk page so far is against your choice. So, there you go. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither of you behaved particularly well. As far as I can tell, the current image was added February 6th. It was changed multiple times over the last few days and each time the change was disputed. Tenebrae, at the point you should have left the photo alone and waited for consensus to form. Krimuk2.0, I understand that time, while usually not a factor, plays an important part here. You should've asked an uninvolved admin to step in before your four reverts. What I suggest is that an admin can judge if clear consensus has emerged in two days time, before the article appears on the front page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I'll respect the opinion of an uninvolved admin. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note No more edit warring over the photo until RFC is closed. Any reverts or re-reverts may result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine and I certainly accept your judgment, NeilN. In the meantime, given both he and I agreed to your proposal for that previous, non-contentious image, would it be possible for you to insert that? Otherwise, letting an RfC nominator unilaterally declare his position victorious makes a mockery of the RfC process. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You really need to get over these childish whims of "victory" and "loss". The better image should be used. Period. This is not a battlefield and neither of us are here to win or lose. My priority is the betterment of the article, one which I was responsible for making an FA. If you want to win at something, play a sport, because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, says the person who thinks the rules don't apply to him. You serious lack a sense of ethics.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't know me, so stop with the personal attacks. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor points out objective facts — that you did four-revert edit-warring and that as an involved editor you broke the rules (by definition unethical) and declared an RfC closed in your favor — and you call that an "attack"? Wow. Just admit, please, that you blatantly broke Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, which is the plain, objective truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Guys, please, I don't understand why this interaction between two long-standing valuable members of the community is full of vitriol. Is there some past history I'm not aware of? Can you not just accept that both of you could have handled things better and move on? You've both had your say about the photo - let others continue the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Note. See above report)

Page: Jessica Chastain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41] by one editor, [42] by another.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43] Revision as of 07:43, 19 March 2018. I reverted to the extant version and wrote: "You can't close in favor of your own RfC! That a major violation of process. Also, we don't count votes, and closes are done after 30 days generally by an admin."
2. [44] Revision as of 16:25, 19 March 2018
3. [45] Revision as of 16:29, 19 March 2018
4. [46] Latest revision as of 16:31, 19 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]. I would have done this on his talk page, but he made the fourth revert too quickly.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jessica Chastain#Infobox image

Comments:

An editor cannot unilaterally decide in favor of himself in an RfC he initiates. And the RfC has only gone on for three days. It has not been closed, and his actions subvert the entire reason we have n RfC process. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not unilateral at all. 6 editors disagreed with your choice and agreed on using the original image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been three days. That is in no way, shape or form enough time for the nominator, of all people, to declare consensus. The proper thing would be to have asked an admin to close it. Though I'm sure an admin would have said, "After three days and just this many people? No." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been three days and not one person voted in favour of your choice. If this is your way of pushing your individual choice, then it's just not going to work. Sorry. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already said that consensus is not a matter of votes. Do I need to link to that? And after three days and a small number of editors, there is no consensus. Finally, the proper procedure would be to have asked an admin if it were ready to be closed yet. You can't just close an RfC in favor of YOURSELF. Seriously, dude.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not close the RFC. I listened to the majority opinion and acted in good-faith. If you don't want to respect the opinion of others, you are free to do so. But don't edit war. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-war? You are the one with four reverts. We generally wait for four reverts before filing a 3RR. That's what I did. But you seem to believe the rules don't apply to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that's the feeling I get from your refusal to see the point of view of everyone on the talk page who disagreed with you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You can feel whatever you want. But I'm not the one who went four reverts, you edit-warring rule-breaker.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for an excellent insult. However, it is not upto you to slyly favour your preference over the original image. The original one stays until you garner consensus to change it. And not ironically, the consensus on talk page so far is against your choice. So, there you go. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not one but two editors reverted your image, and yet you threw a temper tantrum and said things were going to go your way without asking for an admin close the way we're supposed to, and then edit-warred through four reverts. You make a mockery of the RfC process and rampantly edit-war. Those are not the hallmarks of either a good Wikipedian or a mature adult. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't know me, so please don't assume whether I am a "mature adult" or not. That's bordering on a personal attack, and any "good Wikipedian" will refrain from doing so. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I know your actions and your behavior, and what I see is someone who acts as if they're above the rules, and who threw an edit-warring temper tantrum.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note See above report NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:185.40.134.3 reported by User:HanotLo (Result: blocked)

