Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:X.equilibrium.x reported by User:BethNaught (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Parliament of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: X.equilibrium.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602098318 by BethNaught (talk)"
11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC) ""
11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602095187 by Argovian (talk)"
11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "If what you believe is true, then what exactly is a legislative body and what is is responsible for? I would advise against wasting any more of your time perusing illegitimate claims"
10:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600474465 by Argovian (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Parliament of the United Kingdom. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has reverted several times on a contested edit he made. Has also added invalid CSD templates at Civil law (common law) [1], also edit warring there. BethNaught (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, someone got lucky there. RHaworth just blocked for 24 hours; I was pondering a block for a week to indefinite. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen someone get blocked for, and I think the next block, should it happen, should be for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Capmo reported by User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom (Result: nada)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=601917675&oldid=601912603

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:

I edited the IPA for Portuguese page afterwards to make sure it was understood why I was marking it that way. A sound file in the dark ell section of the alveolar lateral approximant article shows a standard Brazilian pronunciation of /li/.

It has sourced content that Brazilian Portuguese uses to make very doubly articulated phones for this context of /l/ in particular, what is unusual for about every other language. (in English, for example, you will have clearer - less doubly articulated - ells before /i/, /ɪ/ and other front vowels, and darker ells before /u/, /ʊ/ and other back vowels, reflecting their "palatal" and "velar" mouth positions respectively.) Since these guidelines are supposed to help English speakers (or Anglophones) get how Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation works, I guess it's a very significant detail to be added.

Previously, I had already to revert a change by a user not respecting that the sole guideline for Brazilian Portuguese adopts the /ti/ → [tʃʲi] palatalization as standard, given how – alike the velarized ell issue – people who speak largely substandard registers of Brazilian Portuguese (a few spots of rural folk in Southern Brazil, rural and a tad lot of urban in Northeastern Brazil) do not have these phonological features. Still, people who have my palatalization of /S/ (speakers of dialects such as these of coastal/urban Rio de Janeiro state, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, and Belém, Pará) represent an equally large fraction of Brazilian Portuguese speakers, do speak registers much closer to the Brazilian standard (hell, Rio de Janeiro is the state capital after Vitória, Espírito Santo to have a dialect closest to it) but still we do not push for all IPA for Portuguese transcriptions in each sinle article have double pronunciation guidelines just because we have our "s" at the end of syllables getting a "x" sound and we feel bad for being an underrepresented minority or something of that sort.

As such, I regard it as pointless to have such kind of discussion. It's a long-established guideline. If people want Northeastern pronunciations be represented – it is more likely that they would end up getting something even closer to Rio de Janeiro's pronunciation if the status quo is changed anyway, given how Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese recommends one to use the Brazilian pronunciation closest to that used in the European nation of Portugal for linguistic unity and ease of Anglophone comprehension issues –, they should go to the talk page of WP:IPA-for-PT and get a new consensus before.

I am not considering neither user here as having bad faith in intent, given how Capmo showed signals they didn't see my newer edit on Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese. Still, we can't keep reverting each other, for everybody knows it is regarded as disruptive. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm expected to reply to this; as I see it, Srtª PiriLimPomPom is trying to push her own opinion on the subject in these articles. Her changes to Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician look like WP:OR and should also be reverted unless she's able to back them with undoubtedly reliable sources; the standard Brazilian Portuguese does not have the ɫ or the β sounds at all (nor does any local BP dialect as far as I'm concerned). —capmo (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol nope. Are you really versed in phonology? It's sourced in the dark ell section of the /alveolar lateral/ article. If you can't hear the difference between the Spanish/nordestino li and the paulistano/carioca one, you're not supposed to give opinion on this stuff.

The fricatives were not a change done first by me (it's the consensus accepted for months) and the top of the article Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese and Galician explain why they are there, it's supposed to help Anglophones learn Portuguese as a whole rather than being too specific about local Brazilian phonology (that'd be BTW hugely biased because I have [ɣ] for most positions of /g/ myself, as most of anyone from Rio de Janeiro and AFAICT São Paulo). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changes made by Srtª PiriLimPomPom are original resources, and he acuses capmo not be "versed in phonology" to justify himself instead of using sources.

