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:Invisiboy42293 reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: )

Page

Shlock Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Invisiboy42293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* top */"
2. 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696290941 by Sir Joseph (talk) Formed in America, sings in English, covers American pop songs. Also, Jewish rock is a new article."
3. 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696292024 by Sir Joseph (talk) Look, nationality is standard in band article leads. Beatles are British. Unless SR are totally Israelis, they count as American."
4. 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ Their FB says hometown NY, current Beit Shemesh, so I'll offer this as a compromise."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 05:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* American? */"
3. 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) on Shlock Rock "Reverted 1 edit by Invisiboy42293: First of all, it has American as origin on the side, and independent here means it's not affiliated with any record labels. In additin, SR is in Israel so the current roster of Shlockers is mostly Israeli, but that is..."

Comments:

He kept reverting the Independent to American, when I either pointed out to him that 1) SR is not necessarily American, considering they cover all music, and 2) the independent is on the affiliation of the band that they are not part of any record label. I have used the talk page, I have explained myself on the reverts. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, did not mean for this to become an edit war. To quickly clarify my position (because its hard to express things in edit summaries):

• The nationality in the lead is standard, and is meant to be general rather than covering every specific member. Since Shlock Rock was formed in the US but is currently based in Israel, I have changed the lead to "American-Israeli".
• I did not realize "independent" was referring to them not being signed to a record label (admittedly I wasn't reading the edit summaries all that carefully). Even so, label status is typically covered in the infobox or later in the article, not in the lead sentence.

Again, very sorry that things got this far, and hopefully we can come to an understanding.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Feel free to close, I don't know if non-admins can close but it looks like an honest misunderstanding and I think we can let it slide. At least someone is working on the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Warned)

Page: Dodge Tomahawk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]

new version: [3]

1. [4]
2. [5]

new version: [6]

1. [7]
2. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[[9]] (previous 3RR warning) + [10] (warning made on his talk page after the current batch of reverts in violation of 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (not a diff, as the discussion has been ongoing for a long time)

[[11]] article talk page.

We requested a 3rd opinion. (who agreed that the content the above user was trying to include was not suitable) We then went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (which was closed due to deadlock) We then went to RFC (and apart from the above user voting to keep his content, every other user voted to remove it)

Comments:

This is a case of a well established editor, who knows exactly what the edit warring/3RR rules are (having reported others and been reported in the past [[12]]) We have gone through all the steps in dispute resolution and at every step he has been told that he is wrong. Other editors have been drawn into the revert cycle (myself included) and have had the self control to back down. Also, and I don't know if this is relevant or not, but the same user is reverting my edits on my own talk page. [[13]] - I know it's only once, but this goes to show the incivility of the user along with previous comments such as [[14]] . Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - As noted, this dispute was taken to third opinion and to WP:DRN. The Third Opinion request was removed by the coordinator because DRN "outranks" Third Opinion. I tried to mediate the case at DRN, and failed it because the reported editor refused to compromise on the insertion of language that other editors thought was WP:UNDUE in the voice of Wikipedia. We then posted a Request for Comments. In my opinion, courtesy by the reported editor would be either to leave the article alone or to edit the article only after discussion until the RFC is closed, and then follow the consensus of the RFC. I would suggest a warning, except that the reported editor has already been warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It looks as though User:Dennis Bratland is the only person who broke WP:3RR. They are risking a block. The disputants agree that the speed record is bogus, so I don't know what keeps them from finding suitable wording. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) is forum shopping and gaming the system. Creating a skunked dual-report at 3O and DRN at the same time, which then jumps back to the article talk page for an RfC. And even that process is not allowed to run to completion. Instead Spacecowboy420 and Tsavage (talk · contribs) just charge ahead making the very changes that are still under discussion, and gaming 3RR to push through their preferred version. Their reverts are just this side of the line and so they get to try to win the battle. I requested page protection a week ago so it wouldn't come to this, but was turned down.

  Others have noted [15][16] what is obvious to me: Spacecowboy420 is a highly experienced Wikipedia warrior who didn't just start editing this last October. This is someone who has been seeking controversy and using noticeboards to target enemies for quite some time. The reasons for creating a "new" account just a couple months ago are easy to deduce.

