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:Tenebrae reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: )

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

• All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:40, 4 January 2016 "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited."
2. 02:08, 4 January 2016 "You can't just say that. You have to WP:CITE it. If you can't be bothered to properly footnote, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia."
3. 14:57, 4 January 2016 "per Template:Infobox television: "Reliable source required""
4. 15:41, 4 January 2016 "Don't threaten me on my talk page. You're violating the outcome of the RfC, and I quoted directly from what the ADMIN directed be put into the template. I'll ask that same admin to speak with you"

Diff of 3RR warning: 15:37, 4 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on:

1. article talk page: 15:53, 4 January 2016
2. my talk page: 15:48, 4 January 2016

Comments:
In March 2015 Tenebrae opened an RfC at WT:TV about runtimes (archived here). The RfC was closed for technical purposes, due to the wording used by Tenebrae in the RfC question, with no outcome that could be called consensus. However, he took it upon himself to change the documentation for {{Infobox television}}, so that it supported his position.[2] Recently Tenebrae has been removing runtimes from multiple articles,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] edit-warring sometimes and occasionally removing the parameter entirely, not just the actual runtimes. At New Girl he reverted an IP who had changed the runtime from "22 minutes" to "21-24 minutes", by removing the content entirely.[10] After he did this a second time I reverted him as he has been misrepresenting the RfC outcome. (see below for further comment) He reverted that, after which I left a 3RR warning on his talk page.[11] He then made his 4th revert at New Girl 4 minutes later, and only then did he start to discuss. Regarding the RfC, Tenebrae's question was essentially "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves". The RfC close was This discussion is moot. Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. An RfC among editors with a specific area of interest, and by definition biased in favour of a liking for the minutiae of TV shows, cannot be an appropriate venue for overriding foundational policy.[12] In a subsequent post as the result of questions, the RfC closer wrote The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time[13] Unfortunately, Tenebrae refuses to accept this and insists that the outcome of the RfC was that citations are needed in the infobox in all cases. However, this is tangential to this report, which provides evidence that Tenebrae has reverted 4 times in 14 hours at New Girl, despite a warning, and that he has therefore violated WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As we know, 3RR doesn't apply to reversion of vandalism. Not abiding by an RfC is vandalism and deliberately inserting uncited OR in defiance of it is vandalism.

Per this RfC's admin close of 21:28, 19 March 2015, TV running times, like movie running times, need third-party citation. Otherwise, it is WP:OR.

In the closing admin's words: "Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases".

He reiterated it on this page under "Thank you, and a question": "A reliable third party source is required. ... I don't see any exception for approximations based on original research. Station schedules would have time slots, and that's as close as you're likely to get...."

User:AussieLegend advocates for putting uncited running times and having us take his word for it. That's against Wikipedia policy, and between that and defying the RfC, he is committing vandalism.

He also deliberately misrepresents me. I never said running time has to be cited in the infobox; only that it has to be cited. I even stated this at Talk:New Girl here!: "Content that's cited in the article body doesn't have to be re-cited in the infobox." So I have to question an editor who would deliberately tell an untruth that way.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And now I see that he himself has made the very edit I was requesting, giving a cite at [14]. So he could have done this at any time, solving the issue between us — but instead chose to bait me? I think WP:BOOMERANG might be considered here. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've already indicated on Tenebrae's talk page, per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Boldly editing, Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The RfC did not close with a consensus and RfCs are not binding. There is nothing in any of the multiple reversions of Tenebrae's edits by 3 different editors that identify them as vandalism.[15][16][17][18] Therefore, Tenebrae can't claim to be reverting vandalism.

he himself has made the very edit I was requesting - I was too busy dealing with your edit-warring at multiple articles. As I indicated to you on my talk page, you could have just challenged the content with {{citation needed}} and left it at that, which would have simplified the situation. There was no need to edit war after I warned you.

I don't intend commenting further, except to note the incivility here when he berated the IP for not including a citation. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguing that "RfCs are not binding" seems an argument of truly last resort. The RfC ended with the consensus that you can't just guesstimate running time and have us take your word for it — as the closing admin said, the entire question was moot since we can't have original research, which you were advocating. The admin made very clear, in his own words, that "a reliable third party source is required." Choosing to deliberately ignore this cornerstone policy after being reminded of it isn't "bold" — editing against a cornerstone policy isn't "bold". It's the definition of vandalism. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And I am truly getting tired of User:AussieLegend's half-truths and misstatements. As for his claim of incivility, he notably fails to point out that the edit-summary came after this polite first one which the edit-warring anon-IP chose to ignore.