There is also a problem of sock-puppetry here, Srtª PiriLimPomPom creates its account when he stopped to edit as Lguipontes because he made several edit wars against other editor in Portuguese related articles. PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it's a music, and the user PiriLimPomPom does absolutely the same things that Guilherme (Lguipontes) has did.--Luizdl (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it is an inside joke I have with friends from other part of the internet. I don't put my real name on the internet. Regardless, oh, wow... This is a fairly serious accusation, you will need evidence for that. What I doubt anyway, because Wikipedia got my email and I am fairly sure that I am the first person to use it so that it can be associated with my Wikipedia account.

Just because I generally agree with that guy that is no longer active here on various phonological details about my dialect and Brazilian Portuguese as a whole, that doesn't mean I have to be him. Are you seriously being that close-minded?

Furthermore, you are implying things about a person no longer active here. I browsed his talk page and found only a single instance of edit warring (it involved sockpuppetry, but with an IP and it seemingly wasn't malicious in intent). Just because you had some problems with his assertion that Brazilian Portuguese has Catalan-like lamino-alveolo-palatal sibilants (here), what both Canepari and a Brazilian source seemed to confirm (and I believe it since, well, I can hear the difference, and @Lfdder seemed to confirm they hear it as well), it doesn't mean he crossed the line with you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the term "music" isn't used in English AFAICT. It's song. And my English skills also contrast with Lguipontes' (not that I see an issue in that).

Investigating further... I saw that you have very little contributions here for the whole of 2014. It is weird how suddenly a user that is no longer active here would turn and say something about an issue with such pride in your own instincts. So I went to your Portuguese Wikipedia account and you are not very active much more there as well... Seeing your talk page, you seemed to have quite of a cordial discussion in Portuguese in your Lusophone Wikipedia talkpage with him, where he asked for your help with an issue concerning the very phonology that we are discussing now (the fourth last one, and it took place in early 2013). O.o Do you guys know each other in real life or anything? I am seriously curious what would be behind the reason of all this drama now.

"(O pós-palatal do inglês (como em Sean, Russia etc) é labializado? Como se eles ocorrem normalmente em sequencias de sibilantes com a vogal anterior fechada não arredondada? De onde você tirou isso?)" There are sources for that... http://www.martinetoda.org/publis/icphs2003toda.pdf just searching "labialized postalveolar english" in Google... BTW it could have been cited here. Seemingly you went to discuss what is and what isn't [ʃ] in that discussion about Brazilian Portuguese categorically lacking alveolo-palatals without a lot of background in it with information that Wikipedia itself lists (I've read it in forums that didn't even deal with linguistics). That is half as bad as OR and even so you wanted to accuse others of doing it just as wrong as you did. What the flying fish is happening here?! If there's anyone who looks like a puppet (and I'm not accusing anyone else), it's you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why has this been brought here? 3rr hasn't been breached and there's been no attempt at discussing it on the article's talk page. — lfdder 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it already. The guideline is clear, it's a consensus, and form the small fraction of information I did put there, it was sourced. It isn't something to be discussed. Furthermore, I didn't want nobody to reach 3RR because I don't want other people to be blocked. If they are reverting, it means that they are attempting to build something in their vision of correct. I'm new here and I thought it'd be a decent and okay thing to be done. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean there isn't something to be discussed? Your change has been reverted; there's obviously something to discuss -- even if that is to reiterate the consensus (if there is one). See wp:BRD -- when your 'bold' change has been reverted, it's generally expected that you don't revert the revert. It is expected that you talk it over on the article's talk page. — lfdder 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new section has been created, thanks. :) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Lfdder: thanks. I'm going to close this--after a. leaving a templated warning for both editors along with b. a hearty 'what the fuck?' (Pardon my Portuguese.) Is that what you two are fighting over? And Prilimpompom, do you need THIS many words for a simple edit warring charge--even before 3R is breached? And surely there should be more evidence than "someone's name is music" and a hint or two for a charge of socking. Let's close this and hope that this two can whistle their dixie on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, they're now discussing it over at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician (after I suggested it here). It seems to be often that people can't agree on transcriptions of Portuguese. — lfdder 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnGoodName reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: All warned)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601765388 by Aoidh (talk) thanks for finally joining us again on the talk page, it seems that consensus is against you though"
13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601882037 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your edit summary threats"
03:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602182230 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your specious arguments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There more reverts going back at least 3 days by this user so the pattern of edit war is clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (This comment was in response to this comment which was then removed) The previous consensus was against this edit, the edit is unsourced, misleading, and WP:UNDUE. Persistently inserting an edit is not the way to push changes on Wikipedia, especially persistent edit-warring by a SPA who has ceased even attempting to discuss the edit on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, looking at the edit history I didn't realize how much I had reverted that; thinking that I'm "right" is no excuse. I think I should step away from that article for a few days and see if any additional discussion pops up, which I'll do (additional discussion will hopefully happen per the WP:DRN discussion I've opened). - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning in a dummy edit summary, and I'll say the same thing here. @Aoidh and JohnGoodName: (and Hell in a Bucket to a lesser extent) if any of you revert again I will block you on the spot, take it to the talk page get a consensus ask someone else to make the edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Callanecc I find that to be a curious warning. I reverted once because of the edit war and the edit against consensus and I took it here as an outside editor that saw the problem was ongoing. That's a rather disturbing response and unwarranted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this was my way of avoiding fully protecting the article, it was primarily addressed at Aoidh & JohnGoodName, however since you had also reverted it wasn't fair or equitable not to let you know as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khimaris reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)