  We are still waiting expert opinions to resolve this false balance problem on Dodge Tomahawk, using Wikipedia to advertise and promote Dodge cars by treating implausible performance claims as equal in weight to the independent sources which have with one voice told us these marketing claims are laughable nonsense.

  I have no intention of reverting any more. This is going to have to be resolved at a higher level forum. I'm not going to accept voting on whether or not an article will take flat-Earth nonsense seriously, but I will cease reverting. It would be nice if others could do the same. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. This was a 3RR violation, but no block seems necessary since the editor has responded. All sides should note there is little point in having an RfC if people are going to keep on reverting right through it. If you think the edit warring is likely to continue, I can apply full protection for the duration of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, EdJohnston. I'm sure that despite the differences of opinion, that Dennis Bratland's edits were made in good faith, with the intention of having a good article. I'm sorry, I assumed the RFC was concluded with the votes to keep or remove the offending terms, my mistake. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Noting for the record that the article is now fully protected for 72 hours (if my math is right). – Brianhe (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:HavenHost (Result: Blocked)

Page: Naga, Cebu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unbuttered Parsnip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff (added 14:22, 22 December 2015‎)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[21] (warning made on editor's talk page after the current batch of reverts in violation of 3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Updated 14:22, 22 December 2015‎ – As of this writing, user reverted my edit for the 4th time (reverted-without-talk). Here is the link to the talk page's diff: diff

Comments: User refuses to accept other editor's edits. In our case, user keeps reverting edits thus removing inline sources.
Updated 14:22, 22 December 2015‎ – As for his/her 4th revert-without-talk, user stated that the information I added is "tosh on his perspective" (POV) as per edit summary. As per history review, Unbuttered Parsnip had previous edit warring warnings and issues with other editors, as well as personal attack notices.

• Warned. HavenHost (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:Unbuttered Parsnip has broken WP:3RR and is risking a block. I left a message and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. User has been blocked previously for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: thank you so much for your immediate response on this issue. Nothing personal against the user but based on his/her history, user already had a number of edit warring issues with other editors and had issues as well with addressing personal attack statements. User tends to monopolize Wikipedia based on his/her own POV only as per edit summary he/she has. User even ignores reliable sources and keeps on breaking the 3RR. I will appreciate every action and sanction that would be given to this user. Whatever the Wiki admins decision is, I will fully commit and comply with due process and no hesitation. Again, thank you so much and may you have a wonderful holiday! HavenHost (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for your simple one-sided to this argument. First of all, I am GMT+8, so my first message about this came as your text about 1:30 am., after which when I wake up in the morning, you've all had jury and judge. You seem not to have seen my original edit at 21-DEC at 10:07, so as far as I see it, the other guy reverted of my edit. It was s/he too went here and other places (e.g. Moalboal, Cebu; Tuburan, Cebu; Tabuelan, Cebu) which have edited without any summary at all. Other editor seems not to have known policies, (e.g. WP:V), does not know how to write in talk pages, and hasn't made any message to me about his/her 3RR. You may see that I opened 3RR at 13:10 22-DEC and s/he made something about 6 hours later.

I have had it with editoring. I can't take anymore with pin-brain nescience administrators who go only as far as the first comma. I don't want to hear little children who think they should show me how. I don't want other people to be my mother. I also don't people who think they edit, when they obviously need both hands to find the hole in their arse.

I give up. Happy Christmas. – Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 12:38, wikitime= 04:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: No action)