One additional note: He hypocritically doesn't seem to care, or to note here, when his friend is uncivil toward me. AussieLegend was involved in the discussion where user:Davey2010 said, "you could've avoided all of this shit by sourcing the damn thing yourself instead of being fucking lazy" [19] — in violation, I might add, of the dictum that the burden of citation falls on the editor who adds claims to an article. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Just one observation - Me and AL have very rarely contributed together - Infact I can't remember the last time we even spoke so you can drop that card for a start! - I simply saw the runtime removal and disagreed with it, I stand 100% by that comment - AL never added the runtimes in the first place so you should've added a source instead of being lazy which could've prevented all of this mess!, All that aside you did edit war repeatedly, After AL reverted you you should've stopped and had a discussion but you instead edit warred repeatedly and I guarantee had I not reverted you would've carried on anyway .... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In this seemingly never-ending array of picking and choosing which Wikipedia policies and guidelines some editors choose to follow, I must point out — for the third time, since this is one User talk:Davey2010 chooses to ignore — that WP:BURDEN says (boldface from the page itself): "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So who is the "lazy" one, sir? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And incidentally, I was the one who did start a talk-page discussion, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Which you did only after you'd violated 3RR, here. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Runtimes must be sourced. AussieLegend knows this as he was part of the RfC. If AussieLegend is adding runtimes from personal observation, that is original research and forbidden by policy. AussieLegend also knows this. WP:NOR is canonical policy, not a guideline. If AussieLegend wants to ignore policy, then he will be blocked. The simple solution is to find a reliable source for the runtime, and cite it. Adding it without a source is not only a violation of policy, it is also disruptive, because AussieLegend knows that adding unsourced runtimes does not enjoy wither consensus or the support of policy. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There was never any outcome from the RfC that said runtimes must be cited. You said that yourself when you said The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. The concern here is that Tenebrae is arbitrarily removing runtimes, sometimes even removing the entire parameter, without even giving editors the incentive to provide a citation by adding {{citation needed}}. More relevant to this discussion is that he has demonstrated that he is willing to edit-war instead of collaborating with other editors to provide an outcome that actually improves the encyclopaedia. You even suggested I encourage a separate RfC based on these questions, if they remain points of contention. Tenebrae never even did that, which would have solved the problem once and for all. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not an outcome from the RfC, that's canonical policy. WP:V. Runtimes, like everything else, must be verifiable by reference to reliable independent sources. That doesn't prejudge where it's sourced (you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body, referenced back to a source), but you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged, and the onus is on the editor seeking to include challenged material, to justify and source its inclusion. That is absolutely core tot he whole ethos of Wikipedia. It's not specific to runtimes. I am not going to explain this again. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, film and television plots aren't usually referenced by anything verifiable. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That may very well be true, and if so, the figures should be removed per WP:V. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the plots should be removed? Because if you do, there are a fair few FAs that will need to be delisted... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:V requires that all content be attributable to reliable sources, it doesn't require that everything be cited. As I've explained below, the runtimes don't fall under "likely to be challenged", so there is no normal requirement to cite every one. If Tenebrae adds {{citation needed}} instead of deleting runtimes that encourages editors to add citations and eventually it will encourage them to add citations without prompting. However, it was explained at the RfC and prior to that at at Template talk:Infobox television why TV episode runtimes are difficult to cite. Runtimes can vary significantly throughout the history of a series, so the time in the infobox is only an approximation, usually a close one. Even reliable sources can be confusing on this. For example, this one shows episode lengths of 22 minutes for most episodes, but one is 24 minutes. Season 1 though had several 22 minute episodes and several 21 minute episodes. Other programs, like Top Gear can have episodes that vary in length from around 50-65 minutes. To cite Top Gear properly you'd need 22 citations, one for each series. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

you don't have the option of not sourcing this information because you know it will be challenged - That's not correct at all. The only person challenging runtimes is Tenebrae. Runtimes don't seem to be challenged by anyone else so they don't fall under "likely to be challenged". Tenebrae's method of dealing with runtimes is counter-productive. He deletes the runtimes instead of challenging them with {{citation needed}} and, from what I've seen, does very little else in TV articles. In a few days, weeks or months somebody comes along, doesn't know the runtime has been deleted and adds it again, putting the article back to where it was before Tenebrae came along.

you could put inline text saying the runtime is X minutes within the body - I guess you don't edit many TV articles. This is something that is almost never seen in TV articles. Generally, the only mention of runtimes is in the infobox. However, this is all tangential to the issue, which again is that Tenebrae, rather than editing collaboratively, violated 3RR at New Girl after he was warned. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

From WP:V:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. Please remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced immediately.

It does not say how many people have to be likely to challenge it. You cannot possibly claim that you are unaware it is likely to be challenged. Now stop playing silly buggers and get on with adding properly sourced content. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

How is runtime different from plot content? And those FAs also have uncited runtimes... So should we start tagging those? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Using Guy's argument everything on Wikipedia is likely to be challenged and therefore everything should be cited. {{Infobox television}} is used in over 36,500 articles and runtime is only ever challenged by Tenebrae in a handful of articles. On this occasion it was because he was following an IP who was making good faith edits, so he hit more articles than usual. Using a bit of common sense tells you that runtime is unlikely to be challenged. A single editor with an agenda doesn't make it likely. But again, this is supposed to be about Tenebrae's violation of 3RR. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there's a precedent to be set here. If User:JzG is happy to overlook the 3RR based on a need to provide a verifiable source for the run time of a television episode, yet we have featured articles which don't even do this, and massive sections of FAs which have not one single verifiable secondary source for the plot section, there's a fundamental problem with JzG's "absolute" claim. I would like to see JzG comment back here with regard to the fact that he is clearly unaware that many FAs don't do what he expects, as a minimum, and therefore re-appraise this notice in that context. Or else I'd like to see Tenebrae doing the right thing and start tagging all those issues on all the FAs because, after all, those items appear on the main page from to time, so heaven forbid one does without a run time that is verified by a reliable secondary source. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Guy, the closing admin of the RfC, isn't ignoring 3RR at all. Once again: 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Deliberately inserting a clearly disallowed, OR edit after being told that it violates both core policy and an RfC closing is both vandalism and pointy disruption.