Page: Business Initiative Directions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.40.134.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
Hello. I have tried resolving this matter on the talk page but I don't think there is anything more I can do as they have continued to revert it. I have never submitted an edit warring report before so please tell me if there is anything I did incorrectly. HanotLo (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I had reverted this first, too. The removed citations might actually not be reliable, though, and the article's talk page finally contains an explanation. The user has seen the warnings on their talk page and followed my request to explain the situation on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, please read what they wrote on the talk page, they are being very rude, and are not following WP:RS or WP:V. OCCRP is a reliable source.

1. They are using original research to support removal of reliable sources, "I have gone through all information by award winners, they have never paid for the awards"[57]
2. They are very combative and rude, "Hi. Reasonably sourced? Seriously? Can we use some logic?"[58]
3. They are lying in their revert summaries about the talk page, "The organisation which wrote the article being cited admitted their research did not show 100% factual about their finding. I have stated on the talkpage"[59]. They have never mentioned this on the talk page and the source doesn't mention this either. HanotLo (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

About 8 reverts in total. Blocked 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Enterprise Explorationist reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Originally [60], now [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63] - After which, user was asked to address on their talk page to address problems with the edit
3. [64] - Marked as minor
4. [65] - After templated 3rr warning.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] - user talk page, but still.

Comments:

User doesn't appear interested in discussing their WP:FRINGE edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 reported by User:Crook1 (Result: )

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 Special:Contributions/93.65.5.225 Special:Contributions/2.35.55.62 Special:Contributions/2.35.52.252

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:16, 19 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Comments:
A clone of User:Olonia. Edited the same page after being banned from his work/study IP.

I'm asking for a global ban, reverse his last edit and protect the page. Crook1 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mujdeda reported by User:Mélencron (Result: Blocked)

Page

Forza Italia (2013) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "sry i must finish this war"
2. 23:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "that ip wasn't me"
3. 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[68]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Flag in infobox (resumption of unilateral edit-warring after block)

Comments:

Immediate resumption of edit warring with little engagement (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive363#User:Mujdeda reported by User:Impru20 (Result: blocked)), warned on talk page for a second time here by Impru20 (talk · contribs). Also see article history for obvious edit warring while logged out. Mélencron (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be also noted that a sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mujdeda) was filled several days ago because of Mujdeda's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block. Not only may he have evaded such a block, but he has resumed his edit warring behaviour from his own account once the block was lifted. Impru20 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Piznajko reported by User:AveTory (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [69] [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79] [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81] [82] [83]

Comments:
The user has been involved in vandalism and edit warring on Mikhail Bulgakov's page since early March and till this day. He keeps adding non-neutral information to the lead which doesn't belong there, as well as to a separate section currently named Views on Ukraine which I created after some debate. Mostly aggressive propaganda that condemns every mention of Ukraine, Ukrainian language or Ukrainian nationalists in two of Bulgakov's works (including fictional characters and Bulgakov's absolutely unrelated thoughts on Kiev during his visit after the Russian Civil War) using such words as "imperialistic", "ukraniophobic", etc. and lines such as "Bulgakov, like most Russians of his time, condemned Ukraine's independence movement", linking to the works of mostly ethnic Ukrainian researches that appeared after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

As I tried restructuring the text to fit Wikipedia rules on neutrality, original research and sources by adding quotes from the articles and Bulgakov's own works (since many of the scholars are biased to the point they change Bulgakov's original text to fit their agenda), Piznajko keeps reverting all edits, inclduing the fixes made to googlebook links, claiming that it's me who is reverting and deleting "constructive edits". You can see an example in one of the latest edits. Currently the section looks like an unstructured mess full of repeated abuses and one-sided accusations that have little to nothing to do with the topic. AveTory (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)