Page

Mince pie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696329160 by Davey2010 (talk)"
2. 09:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696261199 by Davey2010 (talk)"
3. 23:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696245426 by Davey2010 (talk) arbitrary changes to sourcing based on personal taste"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mince pie. (TW)"
2. 12:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* December 2015 */ +"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Yesterday I fixed 2 sources (changing the publisher bit from "independent.co.uk" and "bbc.co.co.uk" to "The Independent" and "BBC")[22],
PoD reverted saying "arbitrary changes to sourcing based on personal taste"[23]
So I reverted saying "Website addresses are never used in "Works/Publisher" - The only thing that's supposed to be in "Works/Publisher" are the company names",
He reverted[24] so I obviously reverted and left a warning and then a note basically repeating the above in the hope we could have a civilized conversation instead of warring but the only reply I got was to "Piss off"[25] so here we are.... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Publisher names are always preferred over website addresses so I really cannot understand what the problem is ? .... Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• On the point of substance, that isn't necessarily true - website names can be and are used in some citation styles, although usually in the work field rather than publisher. Using publisher name instead isn't wrong, but per WP:CITEVAR if the article has an established style using website name it should be left alone.
• On the point of procedure, both of you are edit-warring and neither of you have taken the issue to the talk page. Keep in mind that 3RR isn't an entitlement, per BRD you should have gone to talk on the first revert, so this proceeding will likely end either with the page protected or with both of you (not just PoD) blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Adding: or with no action, since he hasn't broken 3RR yet and you could take it to talk right now... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen Website names used on any article and the ones that I have seen I've changed them (and no one's ever had an issue), I disagree I believe he is edit warring... To be fair I've taken it to his talkpage after the 2nd revert and he's twice told me to Piss off so at this point me going to the talkpage would achieve absolutely nothing other than being told to Piss off .... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Takes two to Tango. I see it the same way as Nikkimaria – either block the both of you (Parrot of Doom for reverting after the warning you left, and you for reverting right before the same warning), or you can take it to the article talk page now. Prodego ^talk 18:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I kinda assumed his talkpage was fine but obviously not!, I love this fucking place at times!. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Davey2010: My apologies if this was confusing. There wasn't anything wrong with notifying on the user talk page, It is completely fine to start a discussion there. However, before you left that message you reverted Parrot's reversion. Regardless of whether or not you notified him, you should not revert a reversion of your own edits without discussing it first (per WP:BRD). It doesn't matter whether or not it was permissible to revert your edit to begin with. Does that clear things up? Prodego ^talk 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Prodego - Nope I agree It would've been better if I left that message once I was reverted instead of quickly smacking undo, Problem is I constantly think using the edit summary is fine (even in edit wars) but it's not!, I apologize for the rather blunt message above, Could I ask tho what made you decide not to block me ? ... Bet it was tempting! , –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think blocks would have accomplished anything. And I assure you the novelty factor wears off after the first 20 or so. :) Prodego ^talk 02:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked. It's a mystery to me why either of you thought it worth edit warring about. Thank you for at long last taking it to talk, Davey2010. Closing with no action. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

User:Jekson Bim reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Blocked)

Page

Lovifm music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jekson Bim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:38, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696460033 by KDS4444 (talk)"
2. 08:35, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Article suitable for inclusion in the wiki !"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:25, 23 december 2015 (UTC) to 06:27, 23 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:25, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with 'Lovifm Music is an independent online free radio provider, based in the Byelorussia.The company was formed in...'"
   2. 06:27, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "/* References */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:39, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Lovifm music. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User still edit warring. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:UkPaolo. Repeated removal of AfD templates. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

User:207.161.234.111 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result:blocked 31 h)

Page

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:02, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696467129 by Dan Koehl (talk)"
2. 10:00, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696466417 by Dan Koehl (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:39, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 09:52, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
3. 10:02, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:85:c101:b205:39d6:fda5:8d24:3341 by User:Jeff5102 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Ismail ibn Musa Menk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:85:c101:b205:39d6:fda5:8d24:3341 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
See also LGBT in Islam

• Already blocked By BethNaught NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Sitush reported by User:ForbiddenRocky (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Gamergate controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gamergate_controversy&diff=696514397&oldid=696514213 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Told to fuck off: [37]

Sitush knows they are in violation of 3RR: [38]

Comments:

This is on top of violation an AE sanction. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bright line violation. I'll do it again when I am unblocked. I am not in fact the problem here, as is exemplified by comments such as this. Determining what is or is not a "meta" subject is subjective and, although I accept the bright line issue, I do ask that the reviewing admin consider the entirety of my recent edits. The reporter is gaming the system, as seems to be common, and even in the very thread where they tried to hat my comment they were making arguably meta replies to other people. We need to get rid of someone and that someone is not me. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I observe that one of the edit summaries in question [[39]] reads Stop, Bernstein - fed up of you and your "people" controlling this shit through lawyering. Yes, I'll be blocked now - don't care. I wonder whether the intent of “your ‘people‘” is to suggest that the editors who fail to agree with Sitush are my peons, my sock puppets, or whether he’s insinuating a religious connection. I mention the latter because it is so ubiquitous in Gamergate’s discussions of Wikipedia strategy, which frequently allude to my Jewish-sounding name. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