Some articles don't cite running times? That doesn't set a precedent, as the editors in this discussion surely know and some choose to ignore. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes. I don't believe that is a viable or responsible argument. We can cite runtimes — even User:AussieLegend did so, albeit grudgingly. I don't know why anyone would spend so much time arguing not to do so.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If run times now need a citation, like plots do (if that's what JzG is claiming) then we have a large issue that needs further discussion. It also renders this discussion somewhat moot until it's resolved. I'm not sure I understand why a whole plot section can go without a single citation (presumably because someone has watched the movie and written about it) yet the run time (which is trivial in comparison) suddenly needs a citation. It's utterly illogical and actually shows that some editors are more here to pursue inconsistent and pointed wiki-lawyering, and not to improve Wikipedia. Please be advised that if this report closes as JzG seems to wish it closed, we'll need to start addressing all the FAs and GAs that have entirely unreferenced plot sections, and I will be using this discussion as the precedent to do so. So let's get this right. (P.S. Ultimately, two editors are advocating for an OR exception for TV runtimes as opposed to movie runtimes not just that, one of us is asking why plots can go citation-free and run times, according to you and JzG, can't.... Answer that please). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wish the waters weren't being muddied, I hope not deliberately, by this tangential foray into film plots. The pertinent MOS at WP:FILMPLOT cites Wikipedia guidelines for writing about fiction and for use of primary sources to state clearly that a movie itself is used as the source for the plot. Alright?

A quantifiable measurement, like running time, is completely different. So let's not suggest that the sky is falling, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No-one is making such a suggestion, I wonder why you start acting so defensively? I am simply examining the claim made by JzG that everything should be verified and of course film plots have no such verifiable secondary sources. Of course, that is more absurd than getting highly strung about a runtime (which, of course, is as easily observable as a film plot). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am prepared to overlook AussieLegend's deliberate violation of WP:V, his wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like, and his transparent attempts to trap Tenebrae into a violation he could report. I'm even prepared - for now to hold off requesting a community sanction forbidding AussieLegend from adding unsourced runtimes. I'm prepared to overlook this because they are both behaving like children, and although blocking them both would be temporarily satisfying I am not convinced that it would be anything other than retaliatory by now. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: Agree. But if you close this report, please try to do so in a final way that will keep the same dispute from showing up at other articles. Warning one or both editors that they might be blocked if they continue is one option. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This has become absolutely ridiculous. I made no "deliberate violation of WP:V" as claimed by Guy. That's crap. To go back to evidence that I've already presented, because people are seemingly ignoring it:

• Tenebrae started an RfC asking effectively "Do we need citations for runtimes or can editors measure it themselves".
• Guy closed the RfC stating Before we can allow running times measured by individual Wikipedians from the shows themselves, we would first have to change WP:NOR to make an exception for such cases. This caused confusion so he clarified that in a subsequent post.
• The clarification stated The RfC close has nothing to say about whether running times from reliable independent sources have to be cited inline in infoboxes, or whether citation from a source linked within the body is acceptable ... The close speaks only to the question of whether personal observation is an acceptable source for a running time. Nowhere does the close say that citations have to be included. In fact Guy's clarification specifically states that his close only applies to the use of OR.
• The final sentence in the closer's clarification sums up the close well: Please do not be tempted to read anything into the procedural close of the RfC beyond the simple fact that no RfC can decide to allow original research of this kind. In other words, nothing changed. The requirement to cite runtimes was not added.
• Despite what seems clear wording, Tenebrae was reverting changes by an IP saying in his edit summaries "See the template's documentation. Claims of running time MUST be cited".[20][21][22][23] However, as indicated by Guy's clarification, the RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used, and the template documentation only says what it says because Tenebrae added it to the documentation.[24] Well, actually it doesn't say that any more. The requirement to cite was removed later and the documentation now only says "Reliable source required", which Tenebrae clearly agrees with.[25] Because somebody will no doubt fail to check the edit history I will point out that my edit immediately prior to his was a simple formatting change for consistency,[26] which Tenebrae reverted in his edit.
• It was because of this clear misrepresentation of the stated outcome of the RfC that I reverted Tenebrae, not as a wilful refusal to honour the outcome of an RfC whose close he did not like. That claim by Guy is also rubbish. We have had lengthy discussions about this, resulting in this "compromise" series of changes to the documentation:[27][28][29][30] That being the case Guy has no basis on which to claim that my actions were wilful.