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

Time reported: 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

06:42, 31 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ Qualifiers are very important. Alexbrn's previous attempts at "simplifying" were biasing the article towards unjustifiable negative conclusions. A lack of studies does not mean ineffective...")
20:46, 31 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 602164554 by Alexbrn (talk) Nope, a negative bias is still a POV. Please use the talk page before you revert any further edits.")
20:58, 31 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 602166005 by Yobol (talk) Then say that there were no available trials of lipoic acid on dementia patients if you want to "closely match" the article. This is insane!")
03:45, 1 April 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */")
04:25, 1 April 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ per WP:ASF inline citation removed.")

Diff of warning: here

—Zad68 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Zad reported me but not Yobol nor Alexbrn for my good faith additions. We had a discussion going on the talk page. Yolbol accepted the addition of the review not finding any any randomized clinical trails as a reasonable. I added this information. Yolbol then reverted my post using WP:ASF as his reason. I accepted this and removed the inline citation. I'm afraid this report is unwarranted.

Further more, I would suggest that Zad68, being an administrator, should reacquaint himself with WP:BRD. I await further comments.Khimaris (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sage reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [2] (essentially this one, with a few subsequent minor changes by other users) [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] (and concurrent subsequent edits)
[8]
[9]

If you throw in a few hours on March 31, then you got a couple more reverts there too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: various warnings on user page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] and by other users [11]

Comments:

This is a brand new WP:SPA account (a check user would be nice here) which has been edit-warring on this page for several days. The user is inserting unencyclopedic rants and soapboxing into the article and citing it, first to a Facebook page, then to some blog. In the discussion s/he demands that other content in the article (this one sourced to Washington Times) be removed as well if he's not allowed to have his way on the article. Lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

He doesn't appear to want to assume good faith: "You guys are probably working together, I know there are many groups like this here [...] just further reveals you to be anti-Russian and trying to score some cheap anti-Russian propaganda points. "--Львівське (говорити) 07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. Notified under WP:ARBEE, since the user seems to be adding their personal POV regarding the Russian/Ukrainian quarrel. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:96.49.72.50 reported by User:FenixFeather (Result: )

Page: Arrow (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.49.72.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "I work on Arrow as a PA so I put May 2014 because Arrow season 2 ends in May 2014."
04:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 04:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) to 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
1. 04:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion concerning 96.49.72.50 edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Warnings available at User_talk:96.49.72.50 (for some reason, it's not showing up on Twinkle). Repeated vandalism, removal of content, and edit warring on this article. Continued to edit war even after the starting of a discussion on the talk page. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shvrs reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "what's your problem ? i have explained to you & even to Mr.Dougweller...then why are you repeating this type of reversions...this is not fair...please don't do it again...."
11:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "i have explained the reason & i hope you could understand..."
10:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "I have clearly explained about government's mentioning as Kshatriya and explained to dougweller and also to Joshua Jonathan for his mistake..what is your problem.."
09:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "i have explained to dougweller yesterday about that satyanarayana's reference and i have provided references from anthropological survey of india and also other references...so you are mistaken..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

11:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Raju. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

k then, i have provided explanation to dougweller(in his talk page) who is an administrator and for Joshua Jonathan for his mistake in Joshua Jonathan's talk page.Joshua Jonathan is repeatingly reverting the version created by me and then iam trying to protect it.I presume Sitush & Joshua Jonathan are unjustifiable in case of Rajus and i don't have faith in them.Please see the talk page of Dougweller and also talk page of Rajus from beginning.I am asking wiki administartors to conduct research on Kshatriya Rajus or Rajus with experts in history but not editors like sitush or Joshua Jonathan.Then truth will come to light that Rajus are Kshatriyas and how Rajus are mentioned as Kshatriyas by Government of Andhra Pradesh & India.Rajus are Kshatriyas but Sitush & JJ are trying to keep the word claims of Kshatriya status in Etymology.As i can't always follow & protect the sourced version by Anthropological references from being vandalised.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. However, Darkness Shines, I'm not crazy about your chronology above. You warned the editor on their page and one minute later reported them here, with a diff to that warning. I can't take your warning into account, and they haven't edited the article after it. I'm taking earlier warnings on their page into consideration, and therefore blocking for edit warring, but please be careful how you report on this page.

@User:Shvrs: I'm afraid the admins aren't going to conduct the research you request; that's not how the rule against edit warring works. Don't edit war even if you're sure you're right. It also doesn't make any difference that you "don't have faith in" Sitush and Joshua Jonathan, both experienced editors who're careful abut reliable sources. (That's a ~~policy~~ content guideline, please click on it and read.) On the contrary, I advise you to read the policy assume good faith. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about that Bish, twinkle only gives the option of posting your own warning, he had one on 10:08, 23 March 2014 from Sitush. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, OK, please disregard my grouching. I generally tell people they mustn't blame Twinkle for anything they do, but in this case I do understand, because Twinkle certainly makes the heavy lifting at this board (=the diff-collecting) lighter. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Probably time for a revert limitation on this editor per Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups as he has already been warned of discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, likely enough, but... I've replied on my page. I certainly wouldn't object if somebody else acts on your suggestion. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

User:R0745976409 reported by User:Kndimov (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18] Note: I made this just now. It's a shame dialogue wasn't tried already.

Comments:

I happened to stumble across this edit war between User:R0745976409 and User:Pietaster. User R0745976409 has made his account for the sole purpose of editing the one page and to engage in an edit war. I have not intervened in this war but have notified the users. -- Kndimov (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. I blocked R0745976409 because their blanking appears to be more disruptive, but, Pietaster, you didn't go about this in the right way. I'm not familiar with the article. In particular, it's hard for me to verify foreign sources. It would have been better to report the user rather than edit-war with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr Marmilade reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr Marmilade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Renewed Army ground offensive */"
19:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602304806 by The Four Deuces (talk) As Eko just said, it is not your place to determine whether a source is reliable or not with your opinion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

22:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* World Tribune */ Cmt"

Comments:

The article is under a 1RR restriction. The second revert is the restoration of the same content already removed, for some reason Dr Marmilade thinks that is not a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the information was already up and you took it down, then I put it back up, then you took it down again, wouldn't that make you equally guilty of edit warring? Also, how do you defend yourself when a user reports you? Is there some type of mediator or "court" decision? Which administrator is in charge of this case? Are those lists that Darkness Shines has up there offical charges, or his own claims. Also, how do penalties work on Wikipedia. Can a user report another whenever they feel like doing so? If an administrator could answer these questions for me, that would be very helpful. Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator who comes along will decide, and I have not violated the 1RR restriction, reverting sockpuppets is an exemption. If you think I am wrong, feel free to file a report on me. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that any random administrator can make a judgment in a split-second, without any review at all. Also, I am not a sock puppet. Finally, If I go and remove the edit, does this case go away or does a moderator still see it? Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you self revert then you have not violated 1RR and I will obviously withdraw the report. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: Discretionary sanction imposed)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Apr 1 17:32 (sequential)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning from previous day, 3rr notif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ongoing