And ^ this ^ is exactly the tag-teaming that I am objecting to and the reason why I took the action that I did. Yes, I'll be blocked but I at least have a sense of morality here, which is sadly lacking among others. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I object to you insinuating some anti-Semitic bias on my part. A typically low blow that lacks foundation, as is your attempt to link me to "Gamergate's discussions of Wikipedia strategy" (I neither know what they are nor where to find them and demand that you support your insinuation or retract now). - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that this is rather useless? MB is not going to change his opinion of Gamergate based on internet debates with strangers. And edit-warring on the talk page is basically useless. Getting blocked will do nobody any good. I think Sitush got a bit frustrated, that's all. This is all much ado about nothing. By the way, MB's insinuation that Sitush's comment was anti-Semitic is highly inappropriate. Your "people" here simply means people who share a POV, nothing more. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting angry is not an excuse for UNCIVIL behavior, let alone 3RR, especially since he's often going on about getting people such as myself kicked off with his own brand of "rules lawyering"; rules apply when he's using them as a threat to make people agree with him, but not when he's in clear violation? He knew he was violating 3RR. And he knows GGC is a contentious area; he's been by before. If he has a problem with the rules, he should take them up to the correct FORUM, instead of breaking rules to make POINT. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, but rules should be followed consistently. See the comment just preceding, where MB insinuates that people arguing for a certain position, including myself and Sitush, are GG supporters organized off-wiki. I just shrugged it off, Sitush didn't. To clarify, I don't want anyone blocked here. In this area, emotions run high. Nothing can be done about this. Just accept it. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Getting blocked will do nobody any good. I think Sitush got a bit frustrated, that's all. This is all much ado about nothing. -- I agree. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• How is a 3RR and a personal attack nothing? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Find me a single decently long discussion on the GG talk page sans a personal attack. Water off a duck's back. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Someone else's bad behavior is not an excuse for one's own behavior. And really justifying any bad behavior on a something as contentious as GGC is asking for trouble down the line. And the back here might be the camel's not the duck's. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What personal attack? That FR is effectively a SPA? That is a statement of fact easily proven from their contribution history. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warned All parties involved are warned to stop edit warring and are encouraged to try to be more civil in their interactions with each other. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:71.49.245.222 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Blocked/page protected)

Page

Majid Rafizadeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:32, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "He criticizes Iran and Syria. Delete him"
2. 23:30, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Deleting."
3. 23:24, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "He is against Iran. Delete him."
4. 23:22, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "He criticizes Iran. Remove him."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:31, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Majid Rafizadeh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Probably same as IP User:2600:1012:B000:3731:7D78:F29D:ADEE:9EBF who is already blocked. Dan Koehl (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours and Page protected (semi) for one week. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sponge58 reported by User:Grangehilllover (Result: malformed )

Page: The Dumping Ground (series 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sponge58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
Throughout 7 years of Tracy Beaker Returns and The Dumping Ground, the first 2 episodes have been doubled up to an hour, however, the episodes are written as the 2 separate episodes as when they are repeated, it is as 2 episodes consisting of 30 minutes. If you look at the previous series pages for The Dumping Ground episode guides, all the first 2 episodes are written as separate episodes. The user keeps putting it as 1 when it is 2. Also, he keeps adding the character Chloe when there has been no casting announcements.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Katie^talk 03:51, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:TracyMcClark (Result: Protected)

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: Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
   [48]
2. [49]

Straight out violation of 1RR per wp:ARBPIA and wp:ARBPIA3.