I am not sure why I am being targeted by Guy here. I wasn't the only one to revert Tenebrae. There were at least two other editors who did so.[31][32] It seems a bit of a vendetta, simply because I opened this report. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

While I'm loathe to respond to this litany, with its spectacularly annoying green typeface, I need to respond to claims that an admin and I both somehow misinterpreted the admin's own conclusion and that only this editor interprets it correctly. RE: "The RfC close said nothing about the need to cite runtimes in all circumstances, just that OR could not be used." First, WP:VERIFY applies to all circumstances of quantitative claims. A close doesn't have to tell us to follow a core policy. We just follow core policies. Second If OR is "not ... used", then ipso facto, one is citing one's claims: If one can't or won't say where a claim is coming from, then it's coming from oneself. That's OR. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So WP:V doesn't apply to qualitative claims all of a sudden? Where do you get that idea? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I said that?? We're talking about running times. Running time are quantitative. This reads as if you're trying to obfuscate and muddy the waters by bringing in tangential, unrelated topics. We are only talking about running times.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

No, we're not, you are. Just above, JzG quotes from WP:V that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." which is clearly untrue for film plots, episode plots etc. Run times can be determined as easily as plots. Watch the film/episode. You seem upset by the idea that it's important to consider your curious half-attempt to use WP:V in this context doesn't cut the mustard. After all, why aren't you worried about the swathes of text in the plot sections which can be challenged? I didn't see the part of WP:V that stated it applies to "all circumstances of quantitative claims". Can you point me to it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Zippy268 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Warned)

Page

Veganism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User reported

Zippy268 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Version reverted to: 3 January: someone removed "particularly from diet" from the first sentence.

• 1st revert: 03:18, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"
• 2nd revert: 03:25, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"
• 3rd revert: 03:35, 7 January: removed "particularly in diet"

• Edit: 05:01, 7 January: added citation tag after "particularly in diet"

• 4th revert: 05:26, 7 January: restored citation tag after "particularly in diet"

• Edit: 07:45, 7 January: added NPOV tag

• 5th revert: 12:16, 8 January: restored NPOV tag

Comments

Zippy268 is a new account and has said he is a returning user. He may also be Tha1uw4nt, who began this series of edits in December to prioritize the definition of veganism adopted by the British Vegan Society.

The issue is that lots of vegans (probably most) are dietary vegans only. They don't eat animal products, but they may still wear leather shoes, and so on. Ethical vegans go further and oppose all animal use. Ethical vegans often argue that dietary vegans aren't really vegans, and they arrive occasionally at the article to force their definition into the lead. That's what's happening here.

Zippy268 was warned at 03:28, 7 January about the edit-warring policy and about 3RR, and again at 20:42, 7 January. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The idea that I may be Tha1uw4nt is completely unfounded. The issue in question is also being misrepresented by SarahSV Zippy268 (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah has described the problem accurately and without bias. I support a block on Zippy268 because he has not only edit warred after being warned multiple times, he has also engaged in IDHT behavior in every user and article talk page discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Zippy268 is warned. They may be blocked if they restore the NPOV tag again, or revert the lead again, before getting a clear consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Labattblueboy reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: no violation )

Page

South of the Border (attraction) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Here's a brief overview of what I found so far, and I only went back as far as June before I quit. Yowza. Well, if this helps anyone, here you go. Sorry it's not formatted properly. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 05:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

11:56 5 June -- del - 96.253.26.19 Removed a personal opinion from the description.

12:01 5 June -- add - Labattblueboy "an arguably racist" -- see talk page. comments cited

04:31 26 June -- chg - 104.61.153.65 from "arguably racist" to "arguably offensive" -- Mexican isn't a race. It's a nationality.

05:34 20 July -- del - 71.121.136.187

15:28 29 July -- add - Labattblueboy return "an arguably offensive"

19:55 31 July -- del - 107.14.49.1

17:22 3 August -- add - Labattblueboy "an arguably offensive" - per sources

14:22 22 August -- chg - Erielhonan changed "arguably offensive" to "offensive" - "removed unnecessary adjective"

17:50 31 August -- del - 198.252.245.194 changed "offensive" to "non-offensive" then deleted

05:47 1 September -- add - Labattblueboy Reverted edits to last version by Erielhonan

23:57 7 September -- del - 71.70.167.48

09:12 8 September -- add - Labattblueboy "offensive"

03:10 12 September -- del - 66.87.143.225 Fixed wording

09:26 12 September -- add - Labattblueboy added with change to "arguably offensive"

15:35 16 September -- chg - Econ48 - changed to "politically incorrect"

15:45 11 october -- del - Old Naval Rooftops

16:23 11 october -- add - Labattblueboy

00:30 19 october -- del - 98.225.173.217

07:38 19 october -- add - Labattblueboy "see cited sources"

05:49 7 december -- del - 104.10.137.189 "removed an opinion from the text"

07:25 8 december -- add - Labattblueboy "statement is well cited"