Comments:
User was reported and blocked for the exact same behavior and exact same article the day prior. After 24 hour block ended, proceeded to pick up where it was left off. User also seems to be having fun reverting & blanking content out of spite (personal assessment based on his tone in the edit summary) --Львівське (говорити) 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of spite?" Do you even see what you're doing? Any admin who's been involved in the past few days should immediately be suspect to this.Solntsa90 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had an appeal related to the Ukrainain/Jewish article topic denied earlier (or today)...does it have anything to do with the fact that my words when quoted or used by admins to demonstrate a case against you had something to do with it possibly? I'm not quite sure, because I reverted vandalism, otherwise, I didn't exactly revert anyone's legitimate edit, so I think I'm staying within the 3RR rule (which I'm not even sure it applies to me, since I don't have sanctions against me).

As for my revert that you say was "out of spite", you had no source for it at the time; you have since located a Pravda.Ru source, but before that, you had no source attached to it whatsoever.

And if you scroll to the bottom of the Yatsenyuk talk page, you'll see me working it out with a fellow editor, not simply "edit-warring". There is no edit-warring, just me revert vandalism, and compromising on the talk page. Let's be honest, you get grudgeful against users, as anyone can see through to your talk page history and comments regarding others. I'm not sure what I'm even being reported for, to be honest.

so uh...what is this about again? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for WP:3RR, which does apply to you, as you are not above the rules. What you call "reverting vandalism" appears rather to be "reverting to your version", the same version you were previously blocked for. This is textbook edit warring.--Львівське (говорити) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring notice that Lvivske posted on the users talk page for this complaint was posted six hour after the last revert by Solntsa90. i.e. none of the reverts that Lvivske is complaining about happened after the warning.[20] I suppose this is an improvement on Lvivske's previous complaint about Solntsa90's edit warring, when the so-called warning that Lvivske posted in his/her complaint was a content warning, and was nothing to do with edit-warring.[21]

Whilst I think that Solntsa90 was mistaken in believing that the IP editor from Lvov was a vandal, I can understand why a reasonable person would believe in good faith that he/she was reverting vandalism. In these edits, the IP editor from Lvov deleted lots of material that had citations from independent sources.[22][23][24][25]

Please could the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk be protected from edits for seven days. This apparently controversial issue has induced both Solntsa90 and Lvivske to revert excessively during the last week. (Lvivske is under greater restrictions than Solntsa90.) I do not think that Lvivske played fair in either this or the previous complaint about edit warring. People should be given clear warnings about edit warring, and only reported here if they continue to edit war. That is precisely what has not happened.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If being blocked isn't a warning, I don't know what is. Also, not sure about the "reverting excessively" accusations seeing as I've not touched the article since the 30th, but Solntsa90 has been non-stop revering multiple editors.--Львівське (говорити) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske knows perfectly well what I am talking about. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Lvivske is "under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion". Lvivske has breached this sanction on the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk during the last week. Naturally, in a spirit of fairness, admins block the person Lvivske was edit warring with, but have not blocked Lvivske.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy, your vendetta against me is getting pretty tiring. If you're going rip on me, at least get your facts straight. --Львівське (говорити) 13:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I'm not precluding any blocks by me or by another administrator. On the positive side, it looks like Solntsa90 and Paavo273 are talking to each other on the article talk page. On the negative side, the edit warring by both editors (and the IP, whoever they are) is disruptive. Solntsa90, you can be blocked without violating WP:3RR, particlarly if you resume edit warring, as you did, after expiration of the last block. Indeed, generally, a block in those circumstances is longer than the first. I have no idea what you mean by "active sanctions". I do know if that this continues, whether it's today or tomorrow or anytime in the near term, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Given that the user has already been blocked for edit warring on this article, but that they are engaging in discussion I've decided to impose a 1RR per 48 hours restriction for one month under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bcd3174 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of List of Lebanese by net worth

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of User talk:Bcd3174

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Lebanese by net worth

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

The editor has been pushing an anti-water fluoridation POV on Water fluoridation and Water fluoridation controversy as well.