Self-revert was offered on my talk here and theirs here, to no prevail, and are fully aware of imposed DS.--TMCk (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Merry X-Mas Joseph.--TMCk (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• There was no violation. My two reverts were quite substantially different. The first time I reverted back to the way it was, based on the ARBPIA ruling (which is one downside to the ruling, that sometimes good data does not get included). The second one I modified to better source the information. TMC, blindly reverted and did not look at the data. In TMC's submission, Israel is stated to have flooded Gaza with the opening of dams. I provided a source that it is false, a hoax perpetuated every year when there's flooding. I then reverted to a better version that TMC preferred leaving out the puffery, but taking out the part about check claims while still leaving in the part about the agricultural claims. This is not a violation of 1RR, these are substantively different edits and I have tried to comment on TMC's talk page to try to work out the language to use for the section. I included links to show that the dam claim is a hoax. Here's the Al-Jazeera article: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/gazans-flee-floods-caused-israel-dams-opening-150222115950849.html I figured that would be a RS on that Palestinian side. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Fresh, blatantly fresh (as expected).--TMCk (talk) 22:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Use the talk page to work out the dam issue. People seem to be claiming that check dams are not openable. Somebody should read the sources carefully and find a good formulation. This appears to be a 1RR violation by at least one party, which will be overlooked for now. Skipbeller (talk · contribs) hasn't reached 500 edits so should not be editing any I/P articles at all, given the new ARBPIA3 restrictions. The link to Al Jazeera given by SIr Joseph shows that Al Jazeera actually retracted their news article about Israel opening the dams. ("In southern Israel, there are no dams of the type which can be opened."). Notice how subtly they handled the 'check dam' issue. This appears to be strong evidence that the simple claims of dam opening causing Gaza floods shouldn't be accepted in Wikipedia at face value. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

that's because the other links the user put in had that while there might be little dams to prevent erosion, they don't effect Gaza miles away. I just included the AJ link because that's an arab news source. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: See my last comment on my talk page. But of course, if you say it is a content dispute and DS doesn't apply there is not much sense in wasting any time reporting, is there?--TMCk (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

don't forget to tell him that you reverted my comment, which explains. are you still saying that Israel opens up dams and floods Gaza? discretionary sanctions apply for vandalism here there's no case of vandalism it's a content dispute where you were reverting without looking at the sources. There is nothing to gain in this case with discretionary sanctions in either party Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

BTW, EdJohnston, this is not about flooding which was not even mentioned in the article but about water diversion. Of course you can just take the op's word at face value and ignore the rest.--TMCk (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

flooding is a big part of water sanitation, but I'm still not sure what your point or vendetta is . Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you please stop with your bad faith soapbox distortion? Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

is there a reason why you want to see me blocked instead of going to the talk page that is a vendetta.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you has used the talk page. And will Sir Joseph carefully check all the claims he is adding in this edit? The claim "there are no dams" looks to be technically incorrect. Why not work out something better? EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

there are no dams that can effect Gaza. So regardless, it doesn't belong in an article about PA water issues. Tmc claims Israel had built many dams.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this your justification for not using the talk page? If both you and TMCk agree to wait for consensus, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No, my initial thinking was that TMC saw an ARBPIA violation and reverted. I saw the data and I knew that the flooding claim was a hoax and reverted back and made a comment in the edit summary to that, and with the comment that it's a downside to ARBPIA that good data is reverted. I thought that would be the end of it. I would be OK with talk page. I took a look at the talk page and it looks pretty dead. I still don't see TMC refuting the claim that Israel opened up floodgates causing the flood in Gaza and that is troubling. I would be OK with you lifting protection. I will post in the talk page what I've done and see what results, but the claim that Israel purposely flooded Gaza can't remain, especially since Israel also flooded, as a point of fact, they are in the midst of heavy record floods right now. Wadi means valley, if you live in a valley, you will get floods every so often. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Ed, I don't care wasting my time with someone who distorts content and makes preposterous claims about what I said. I also don't care much about any single articles here in general. But it's obvious now that I need to care even less for due process and develop my neglected edit-warring skills. This seems to be the best way to have one's edits standing strong and protected with much less effort. Thanks for the lesson, Ed.--TMCk (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• And this here is what the article actually said:
  "In Gaza, the only source of surface water has been the Wadi Gaza. Since the early 1970s, Israel has built check dams,[19][20][21][22] and diverts part of its water for agricultural purposes within Israel prior to its arrival to Gaza.[23][24]"
  There is no mention of flood at all! Cheers.--TMCk (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

  and a check dam has nothing to do with Gaza, so why is it there? And then the other user added information which you reverted, but I found useful regarding Gaza, considering the mention of check dams. If you're going to mention check dams, then you need to mention that the claim that check dams actually does something to Gaza is ludicrous and a hoax. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2965460/Palestinians-left-homeless-heavy-flooding-Gaza-water-levels.html There is a dam on the Niagra River, should that be in there as well? And since you don't own the article, the section is about surface water, so a mention about flooding is perfectly acceptable since Gaza is susceptible to flash floods.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:57, 25 December 2015 (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.