15:36 6 january -- del - 84.186.113.219 mobile edit

13:18 8 january -- add - Labattblueboy revert

16:12 8 january -- del - CombatWombat42 undid rev. - wp:pov

19:29 8 january -- add - Labattblueboy undid

22:24 8 january -- COMBAT WOMBAT MAKES AN3 REPORT

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Actually, you didn't provide any diffs or links at all. Please follow the instructions if/when you make future reports. Katie^talk 11:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks @Katie, I can actually read, there is absolutely NO requirement for a violation of 3rr to report or take action. as it says at the top of this page: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute", it is quite clear to me that User:Labattblueboy is doing just that. Please read *all* documentation if/when you reply. CombatWombat42 (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

What documentation? You didn't follow the instructions, didn't provide a single diff, didn't show any evidence of attempting to resolve the dispute, didn't show that you'd warned the other editor. Here is your only previous edit to this page, and it should have been turned down flat as a malformed report. This is the last I'll have to say on the matter, so hear it: Follow the directions next time, and don't snark at the admins when you don't get your way. Katie^talk 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I was exactly as snarky as you were, so please take your own advice. It says NO WHERE that any of the things are *required* only recommended, so the report was valid, and if you took two seconds to look at the edit history of the page by that user you would realize that there is potential edit warring, but it's fine, just sit up there on your pedestal and go by the rules you think are written not the actual rules, that's what all the good admins do. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:YuHuw reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: )

Page: Karait (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YuHuw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 94.159.177.65 (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. 14:34, 8 January 2016 by 94.159.177.65 (Undid revision 698738846 by Неполканов (talk) vandalism)
2. 11:00, 9 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 698961396 by Неполканов (talk) restoring sourced citations)
3. 12:05, 9 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 698970785 by Неполканов (talk) please do not make this into an edit war. Discuss the citations in Talk if you have a problem with them.)
4. 06:30, 10 January 2016 by YuHuw (Undid revision 699057357 by Toddy1 (talk) a lot of work went into that please take your issue to discussion)

YuHuw admits to being the same editor as 94.159.177.65 here:

• edit by 94.159.177.65 comment on talk page
• edit by YuHuw signing the above comment with edit summary "I made myself an account"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Karait -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Toddy1 has only linked to the entire talk page, rather than give a specific diff. This diff is their only edit to that page as of now. Edit summary: "This is just another one of Kaz's POV forks". See WP:Casting aspersions. You have no evidence that this is the blocked user Kaz, and have not attempted to resolve the dispute on that talk page. I find accusations that this new editor is engaging in "vandalism" another distasteful casting of aspersions. Difference in point-of-view, sure, vandalism, no. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wbm1058:. I have not accused YuHuw of vandalism. In the list of diffs, I listed one for [14:34, 8 January 2016 with its time, the account that wrote it, and the edit summary. As regards settling differences, the link to the talk page shows evidence of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page. The reason no evidence of sockpuppetry has been presented on this page, is that this is the wrong venue. (PS it helps a lot if you post your comments at the bottom of the page.)-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not having ever encountered the user before, I thought that the blanking of that article was simply an act of vandalism which needed reverting [34] but I did explain my mis-assumption in the relevant talk page after that and the misunderstanding was overcome. (see my new para 3 here [35]) Although that User with a non-English Username (who originally blanked that page[36]) is not here now, I would apologize to the User a second time for my mis-assumption if he wanted it, it was an honest mistake as I did not think he was a real editor at that time. YuHuw (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

He/she was not blanking the page. The page was originally a redirect.[37] On 31 December 2015 the redirect was turned into an article[38] by 31.154.167.98. Some people had/have a concern that the article was/is a WP:Content fork. This view has been expressed both in edit summaries,[39] and on the talk page.[40][41] The revert by @Неполканов: that YuHuw called "blanking" had an edit summary that explained the reasons for the revert, and that the revert was back to the version of 2008.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway I believe the whole thing was just one big misunderstanding between us and was resolved amicably on the talk page as has been demonstrated. YuHuw (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I ask anyone who knows, are my comments below in the wrong place? YuHuw (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

May I also ask if anyone here recognizes this IP address? 202.9.41.173 [42] It looks like a WP:DUCK from User:Ancientsteppe and User:Toghuchar [43]. YuHuw (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I can see I have been named here although it seems a bit jargonistic to me. I will try to understand what is going on as until recently I have not really done much more than read and make spelling corrections on wikipedia. I come in peace! :) YuHuw (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

OK I think there is a bit of bad faith about me being assumed by the User:Toddy1 here. First of all I was very polite to Неполканов both in the edit history and on the Talk:Karait page [44], [45]. Although I perceived some disruptive editing and called for mediation [46] and I have to confess I didn't understand every point he made [47] and as it seems English is not his first language although he does very well and things were resolved. I made sure each point he made was acted upon as you can see [48], [49], [50] and [51] and also expressed my respect for his knowledge on Jewish topics and hoped we could work together in future projects [52].

As soon as we had reached a consensus and resolved all issues, along came the user who has posted this complaint, and reverted everything perhaps overlooking by accident our discussions. Instead he has assumed bad faith about me and called me "Kaz" or "Kazimir" over and again [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] despite my requests for him to stop doing so [60], [61], [62]. Looking through his history, it seems I am not the only person he does this to, but apparently to everyone who presents a different view to his own on the Crimean Karaites (in this case I think i upset him by distinguishing Crimea from Ukraine [63]).

I have asked for discussion with the user [64] but I was ignored and mocked instead [65].

I really have done the best I could think of to avoid conflict and resolve issues through discussion, but the User sees simply prejudiced against me. I would very much welcome any kind of mediation to resolve things between us so that we can both enjoy editing wikipedia in peace. YuHuw (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

70% of article deleted by Yuhuw. It is obvious vandalism: [66]. Yuhuw is sockpuppet of hongirid and kaz. Their edits are very similar: [67], [68] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.9.40.25 (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2016

Please stop calling me Kaz every time you edit [69] [70] [71] [72] [73], I have asked many times. Is this your IP Toddy1? Even if not, I see in the info provided above that you seem to have made the equation of Kaz and Hongirid first here->[74] is that right? May I ask why do you support the sockpuppets of User:Ancientsteppe (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ancientsteppe) and how many times have you tried to scare people by calling them Kaz rather than discuss your issues? Don't you think it would be better to discuss your problems with Douglas Morton Dunlop's work on Karaits than hide from it by scaring people away? YuHuw (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The disruptive edits of Toddy1 and his IPs have been surpassed by User:DBachmann's work today which I hope will not be mutilated or reverted. I would hope User:Toddy1 regrets his support for the work of User:Ancientsteppe's spockpuppets and also regrets calling me a scokpuppet over and again so that we can put all thisbehind us.

In light of all these facts, may I respectfully request that this empty complaint be struck from my record please? YuHuw (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:L435534l reported by User:Noq (Result: Indef)

Page

Jamshedpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

L435534l (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699157131 by Noq (talk)"
2. 16:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699155726 by B m d (talk)"
3. 16:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699154331 by B m d (talk)"
4. 15:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699145107 by B m d (talk)"
5. 15:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144879 by B m d (talk)"
6. 15:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144597 by B m d (talk)"
7. 15:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144443 by B m d (talk)"
8. 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144233 by B m d (talk)"
9. 15:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699144034 by B m d (talk)"
10. 15:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699143536 by B m d (talk)"
11. 15:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699142937 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
12. 14:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699140096 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
13. 14:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699138485 by 120.62.205.203 (talk)"
14. Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) to 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699101840 by 120.62.170.202 (talk)"
    2. 12:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699101144 by 120.62.170.202 (talk)"
15. 15:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698986842 by 120.62.194.191 (talk) ... Hindi and Bhojpuri language and culture did not do anything for Jamshedpur. Bengalis and Bengali culture established Jamshedpur."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jamshedpur‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• (Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist. 198.108.244.62 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:184.100.184.73, User:184.100.252.129 reported by User:MaxBrowne (Result: Semi)

Page: United States Chess Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.100.184.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 184.100.252.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]
3. [78]
4. [79]

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

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

Comments:IP editor just reverts without discussing. Semi-protection requested. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. There is a dispute about the branding to be used for this organization: 'US Chess' versus 'USCF'. This needs to be resolved on the talk page or through the steps of WP:DR. See WP:OFFICIAL for the usual considerations on whether the organization's preference should be followed. There is a set of IPs who seem to be here to promote the organization's own position. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:06, 7 January 2016 [83]
2. 19:38, 7 January 2016 [84]
3. 19:42, 7 January 2016 [85]
4. 19:43, 7 January 2016 [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:

This really deserves an entry on WP:LAME (being an attempt by Dennis to preserve the nonsense word "winningest") but on researching Dennis's contributions to harassment of other editors for the ANI discussion here, I noticed that he had violated 3RRR, the last three reversions in five minutes. The article is now protected, but I think this pattern of hot-tempered behaviour needs some examination. --Pete (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is just re-litigating Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive304#User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Dennis Bratland .28Result: 24 hours.29. The same arguments above were given consideration, and rejected. The admin gave Spacecowboy420 a 24 hour block and it was resolved. So this report is just an attempt to try, try again? It's obvious Skyring is forum shopping, since he isn't making much headway over at AN/I, where these same editors are locked in another dispute, and where Skyring/Pete is likely to get a WP:BOOMERANG sanction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:08, Today (UTC+0)

I have looked at the 3RRN report you link to above, and note that it was claimed your four reverts did not breach the rule because one concerned different material. Here is the rule from WP:3RR:

The three-revert rule states:

I think if one party to the edit war receives a block for breaching 3RR, the other party also breaching the rule deserves the same. Especially when the edit war is over a hot-tempered effort to preserve some nonsense word in an owned article. --Pete (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You could have contacted the closing admin (@KrakatoaKatie:) with your objections back when it happened, instead of waiting until you had other reasons to get angry with me and picking this issue as your latest ploy to attack me. Please stop Wikihounding me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been off on a week-long Sanskrit course, and have only just returned to the real world, as it were. Can't do everything at once and, trust me on this, Sanskrit is a topic that requires full attention. Rich that you accuse others of Wikihounding, when you devote your single-minded attention to anyone who disagres with you, including leaving repeated unwanted messages on their talk pages, when you have been repeatedly asked not to. It is clear that you broke the rules regarding edit-warring, and I'd like you to stand up and admit it, fairly and squarely. It was some days ago, the page was protected, and I dare say if you give evidence that you acknowledge the error and will not repeat it, you will not be blocked this time. --Pete (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I see what happens if I reply to you. You think you can out-talk anybody. Now you're rambling on about your weekend. Nobody has time to read all this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nothing to do here, any block would be punitive not preventative. Close as stale. -- GB fan 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2.25.11.248 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked for 24h by SQL )

Page: Potiskum Emirate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.25.11.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:

• A bit of a slow burn here (see edit history) which has speeded up today with four reverts from the IP, despite a warning and requests to go to the talk page. The IP has not responded either on his own talk page or the articles page. – SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SQL^{Query me!} 22:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another outbreak with another reversion from a different IP address (although again based in Scotland) despite the block still being in place. I've reverted per WP:Block evasion, but I suspect that the IP will return once again

• Due to the block evasion by a second 2.25.* IP, I've semiprotected Potiskum Emirate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: I weep for the future of the project)

Page

List of classic rock songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699461283 by Legacypac (talk) It is disruptive to remove AfD templates while discussions are open. The discussion cannot be closed as speedy keep because an outstanding delete !vot"
2. 13:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Restored AfD template. Discussion still open at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs"
3. 09:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699364094 by Legacypac (talk) Article is at AfD, and the blanking removed the AfD template."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users on List of classic rock songs. (TW)"
2. 13:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Plus reverting my close of my own AfD as a withdraw. [96] and harassment on my talk page. User appears to be annoyed at some of my other editing activity and is acting like a complete troll here. I see no reason they will not continue reverting indefinitely. Legacypac (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac (talk · contribs) continues to remove the AfD template from List of classic rock songs (diff, diff, diff) and has repeatedly closed the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of classic rock songs (diff, diff). Such closure is not allowed per WP:SK#1, because an outstanding delete !vote is present the discussion. The user also removed my comment from the deletion discussion in the second instance, which I had to add back. My actions have been entirely guideline-based. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The withdraw was before the delete vote and my actions are entirely within SK#1. NorthAmerican is just harassing me because a pageant articles. Legacypac (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this notion is mistaken; there's no stipulation at WP:SK#1 that said closure is allowed if the nomination was withdrawn before anyone !voted. The exact wording in the header of WP:SK#1 is "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection - perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting and making my point. Legacypac (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Because creation of this discussion has made me involved in matters regarding the deletion discussion, I will leave it to another administrator to re-open the AfD discussion if they deem this to be fit. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know you can always withdraw your own nomination and perform a non-admin closure, regardless of outstanding votes. The Banner talk 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

From my experience, such withdrawals are not allowed when outstanding delete !votes are present. In this case, the closure disregards the delete !vote by another user in favor of their own view, which is essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE. The early closure resembles a speedy keep one, because the discussion was closed before the seven day period has occurred. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

So you say people are prohibited to change their mind due to some essay? That sounds a bit strange... The Banner talk 14:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The close resembles a speedy one. See WP:SK and WP:SK#1. The essay link above is provided as advice. Essay's are not policies or guidelines, of course. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:WITHDRAWN, part of the Wikipedia:Deletion process guideline page, where it states, "While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it." (Bold emphasis not mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The Banner talk 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• What a lame edit war. If Legacypac had closed the AFD instead of just putting the withdrawn statement we wouldn't be here but since he didn't we are going to invoke bureaucracy and say he can't close it. -- GB fan 15:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with GB fan and suggest a WP:BOOMERANG at the most/WP:TROUT at the least for Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)::Nice misunderstanding of GB fan's comment and why the heck are you deleting my comments [97] ? Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• Just my 2¢ - The nominator can't withdraw if there's a delete !vote present ... (I ended up at ANI over closing one of my AFDs as withdrawn as there was a delete !vote present and was told I shouldn't close if there's a delete !vote.... So we can't have one rule for one and one for another), All that aside I see alot of sourcing by NA1K and alot of removing and warring by LP .... WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. –Davey2010^Talk 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

the withdraw was before the delete vote in this case. NorthAmerican was reinserting unsourced junk until forced into providing sources. That got their tail in a knot I suspect. Legacypac (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never known that you could not withdraw your nomination and close it yourself after somebody had voted. I doubt that the warriors knew that upfront of this drama. The Banner talk 15:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Another Support for boomerang following this revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

We don't usually remove other user's comments as Wikielvi did here [98] and then when an editor puts their own comment back call that a revert. Some competence is required to comment at 3RR. Legacypac (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Noting that Legacypac has now taken to harassment on my talk page for commenting here and for reverting his removal of NorthAmerica's comments at the AfD. He's been told to stay off my talk page, yet, he keeps posting bogus warnings on my talk page. [99]; [100] This is obvious retaliation; I can't support more strongly that a boomerang is appropriate here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, Wikielvi is dead wrong. They removed my comments, and I restored my comments. Warning them for their inappropriate actions is appropriate, and if it continues I will take it further. Legacypac (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Take it furher? What like this example? Let me know when tickets for your stand-up tour go on sale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Closing Leave the AFD open, nobody reverts anybody any more, nobody reports anybody at AIV/AN3 anymore, nobody drops a template on anybody's talk page anymore, people participate in the AFD if they want to, and move on with their lives if they don't. In short, everybody pretends that they're all grown up, and that everyone around them is a grown up too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – Since this report was brought against me, it is fair to mention that this was a boomerang situation, whereby the creator of this discussion was blocked for edit warring in relation to this matter (diff). My edits were simply following proper procedure in re the AfD matters, as per WP:WITHDRAWN, and did not constitute edit warring. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gunn Sinclair reported by User:Maunus (Result: )

Page: Kensington Runestone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gunn Sinclair (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. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Comments:

I get:

1. 02:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ RELIABLE changes made to show part of the message on the KRS is valid, making the stone itself valid, also."
2. 01:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Yes, verifiable provenance is continued."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC) to 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:56, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ KRS Inscription Verification"
   2. 23:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ This information is verifiable. I will file a complaint against you for needless tampering, if the situation warrants it."
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) to 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Vital information"
   2. 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ I include a PDF showing proof of locating the lake with 2 skerries. If it's good enough for the MN Historical Society, it is good enough for Wiki."
5. 22:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Valid information."
6. 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Provenance */ Change showing part of the message of the KRS is true. This is important to the issue."

There's also an ill-informed(wrong nationality for a start) attack on me at my talk page. Doug Weller talk 02:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gorin1245 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Indef)

Page

Marxism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gorin1245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "It was wrong action who is targeted against the University of Toronto also (1). You need respect the victims of Communism instead very strange motivations."
2. 02:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "I think he was right when made the suggestion continue discussion here: User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ypu need respect the rules of English Wikipedia instead Marxism or Leon Trotsky."
3. 02:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Your possibility in many times more (vandalism and etc)"
4. 02:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "sockpuppet of Marx (RonaldR). VANDALISM and etc. And I can call friends. They wish know Jimbo Wales better"
5. 02:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "You can be blocked in any second (war of edits). And vandalism for the good of offender Trotsky. Bloody offender."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[108]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Suspected sock of editor already blocked for the same edit-warring. RolandR (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Blocked indefinitely by Barek as a sockpuppet of Jaccy Jaydy. 198.108.244.195 (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaccy Jaydy and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Need1521/Archive. All these editors (possibly one person?) are concerned about the Russian Orthodox Church and have strong political beliefs which are hard to understand. According to this editor, we should remember that Wikipedia is not the fourth International under Leon Trotsky. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:DavidTParchem, User:71.90.71.141, and User:75.135.78.126 (appears to be same user) reported by User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (Result: )

Page

TNA Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DavidTParchem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.90.71.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)
75.135.78.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016785 by 24.185.202.112"
2. 05:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016770 by 24.185.202.112"
3. 23:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682816419 by Wrestlinglover"
4. 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683103313 by Wrestlinglover"
5. 06:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684790608 by Wrestlinglover "
6. 23:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686230160 by Wrestlinglover"
7. 01:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575115 by Wrestlinglover"
8. 02:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687513683 by MONGO "
9. 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689196366 by Wrestlinglover"
10. 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691519652 by Wrestlinglover"
11. 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692503716 by Wrestlinglover"
12. 05:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696241216 by Wrestlinglover"
13. 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697395751 by Wrestlinglover"
14. 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by AngeloPerante to last revision by 71.90.71.141"
15. 08:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699104255 by AngeloPerante"
16. 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699116822 by World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[109]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly has reverted the article to include information on a non-existent 2015/2016 Genesis event without explanation or sources. When 2015 ended without such an event taking place, the user continued to revert the article to reflect an also non-existent 2016 Genesis event. The entire added "2015"/"2016" section had/has no sources because none exist. The user refuses to respond to several prompts to cite any of the unsourced additions [110]. Both of the IPs that had been adding the section for the non-existent event can also be traced to Saulk County, Wisconsin, likely the same user. After one IP stopped, the second began making the same revisions, followed by the second IP stopping and DavidTParchem continuing the revisions. The second IP user was also warned on its talk page [111]. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Gala19000 reported by User:Amortias (Result: )

Page

Operation Hammer (1997) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gala19000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "This operation is sited as a stratigic turkish victory as they managed to kill many pkk members and also many of their camps/hide outs were destroyed. Not ling after this the pkk had beome less efective then they were before and declared later a ceas f..."
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) to 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Once again, those operations are from the turkish perspective. They have been described as succesful operations by the TAF and thus has been resulted as a turkish victory."
   2. 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed decisive part of the victory. The operation had been done succesfully by the TAF and thus it is mentions as a turkish victory. The pkk on the other hand has not given any result about the attack/operation and thus it makes no sense to remove or..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit-warring after previous blocks on various subjects in this area (diffs to follow). Topic ban might be the solution here. Amortias (T)(C) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded - User has edit-warred a bunch, and lead to PC protections of multiple articles, and might even be puppeting. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)