Completely to the contrary. The complaining editor is pushing pro-water fluoridation to the point of trying to censor the official European union position on water fluoridation in the Water fluoridation article.

And reverting additions to Water fluoridation controversy in which he never participated in the long talk page discussionsLarryTheShark (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LarryTheShark (talk · contribs) is a dead cert sockpuppet, IMHO. It's just which banned user is he a sock of? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwervingStyle reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (3RR warning and level 2-4 unsourced warnings have been removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: Discussion in my archives from February regarding the same issue: discussion

Comments: User clearly demonstrating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. I explained the situation to him/her several times in February to no avail (either didn't read or doesn't understand WP:V and WP:OR) and shows no signs of stopping adding his/her unsourced content to the page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do take a look at the amount of articles Truth has made and how he has reverted many other pages based on this same evidence which is not correct in many cases. Thanks, SwervingStyle

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:12.130.161.8 reported by User:Apokryltaros (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[34]
[35]
[36]
[diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
User:12.130.161.8 seeks to purge all mention of the terms "medicine" and "medical" from Seahorse#Use in Chinese medicine, preferring to refer to it as either "superstition" or "tradition," and is not interested in citations that contradict these changes, nor appears to be interested in producing citations that justify or support these changes.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. The IP was not warned of edit warring, and Apokryltaros was also edit warring. I understand the difference between the IP's edits and Apokryltaros's, but the IP is trying to discuss the issue on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is trying to justify its edits, but has a tendency towards WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean I can proceed with editing that section as originally intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.161.8 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not. It means that you should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page. It means that there must be a WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia for changes to articles, and if the consensus is against you, you must defer to it. If there is no consensus, you can use other means of dispute resolution to assist you, but you cannot edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean continuing to censor the article without bothering to achieve consensus to do so?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get your digs in through the WP:LASTWORD is rather childish and inappropriate - try to take the high road D P 00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gentlemanscholar741776 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: 24hr)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
Just check his contributes; all dozen edits of his edits are reverts to the same article

Comments:
This "new" account has made 12 reverts to an article in the last 28 hours, please indef block as battleground, coi, block evasion. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is constantly being vandalized with false information. Every time i fix it, people put the same false and politically charged language back, hence reverting back to the correct information. Gentlemanscholar741776 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Gentlemanscholar741776[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Gentlemanscholar continually removes sourced information - that's clearly NOT vandalism (that has a very distinct meaning). The items being removed are properly sourced, provide balance, apparent truth (based on the sourcing), and are therefore exempt from the WP:BLP aspects that might otherwise be permitted under WP:EW. I would suggest that someone is trying to whitewash this article inappropriately. No comment on block evasion, try WP:SPI should someone with similar MO reappear D P 00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:N8-57469 reported by User:Eyesnore (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Comments: An attempt to break the syntax for the infobox. Eye snore (pc) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why this is being reported as edit warring - many of N8-57469's recent edits have been clear and unambiguous vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for vandalism/disruption based on the inappropriate responses on the user's talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:32, 1 April 2014 05:02, 3 April 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Isabel_Gómez-Bassols#Primary_sources

Comments:
Edit-warring over BLP violations and tagging the article as needing better sources to meet BLP: Self-published sources being used in a BLP that we're cleaning up after it was created against a conflict of interest by a new editor. The article is currently up for deletion, but it looks like we've got enough to keep it. Seems like editors are fine with poorly sourced information as long as it verified (and positive in nature?) - so basically NOT, OR(PSTS), NPOV, and BLP are being ignored in order to include the information. --Ronz (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, making two completely different edits does not constitute 3RR (if I'm wrong please let me know and I'll remember that in the future). Content in each of the two different issues was previously addressed either on the Talk page (as noted in my edit summaries) or addressed (and also previously addressed and explained) thoroughly in the edit summary(ies). (On at least one of the two issues, Binksternet and I have been engaging with the editor on the Talk page, and although Ronz established no consensus and Binksternet and I disagreed with him/her, he made a third deletion of cited non-controversial non-contentious material without establishing consensus, and I informed him that I was going to replace the info per the lengthy Talk page discussion.) Softlavender (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This issue isn't 3rr, it is edit-warring against BLP. --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, I feel the need to point out that my cleanup (March 30/31) had policy-backed consensus, and from my perspective you have been the one edit-warring without any consensus and without ever even clearly making an incontrovertible case for your edits. Posting acronyms is not making a case, much less an incontrovertible one, and much less one that has consensus. If you feel the article is in violation of BLP or NPOV, then perhaps it's best to take that up on one of those two boards. Meanwhile, two editors engaged in constructively improving the article and its content happen to have disagreed with you and happen to have disagreed with your edits. Softlavender (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like Ronz is the one edit warring. I just don't understand what he's aiming to accomplish with his templating of the biography after all of its problems were fixed by Softlavender and others. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WP:IDHT, WP:FOC-violating responses. Please feel free to add more in case this needs to go to ANI.

Focusing on the policies: The article falls under BLP, and poorly sourced information should be immediately removed from BLP articles ("without waiting for discussion" actually.) Such content disputes place "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material."

The sources are self-published, so they should be removed immediately. --Ronz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:110.164.115.224 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

Page: Development of Windows XP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.164.115.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "No."
05:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Development */ Insert Main article"
04:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Development of Windows XP */ new section"
05:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Development of Windows XP. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article's encyclopedic content was merged into Windows XP, remaining article was fancruft and a WP:NOTCHANGELOG violation. However, an IP editor has persistently reverted. Comments in edit summaries infer WP:ITSUSEFUL ViperSnake151 Talk 05:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rahulsinghpinaki reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

Page: Colonel Brown Cambridge School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rahulsinghpinaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
13:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "/* And to emphasise */ new section"
15:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Colonel Brown Cambridge School. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Failed Citation Verifications */ why as a fictional person added?"
13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC) on User talk:Rahulsinghpinaki "/* April 2014 */ 2nd warning on adding references that do not establish that entries belong in the article."

Comments:

Editor used to do this at 117.197.64.98 (talk · contribs) and has been continually reverted. He doesn't provide evidence that the names he adds are alumni of the school, he adds names of questionable notability, he adds Howard Roark who of course is fictional, and even though I told him "You really must have sources that say they attended the school. And the Muhammad Ayub Khan who is an alumnus doesn't seem to be the same as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). You really need to understand this. If you can find sources saying they attended, you might even find we have an article on them." he continues to add these names. Some of them are BLP vilations, and as I told him, he's confused two people with similar names. The Ayub Khan here[49] doesn't seem to be the one who was president of Pakistant. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Enigma^msg 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuackGuru reported by User:Jayaguru-Shishya (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Comments:

The editor has been reverting / making edits repeatedly to an original quote. I have tried to explain him that he should leave the original quote untouched, and include what he has to say into additional comments.

What makes the course of things even more complicated to follow, is that the user hasn't agreed to take the discussion solely at the article Talk Page, but instead has fragmented it to my personal user talk page as well. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor was told to stop deleting my comments. But the editor did not stop. This was harrrass and the 3rr warning was after I stopped editing the chiropractic talk page. The editor added mass original research to the lede of the chiropractic page and removed the tags without fixing the problem. WP:BOOMERANG should apply in this case. QuackGuru (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete QuackGuru's comments, but I did restore the original post whereas he repeatedly tried to revert / make changes to it afterwards. By deleting his comments, I think the user is pertaining to the following edit: [59]. This was a pure accident though, which I already have explained to him and apologized: [60]. The previous link is directing to my User Talk Page, since the editor is constantly taking part of discussion there out of the Talk:Chiropractic.

In my humble opinion, the editor isn't really paying attention to the main point here, that is his constant reverts / edits on the original post he made. By removing / changing his original posts, it has turned impossible to other contributors in the article to follow up the discussion on sources. His current editing is very aggressive, and he doesn't seem to allow any public discussion on the subject. As a result, he is constantly removing / changing the original posts made.

So far, the other changes he brings up are referring to strong, reliable sources, and therefore it is somewhat obscure what he is trying to say; the other edits are not the subject being discussed here. As far as I know, there hasn't been any problems with those either (one contributor was actually thanking me for my edit in the lead at the talk page). But that's off-topic already. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My original post was on the users talk page but the editor moved my post without stating on the talk page that it was moved from his the talk page. It is not about the sources. It is about the text failed V and you are not getting. The change was also not a good summary of the body. The changes were made on April 1 and the text failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.66.113.53 reported by User:Liz (Result: Semi)

Page: Rolf Furuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 151.66.113.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor received many warnings and explanations over the past few days about the exact same edit but they identified it as "vandalism" or failure to use an edit summary or an unexplained deletion of content. But it was the exact same edit/revert made repeatedly over the past five days. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

151 has continued to revert this same passage, racking up 21 reverts since April 1st (and some before that date, too). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Septate reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3 March
4 March
30 March. Note edit summary: "moved image to right section" whereas in fact the image was deleted
3 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous warning (evidence of notification of edit-warring rules plus this reminder on current edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:1st thread 2nd thread

Comments:
This isn't a bright line breach of 3RR, but is nevertheless edit-warring with some egreggious aspects. Septate wishes to remove an image of Muhammad from the Islam article. He as done so four times over the previous month while talk page threads have been open to discuss the issue - linked to above. The threads clearly show no consensus to remove. Septate knows there is no consensus to remove so he did so on the third occasion with the edit summary "moved image to right section" in an attempt to disguise what he had done. When challenged on this he admitted it was a dishonest edit summary, and apologised in this post. But then (in the last revert above) he removed the image with the edit summary "per talk" yet it was clear from the latter thread that he had no consensus. He had announced in the thread he was going to do it anyway because "no one has raised serious concerns", which was patently untrue. I warned him not to do it, but he went ahead anyway.

Septate has a track record in this type of edit-warring. On the Muhammad article he tried to remove an image twice. After the first removal it was made clear to him in an article talk page thread by Amatulić not to remove the image yet he then went on to do so again with the untrue edit summary of "per talk". Another editor reverted him with the edit summary "no, not "per talk". You were asked not to remove that image" Septate is fully aware the issues around edit-warring, and what would result in an AN3 block, having recently had two reports about him to this noticeboard.

I appreciate that this is not a bright line 3RR and had contemplated whether it would have to go to ANI. But it seems to me the essence of the problematic behaviour is edit-warring as so should be dealt with here. While four reverts in a month may not seem much I think why action is called for is his MO of ploughing on with reverts despite it being clear from the talk page that he shouldn't, and doing so with dishonest edit summaries. DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the sidelines: I've often thought that the Muhammad article might be a good candidate for 1RR, although most of the time the participants are pretty good about discussing things on the talk page. 1RR wouldn't be a factor in this report, however, since the reverts were more than 24 hours apart. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Islam regarding images. The latest example is here, on April 3 where he removes a Muhammad image yet again and replaces it with one that does not show Muhammad. This follows a series of image removals during March that were performed with deceptive edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff](cur | prev) 12:21, March 26, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,267 bytes) (-5,804)‎ . . (reference to the claimants own website are biased primary sources , Muffadal is still a claimant and nass is disputed , maintain NPOV)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:Disruptive editing which was reverted by me. (cur | prev) 15:59, March 23, 2014‎ Rukn950 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (31,841 bytes) (-3,493)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Mufaddalqn. (TW)) (cur | prev) 14:21, March 23, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (35,334 bytes) (+3,493)‎ . . (Added differences between dawoodi bohra and other sects and views from leading Muslim news reports (edited with ProveIt)) (thank)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT Talk:Mufaddal Saifuddin [diff] (cur | prev) 20:08, April 3, 2014‎ Summichum (talk | contribs)‎ . . (171,338 bytes) (-905)‎ . . (→‎Correction section-wise!) (undo | thank) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:#REDIRECT Talk:Dawoodi Bohra

Comments:

He has been flooding my talk page with template and undoing my edit and deletion from my talk pages. he is mentally harassing me.I am truly frustrated by this user summichum he was blocked twice before and immediately started edit war after being released from block.as shown above and unsuccessfully attempted to block me. Now he is on to harassment.

REDIRECT User talk:Summichum

Template war?[edit source]
Hello, I'm Anup. I noticed that you recently have been flooding templates on a regular editor, Rukn950. I'd assume good faith and would let you know that we do no template regulars. Thank you! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

''Rukn950'' (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards