Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive294

User:Kadribistrica reported by User:Athenean (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
On September 2nd, Kadribistrica added ethnic percentages to the infobox [7]. I removed these [8], explaining my reasoning in the talkpage (see above). Kosovo is under a 1RR restriction. Kadribistrica has since then performed 3 reverts in the last 24 hours and shows no sign of stopping. Not only that, but users are required to discuss each and every revert on the talkpage, which he has only done once. He appears unwilling or unable to abide by the article's restrictions. A block is necessary to prevent further edit-warring, as is a warning of ARBMAC sanctions. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakr^\ talk / 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Nyanchoka reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 1 week)

Page

Leticia Calderón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680436877 by Philip J Fry (talk)Filmography"
2. 21:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "This is also correct you can update later"
3. 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680434603 by Philip J Fry (talk)Discuss it first in the talk page or paste them on my page.Am really getting tired with user"
4. 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "This page was recently updated no need to revise it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Leticia Calderón */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I take the time to update the Filmography of the actress, but obviously Nyanchoka that gives equal, his only reason for reverting is "that is updating the article Leticia Calderón". And I am in fact not preventing that the make their contributions, but because it does not want to accept my contribution?. I have the article Leticia Calderón a year on my watchlist, and I know who is the actress. But I do not understand what happens with Nyanchoka. I leave you a message about this, but the user does not want to understand. Philip J Fry • (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Philip,J Fry is actually lying about having the page Leticia Calderón on his watchlist.The article was very outdated and it almost took me a whole day constructing it ranging from grammar errors,cited the page had a templete of very few sources.What is actually frustrating me is that this user often makes changes on pages that he does not want anyone to edit.The edit war started early September 10 among other users Philip J Fry inclusive.So I decided to check my watchlist and found what was a page has become a battlefield.On the issue am accused of, I decided to distance myself so that I can make improvements on pages that had minimal attention.Now comes this Philip J Fry who thinks that is always correct.I asked the concerned administrator to also scrutinize User:Philip J Fry behavior on the Leticia Calderón's edit history and see the messages he was leaving me.Nyanchokanyanchy 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talk • contribs)

And how you can say that I'm lying?, place that article on my watchlist last year, since I saw this actress in the telenovela "En nombre del amor" last year. And regarding the war's editions, that is a user coming from days ago doing the same thing in other articles, although we are you warned that stop, not want to. And I have not really done anything wrong, simply update the filmography, since clearly missing projects by link and mention some episodes where came the actress. I do not see in that part that interrupted its other editions. Simply don't want to accept my edit, because I like to want to impose your point of view.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week — sock passes WP:DUCK test, too. --slakr^\ talk / 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Chewers Meat (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)

He is sending me this warnings [9], [10] so he is knowing the 3-revert policy, I am not needing no be explaining to him of this. Please look at the reverts.

Page

Demographics of Uttar Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• 1st removal of source
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert behind false vandalism claim
• BREACH - inside of 24 hours

Please also look at:

Page

Uttar Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I was getting the messages I did self-revert, look.

Now please take note of the following:

• Revert, plain and simple, say no more, see summary
• 2nd, wiping out stacks of cleanup edits and new information
• 3rd, same as above - bogus claim of vandalism
• BREACH.

He is accusing me of being a sockpuppet and I agree to an investigation to prove I am not. While nothing is being proven, he cannot say he is "reverting sock". Thomas W is in breach of policy, full stop. Chewers Meat (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A: the first edit claimed to be a revert was me updating the article with the recently released latest census data, not a revert of anyone's edits...

B: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis where the evidence has been presented.

C: as you can clearly see in the page history of Uttar Pradesh and Demographics of Uttar Pradesh I haven't reverted Chewers Meat because I suspect them of being a sock but because they have repeatedly replaced the latest official government data (from Census 2011) with older and/or unreliable sources, with bogus edit summaries such as "unsourced, unfounded", and continued doing so even after I told them why they should stop. Thomas.W ^talk 10:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Both "first edits" involved removing information and are as such "reverts". Thomas W is an experienced enough editor and one who we see is heavily involved in "policy issues" so I beg of the admins please do not fall for his pretending to be "ignorant" and he is still at this point in time in a situation to be reverting himself on Demographics of Uttar Pradesh. This is not the page for me to be defending myself from claims of sockpuppetry. And his claim of the "right version" in his "C" explanation does not place him above policy of WP:3RR, he is in breach and he refuses to self-revert. full stop. Chewers Meat (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Updating articles with the latest census data as it is being released, as I did when I replaced the older data directly sourced to or derived from Census 2001 with data sourced to the official Census 2011 web site, is normal article maintenance, not edit-warring. But repeatedly removing the updated information, as you did, is. Thomas.W ^talk 10:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Chewers Meat indefinitely as sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Graemp reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )

Page: United Kingdom general election, 1955 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Graemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]

(today)

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

(August)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] (already removed from talk page by Graemp)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:
Graemp is simply trying to frustrate routine NFCC enforcement. The article mentions the person depicted in the image only in passing; the main point it illustrates, that Clement Davies was the leader of the Liberal Party in this election, is so plainly conveyed by text alone that it is hard to see how a reasonable editor could argue otherwise. I've cleaned up scores of infoboxes with similar NFCC failures, and none have proved controversial before )despite the occasional recalcitrant editor who's ended up blocked). Graemp is taking the position that a nonfree image can be used to identify a deceased person in any article which mentions that person, which is hopelessly inconsistent with governing NFC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz overlooked referencing the discussion that I initiated on his talkpage here, which is is easier to follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#File:Clement_Davies_c1955.jpg

The infobox is a standard infobox that is designed to host the pictures of contextually significant people to the article. I did not put the infobox in this article, merely placed the image into the available space. I am not arguing anything about the use of non free images, merely arguing that this image is being used validly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been persistently deleting this image on one occasion because there was no fair use rationale when in fact there was one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was only moved to go to the article talkpage after I had opened a full discusion on his talkpage. Graemp (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Graemp is not telling the truth here, and doing so so crudely and blatantly that their good faith must be questioned. I posted to the article talk page at 17:03 [20]. I posted to Graemp's talk page at 17:09 [21]. Rather than responding to my posts directly, Graemp posted to my talk page several minutes later, at 17:14 [22]. Even if, in Graempworld, 17:03 comes "after" 17:14, that's not the world reasonable editors live in. Trying to muddle the watersw like this in order to prevent NFCC violations from being removed it itself disruptive behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp: So what are you going to do now? Please keep in mind that technically speaking, we typically err on the side of caution with it comes to copyright issues. Do you intend to continue edit warring? @Graemp and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Are you both aware we have a noticeboard dedicated to issues like this, as well as an actual process for deleting files where people can give input? --slakr^\ talk / 10:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Of course I'm aware. I've also been doing NFCC enforcement for years, and have cleaned up scores if not hundreds of similar violations. I don't believe a single one has proved controversial before. For good reason, as this is an open-and-shut matter. There's no reason to take settled matter to an overcrowded, backlogged noticeboard. Graemp hasn't provided any policy-based justification for including the nonfree image -- the existence of an infobox doesn't itself justify placing a nonfree image in it; that argument is so preposterous that I've never seen it advanced before. Good faith disputes are one thing, but here we simply have an editor trying to frustrate NFCC enforcement by repreated and tendentious obstructionism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Trumpetrep reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Trumpetrep and Drmargi blocked)

Page: Mr. Robot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trumpetrep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user has then gone on to show their low level of maturity by attempting to display the same edit-warring on my own talk page after I've reverted to STATUSQUO, and then once I've removed it, has gone on to continuously revert it to display once more. The user has been reverted on the main article by other users previously, though this didn't stop them at all. Alex|The|Whovian 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The article in question, Mr. Robot (TV series), is a derivative work based on David Fincher's 1999 film Fight Club. This fact has been widely commented on by critics at every level, from bloggers and message board users, to mainstream critics at major media outlets like Vanity Fair. It has become such a prevalent mode of commenting on the show, that it warranted its own section in the article. I created a succinct, well-sourced section which documented the parallels between the two artworks. Most importantly, I provided a substantial quote from the creator of the series explaining that he deliberately modeled the show on Fight Club, and he is proud of that fact.

If Fincher's movie were merely a model for the show, it might merit a mention in a sentence or two. However, comparing the show to Fight Club has become a standard way for critics to engage with the show. Therefore, a somewhat broader explanation was warranted.

After the first deletion of this section, which made spurious claims of original research and improper synthesis. I reverted to the original version and responded to the charges on the Talk page. I immediately asked other editors for a consensus on the matter. Alex The Whovian and another editor ignored this plea for consensus, and kept deleting the section with objections that moved beyond the original ones, which had been disproven, to the tautological 3x revision rule. As I undid their edits, I realized that I was breaking a rather big rule around Wikipedia, and I apologize for that. However, my rationale was to call their attention to the discussion on the Talk page and to engage them in a search for consensus. Their unwillingness to reach consensus on this point is actually the bigger no-no at Wikipedia, as far as I understand the guidelines.

My edits have been done in good faith. I don't think the same can be said for theirs. Both of their talk pages have sections on Mr. Robot with users complaining about their heavy-handed tactics on the page. See: User_talk:Drmargi/Archive_5#Mr._Robot and User_talk:AlexTheWhovian#Mr._Robot. Moreover, on the substance of the matter, no one can claim that the section that I created was poorly sourced, represented original research, or did not belong in an article about a work that explicitly derives from a previous work. This is standard encyclopedic material that should be included in the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor has been reverted by three editors, and is unwilling to stop reverting. He does not see the difference between his long-winded, synthetic analysis of the one influence on an element of the show being drawn from a film and the discussion of a film adapting a piece of classic literature. Moreover, the piece has a strong WP:POV slant. It's too long, too biased, and makes too much of the discussion of an influence, one of many, the producer has acknowledged. It's content for the Mr. Robot wiki, maybe, but not here. --Drmargi (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The assertion of a strong POV is incorrect on the face of the original language of the section, which is archived on the article's talk page. Drmargi demonstrably misread the section, attributing words to me that were direct quotes from the creator of the show. It seems that both Drmargi and AlextheWhovian have been overly hasty in their efforts to purge this page of any material related to its primary source material.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Trumpetrep and Drmargi 48 hours each.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The blocking of Drmargi is exceptionally unfair on him. He was merely following the rules, guidelines and policies for consensus and material on articles. If the block is required, there is certainly no need to make it the same length of time as the original troublesome editor. Alex|The|Whovian 04:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The blocking of Drmargi was exceptionally in line with WP:3RR, the exemptions to which are objective and explicit. Swarm ♠ 05:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hillandrew reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
2. 21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
3. 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
4. 02:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
5. 17:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
6. 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MxPx. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion at User talk:Walter Görlitz#MxPx and

Comments:

Edit warring over this content for six days (since 2015-09-05). Two experienced editors reverting. Argument: the band doesn't see the two albums as "studio albums" while Wikipedia guidelines indicate that they should be considered studio albums. Not sure if locking the page will prevent the editor from continuing the war or if a block is in order. I will let the admin decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Swarm ♠ 05:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Boyconga278 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Not blocked)

Page

Vietnam national beach soccer team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Boyconga278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1.55.47.198 (talk) to last revision by Boyconga278. (TW)"
2. 10:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1.55.47.198 (talk) to last revision by Boyconga278. (TW)"
3. 00:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 42.115.180.176 (talk) to last revision by Marchjuly. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC) (for edit warring on article 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL))

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor accuses others for vandalism, without it being vandalism and he has been warned many times for that and edit warring, but he keeps on in the same pattern. I am very concerned about this editors WP:COMPETENCE and his Englsih does not seem good enough to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have many more examples and diffs of his edit wars and bad edits if needed. Qed237 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry admin, I promised I'd quit dispute on article / 3RR warning. Boyconga278 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked due to the lack of 3RR vio and promise to stop. Consider this a formal warning that we will most likely not let future edit warring slide so easily. Swarm ♠ 05:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Burst of unj reported by User:Robofish (Result: )

Page: Alan Kurdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Burst of unj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. Another revert by the same user on the same article concerning different material, also within 24 hours: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] (not by me but by another user)

Comments:

This user appears to have disruptive intentions towards this article: after his changes have been repeatedly reverted, he has nominated it for deletion and created a WP:POVFORK, Photographs of Alan Kurdi, which is itself up for AFD. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - While this naturally is an issue that attracts strong opinions, it's clear that this user has really taken a hard-line position on things and been unncessarily combative. Something needs to be done about the actions done by User:Burst of unj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree 110% with the above comment by CoffeeWithMarkets Something must be done about the actions of User:Burst of unj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It could easily be a full-time job dealing with them. This should not be necessary! Boscaswell (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm wondering if a topic ban may be in order. User:Burst of unj is a single-purpose editor; last time I checked he'd made no edits outside of this topic. He's highly combative and borders on harassing editors who disagree with him. Now that the AFD has been closed, appropriately as keep, User:Burst of unj will either disappear or will continue to push his POV in the article. Obviously we will have to wait and see but those of us with the article on watch list should keep track of his edits. freshacconci talk to me 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Block This single purpose account is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nilüfer Demir. Even if the subject matter doesn't lean toward batshit, 33 (and counting, probably) is a pretty disruptive number of times to post anything in one AfD, the other two notwithstanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Block - I've come to agree with other editors. This user seems to only care about disruption, making many unhelpful actions without any sign of stopping. A block is in order. I'd also like to point out that the user is additionally being discussed here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:CFCF reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: Warnings)

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

• [39]
• [40]

• this is not the first time this has happened [41] has behavior of this on another occasion

the diffs below are from yesterday and today another article(2 more happened while here...with no explanation)...here I ask to take to talk page[42]

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

Attempt to resolve ....(no response to either attempt)

• [47]
• [48]

• notified [49]...and individual erased notification from page [50]

• has shown this behavior on other articles (with other editors)[51][52]

• here another ediror describes behavior on another article[53] was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem

I believe he was warned re PirateBay and several other articles. You won't notice by looking at his Talk because he always deletes warnings, often accusing the warner of vandalizing his Talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am asking for a 24 hour block on this individual ( at least a warning)[54],,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Did you restore primary sources to the page against WP:MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• on that edit it has 4 books , and 1 journal for description ([55]...if the individual had a problem with any book then it should have been placed on the talk page...it is for this reason as well as the same behavior on a prior occasion[56]and on other articles/editors [57] was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem I am asking for a block or warning for myself as well as other editors who have not spoken up...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • You are refusing to answer my question. Did you restore any primary source or any source that was against WP:MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• refer to prior answer and other editors that have complained...thank you(BTW are you an administrator?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Your prior answer does not address my question. You did not confirm or deny if you restored any MEDRS violations. We can go through every source. Is this source you restored a primarily source or a review? QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• please refer to last few sentences--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Your prior statements did not answer the specific question. Like I said, we can go through each individual source. Is this source a primary source or a review? Do you think the source is MEDRS compliant? QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• please refer to last few sentences--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you think you are engaging in discussion when there are concerns with your edits? QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• (I am repositioning my answer because I do not believe an individual who has been blocked 12 times should engage in this discussion)
• please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[58] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• • User:Ozzie10aaaa is moving my comments after I commented. User:Ozzie10aaaa thinks I should not be allowed to engage in discussion. User:Ozzie10aaaa, do you agree you will not move my comments again after I responded to your comment? User:Ozzie10aaaa, do you agree you will not add or restore disputed primary sources against WP:MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• • please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[59] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,it goes without saying we all use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • • You are reposting your previous comments rather than engage in discussion or address the dispute. User:Ozzie10aaaa, WP:MEDRS is a relevant guideline for medical topics. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• (unfortunately until an administrator shows up I have to answer this so I'm simply repeating please if any administrator would please look at my complaint I would appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• I would like an administrator to review my concerns, especially with the issue with primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• • • please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[60] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,it goes without saying we all use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• (unfortunately until an administrator shows up I have to answer this so I'm simply repeating please if any administrator would please look at my complaint I would appreciate it( whether a block 24 hours or warning for 3RR)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Reposting your comments again is not helping to address the underlining concerns such as using primary sources. Are you canvassing an administrator? QuackGuru (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are not so many admins as there used to be. I suggest that this back and forth is not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

agreed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't hide the evidence, including the evidence of canvassing. There are also concerns of you using primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• it is a repetition as Objection3000 indicated above (back and forth) is not useful please take his advice.....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[61] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,it goes without saying we all use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Left a note at ANI here.--TMCk (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is a poorly argued and then messed up request. I find this unfortunate as the subject of the complaint has edit-warred on so many articles, so many times, and needs to be reined it. I say this because I believe he can be a valuable editor. But, he doesn’t appear to want to collaborate in any sense of the word. In one case, he reverted seven times all attempts to fix an WP:ELBURDEN violation during an RfC, including reverts of at least one (I think two) admins, all the while claiming that all the other editors were edit-warring; but somehow he wasn’t. That’s but one example. Days ago, he reverted all my attempts to remove an unsourced blatant falsehood, again claiming I’m edit-warring; but he isn’t, and threatening me. All the while refusing to discuss. Minor case – but one of so many and a pattern of declaring ownership of articles. You won’t find all the edit-warring warnings on his Talk Page, because he removes them claiming they are vandalism and, at times, threatening the editors that post them. Indeed, he deleted the notification of this complaint. I know that I have not framed this statement with refs, et.al. But, I, and other editors, have lives, and simply do not have the time to deal with people like this. IMHO, he needs an understanding that we all have opinions; but we all also operate under the same rules and need to respect one another to forward the project as a whole. Frankly, a 24hr rip will convince him of nothing. Objective3000 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

It's unclear whether User:CFCF was properly notified of this report. (The 3RR alert was placed on his talk before anything was added to AN3). I've studied the edit history of some of these articles. I didn't see any 3RR violations but there have been a series of borderline cases. There is a pattern of tenacious reverting that causes concern. I've left a more explicit notice on CFCF's talk page and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed concern at editing patterns at [62], [63], [64], [65] – with seemingly no improvement. He's been asked to stop adding: images with irrelevant captions, poor sources and drive-by tags (often {{mcn}} after each sentence with one edit/tag) by a number of editors with no change. I reverted the additions on account they were poor quality and used both old and primary sources as well as inserting falsehoods or misinterpretations of source.
Reverts on the Pirate bay article were made over a period of several months–see the RfC on that talk page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston...the refs (answered below) really are not reverts, one was taken to Doc James by me, the other, eventually agreed, the other was about "edit count",,,and the other is CFCF again.

• the first ref is the same individual that I am complaining about?
• the second ref on my talk page which the editor is ...was in regard to edit count...not reversions
• the third ref is talk page med to which i answered this on Doc James page[66]....Doc James
• the fourth ref was answered as follows[67]... the person agreed with me....

• I however do echo your concern ...have been a series of borderline cases. There is a pattern of tenacious reverting that causes concern. I've left a more explicit notice on CFCF's talk ....(24 hour/ or warning) what ever you decide--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• (BTW)...this is another article Planned parenthood 2015 Undercover video(that is 4 reverts /24 hours...I do not edit this article,,,however it is an example)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• [68]..revert
• [69]..revert
• [70]..revert
• [71]..revert

• (Also BTW)...another article/editor..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• . In one case, he reverted seven times all attempts to fix an WP:ELBURDEN violation during an RfC, including reverts of at least one (I think two) admins, all the while claiming that all the other editors were edit-warring; but somehow he wasn’t. That’s but one example. Days ago, he reverted all my attempts to remove an unsourced blatant falsehood, again claiming I’m edit-warring; but he isn’t, and threatening me. All the while refusing to discuss. Minor case – but one of so many and a pattern [72]

I have looks at Fat embolism. Simply put the article needs work. You two need to find a recent high quality review in a major journal and work to summarize it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Result: The parties who've been reverting at Hypocalcaemia and Fat embolism are warned not to continue without a talk page consensus. When people fight over medical content, you have to assume that at least the issues are important. But The Pirate Bay and Paul Signac are not medical, and CFCF has engaged in revert wars there. I'm having trouble seeing the need for User:CFCF to make nine reverts at Paul Signac between August 4 and September 2. If you think someone is inappropriately making changes while an RfC is running, report it to admins immediately. A relentless pattern of reverting over many weeks just makes you look stubborn. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• fair enough ...I thank you for pointing out CFCF (behavior)in your last three sentences of the result, ( should the pattern resume your opinion as an administrator is very valuable, thank you again, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

He continues his tendentious behavior on the Pirate Bay article. It will not stop. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RobinHammon reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked)

Page

Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "The leader of a party and the members of that party *define* what the party is. 60% voted for a radical left winger. They have the ultimate last word. Stop changing it to something everyone disagrees with."
2. 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "This is what everyone thinks. Ask Jeremy Corbyn if Labour is left wing or not."
3. Consecutive edits made from 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) to 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672455 by Dnm (talk)"
   2. 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672545 by Dnm (talk)"
4. 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672319 by Dnm (talk)"
5. 12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Jeremy Corbyn is radically left wing, now the leader of Labour. To say Labour is "centre-left" is quite frankly a joke."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been pushing the idea that the Labour Party is now suddenly left-wing as the left-wing MP, Jeremy Corbyn, has been elected to the leadership. Dnm (talk · contribs) has also broken 3RR on this page. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours – EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MichaelAdamSmith reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Nova Science Publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680892204 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
2. 21:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680890042 by Vrac (talk)"
3. 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680887803 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
4. 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "In the cases of public domain material, NOVA always indicates the sources. You can request a book copy to find out."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nova Science Publishers. (TW)"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[73]

Some kind of game is being played, SPA IP asking for lawyers on talk page. Vrac (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

In addition to the obvious edit-warring, there's also COI here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that we had a similar situation with COI user on same article a couple of weeks ago. Link to 3RR case. Vrac (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Closed)

Page

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "see talk"
2. 01:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{underconstruction}} thanks!"
5. 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{underconstruction}} thanks!"
6. 02:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "please see your talk page, thank you. Undid revision 680921743 by JJMC89 (talk)"
7. 02:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) to 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
9. 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "please give me time to edit the page, per {{underconstruction}} thank you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blatant violation of 3RR even after being warned. Makes changes without consensus. TL22 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am attempting to boldly overhaul the page, and despite {{underconstruction}} template, I continue to be reverted.

If I was an established editor on wikipedia, this would never happen. But since my user name and talk page is new, I cannot edit this page without constant reversion.

The irony is this edit dispute is on the Article Rescue Squadron page, and this edit war behavior by editors is the reason why the Article Rescue Squadron exists in the first place. Headtransplant (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Headtransplant account's only other editing history consists of creating an unsourced stub article, reading in full "The Hypomanic Edge is a book by John D. Gartner.", and in adding a 'see also' Wikilink to the 'article'. This is clearly someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and shouldn't be messing around with Rescue Squadron instruction pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And even after being brought to this notice board, the edit-warring continues: [74] If this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Andy. The reported user should be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. --TL22 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I attempted a dialogue numerous times with these editors, asking them repeatedly to just give me an hour to edit the article, per template:underconstruction. See the edit history of the page.

We are talking about an obscure policy page.

If I was an established editor with numerous edits here, this never would have happened.

In response to me arguing against this 3RR, User:ToonLucas22 escalated this disagreement by WP:stalking my edits, and putting up my template for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14#Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article.

User:ToonLucas22 is now calling for me to be indefinitely blocked.

1. No civil dialogue,
2. a steadfast refusal to give me just an hour to edit a page,
3. edit warring,
4. threats,
5. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14#Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article retributive deletion requests, and now
6. calls for me to be banned indefinitely.

Headtransplant (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The claim of a 'dialog' is demonstrably false - see the lack of it in Headtransplant's editing history. What we have here is a contributor who refuses to comply with a simple request to get prior consensus before making fundamental changes to an instruction page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(and see also the related thread below 'User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591') AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Just because you know the passive aggressive way to edit war, does not make your behavior any less justifiable.

You started this Andy. A minor edit war, and now you are calling for me to be blocked indefinitely.

Headtransplant (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Headtransplant, WP:BOLD does not apply after editors have reverted your edits. We certainly encourage you to be bold in introducing changes to benefit the wiki, but when there's disagreement about whether they actually benefit the wiki, you need to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle and talk out the problems with editors before continuing your changes. The fact that the page was "under construction" doesn't give you the right to unilaterally introduce changes to a wikiproject's main operating procedures. Consensus is needed for such large changes before you carry them out, but especially when someone opposes the change. Can you see where you went wrong here, and do you have a plan on how to act in this situation going forward? ~ Rob^Talk 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rob: I see that you also supported my template for deletion.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14

Again, underneath the quoting of policy is extremely passive aggressive behavior.

You will aggressively support the deletion of a template that was barely made. There is policy about this too. You all never gave me a chance to create what I wanted to create.

Of course, Rob, you will call my behavior wrong, but will you ignore the 3RR violations of the editor below?

WP:BOLD applies. I attempted to tell this to User:AndyTheGrump and he was adment about not even giving me an hour of time to edit the article.

I can quote policy too, What about WP:BITE, WP:NEWBIE or WP:CIVIL?

And of course, you ignore template:underconstruction.

I am not going to get in a protracted policy argument with you.

Your like an aggressive pastor, you know the Bible like the back of your hand, and you selectively call sinners to repentance with your amazing ability to quote scripture, but that doesn't make the pastor any less passive aggressive.

Headtransplant (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

'Newbie'? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to discuss WP:CIVIL and WP:Sockpuppets now Andy?

Also, I have had over 200,000 edits to wikis. Mostly to wikia.

I host my own 20 wikis.

What about Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Again, you created this edit war. You refuse to compromise, you call for my indefinite ban, you delete my comments on your talk page. Multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Headtransplant (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I will bite. Lets play the policy game:

Wikipedia:Negotiation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution:

Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.

Andy violated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

WP:stalking

By putting up my template for deletion, User:ToonLucas22 and Andy violated WP:stalking. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

Headtransplant (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Andy violated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution"! This is getting more comical by the minute. I violate policy by asking Headtransplant to discuss changes before making them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:

User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [75]

User:AndyTheGrump: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page." 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [76]

Headtransplant (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Headtransplant (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As been amply demonstrated, you don't have a clue what you are doing - or are under the impression that rules only apply to other people. I suggested you discuss changes - you didn't. And now you are being held accountable for your refusal. Stop whinging like a four-year-old and accept responsibility for your behaviour. Or toddle off back to your personal Wiki's where you can safely be ignored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:

User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [77]

User:AndyTheGrump: No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [78]

Headtransplant (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. This is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591 (Result: Closed)

Page: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Comments:

This also appears to be a misuse of rollback as well, as the other editor's edits aren't clearly vandalism. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) -->

Stale report, JJMC stopped reverting 40 minutes ago, which is a considerable amount of time. --TL22 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring is still edit warring. Five reverts, all within 24 hours, a clear breach of WP:3RR. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I actually agree with that. I was gonna warn but they seem to have stopped. An administrator still needs to review this behavior, though. --TL22 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

For the context, see 'User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22' above - we have a new account messing around with an instruction page - and if it isn't simple trolling, it is a competence issue. Either way, removing instructions from the page is entirely inappropriate, and if reverting it isn't an exception under WP:3RR, it should be. There is far too much potential for mischief otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I see.

AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me.

Again, I have attempted to boldly edit the article, an obscure policy article that instructions have not been edited in months, maybe years, using the under construction template

In response, AndyTheGrump, ToonLucas22, SuperCarnivore591 blatantly ignore the under construction template, even when I ask for one hour to edit an article, template me several times on my talk page, report me to 3RR, put my template for deletion, and delete my talk page comments calling them "worthless".

Again, User:ToonLucas22 escalated this disagreement by WP:stalking my edits, and putting up my template for deletion. Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article

Headtransplant (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me." Dude, I haven't even edited the article, not once. So how could you say that I'm violating 3RR, and that I'm "blatantly ignor[ing] the under construction template" on an article I haven't even touched? SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Like I said above, if this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue - Headtransplant repeatedly claims to be 'boldly' editing, but either hasn't read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, has read it but doesn't understand it, or understands it, but refuses to comply with the instruction to discuss after being reverted. And then spams multiple pages with personal attacks. [85][86][87] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

And your solution User:AndyTheGrump is to indefinetly block someone you get into a minor edit war with.

You selectively support the enforcement of 3RR. "Block me" you scream, but don't block SuperCarnivore591.

You started this edit war. I repeatedly ask you to give me some time. I was in the middle of a major edit to the page, and you blatantly refused to give me time.

Yes, I understand the policy.

I also understand that editors like yourself use the policy like a club through passive aggressive behavior.

You started this edit war Andy.

This could have been avoided by you simply civilly discussing my changes. Headtransplant (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dude, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no valid reason to block me as I haven't been edit warring; I haven't even edited the article once. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey andy, is calling someone's edits "trolling" a personal attack?

Is calling someones edits "worthless" and deleting them all, a personal attack? Headtransplant (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Andy, is calling someone a troll exempt from WP:No Personal Attack? [88] Headtransplant (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note. Closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:SuperCarnivore591 (Result: Blocked)

Page: X-Men: Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]
5. [93]

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

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

Comments:

This user has been blocked for edit warring on X-Men articles before, see here. I started a discussion on the talk page, asking him to get consensus for his changes, but instead he kept reverting, now it's a total of five times. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although the editor still violated WP:3RR, they reverted only four times, not five. Two of the listed diffs are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:130.204.142.213 reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Semi)

Page: Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.204.142.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected six months. This article has been a source of trouble in the past and there is a pattern of IP reverting that goes back for months. Though the latest IP editor may have some good ideas, the place to get support for them is on the talk page. Trying to force your changes in by reverting isn't going to end well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Oliv0, User:Francis Le français reported by User:D0kkaebi (Result: )

Page: Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Francis Le français (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: After the conclusion of the edit war and ban of User:Francis Le français, I restored the version before discussion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4 hours from edit war conclusion, User:Oliv0 restarts the edit war by returning to Francis le Francais' version
2. Not a day passed after ban of Francis, re-starting the similar changes without discussion he was banned for
3. To see the previous 3RR discussion and conclusion
4. User:Francis Le français did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to revert the page to his own version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I think the previous case of 3RR of 5 days ago and its conclusion is enough explanation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• On previous 3RR, I explained all the solution I proposed for 6 months for solving the issue.
• Another user User:Write Serum is warning User:Oliv0 that his changes can not be justified by personal attacks. Answered by personal attacks on the neutrality of User:Write Serum

Comments:

Please note that a case of personal attacks and threat of outing has been opened against User:Oliv0 and his group. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

See my answer there : no threats or attacks from me. My modification was perfectly justified in the edit summary and goes against no dispute resolution, since the WP:AN/3 case mentioned only blocked the one infringing R3R and did not conclude as to which version is "WP:WRONG". Now the last modification by D0kkaebi, falsely stating in its edit summary that my modification had no justification except private attacks and that he is restoring the state of things to the previous resolution of an edit war, undoes my removal of POV in the article, so the question is: should I or somebody else undo it? Oliv0 (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page.

By the way, on a side note to admin, User:Francis Le français did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to revert the page to his own version. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I, see mine there: your assertion is false, in the link you mention Ravenswing did not say that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions). Oliv0 (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. This is his input. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This is also a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I (please stop, this is getting off topic), see mine there: here you are being non neutral, Ravenswing only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. Oliv0 (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not off-topic here. Admin needs to understand why you keep reverting and make a war edit supporting the changes of Francis le Francais that had been banished a day for that. If Ravenswing did not think it was the appropriate word, he would not have made this change. It is him who made the change, then I tried to discuss this change as I did not agree that "centrism" would be the proper word. Since I failed to convince him, I accepted the term for the sake of the consensus instead of making an edit war imposing my point of view. You see the difference between me and you? You think you are right and that is not questionable. If someone neutral brings a change, I discuss it calmly. By the way, note that "syncretic" was not my idea neither but a contribution of someone else. I guess everything is said, admins have all info to judge the case. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism". Stick to the independent sources, they do not mention centrism for this party. And the "difference between me and you" is that I am neutral and you are the POV-pusher with a WP:COI as a well-known local official of the party who wants to control the article that you think your WP:OWN, while accusing everybody else to do so. Oliv0 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon. Oliv0 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

So you finally admit you were wrong to revert without discussion. Yes, I can not mention in the revert summary all the 20 reasons why Francis Le Francais revert is wrong. That is why I keep driving you to the talk page, that you refuse to do and stick to your revert. Refusing the discussion assuming that anyway you are right is a POV and has no justification for Edit warring. I think the case can be judged, everything is said. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...

1. [102] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
2. [103] [104] he calls vandalism everything !
3. [105] he protects bad sources
4. [106] WP:OR
5. [107] & [108] & [109] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
6. [110] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
7. [111] removes a critical source
8. [112] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [113] & [114] & [115] & [116] & [117] & [118] & [119] removes a critical source, canceling , addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.

All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, everything was already answered to Francis le Francais, but the answers are always considered weak and/or endless answered with same claim, if it does not valid his point of view. If an Admin needs me to answer point by point to his claim, I can do it upon request. Otherwise, you can just refer to the explanation on the Edit War case where he was blocked for a day. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Tell us your diversions sources and the rules of Wikipedia. I assume having been blocked for your reverter versions containing original research, POV and lies. You assume your lies ?--Francis Le français (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Second Dark reported by User:Jobrot (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Frankfurt School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Second Dark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[120]

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Warning the user about proper usage of the NPOV tag: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123]

Most recent 3RR warning (as the issue persists): [124]

Comments:

This user has not raised any editorial changes yet claims Wikipedia is biased. They are a repeat offender, as evident from their user talk page.[125] I've done all I can in the way of explaining policy to them, and they have violated 3RR. Thank you for any help. --Jobrot (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for 3RR. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Liberté&justice reported by User:Banfield (Result: 12 hours)

Page: Página/12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liberté&justice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2 warnings: [126]

Comments: Clear Single-purpose account that arbitrarily reverts editions referenced in a single article without providing any source to his changes, although the current version has appropriate references.Banfield - Threats here 01:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Stifle (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Headtransplant (Result: 72 hours--for Headtransplant)

Page: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Headtransplant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127]
2. [128]
3. [129]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:

User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [130]

User:AndyTheGrump: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page". AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [131]

Comments:

Looking at the history of this page, some editors have been blocked for 3RR even when they had "only" 3 reversions. Andy started this edit war.

• The second revision he called me edits "vandalism".[132]
• The last revision is [133] in which Andy calls me a "troll". Headtransplant (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• AndyTheGrump, I don't really think that AN3 is the right place for one-liners, and that comment of yours isn't even a complete sentence, for crying out loud. However, it is spot on. The editor was clearly edit warring and displaying a pretty massive amount of incompetence, besides personal attacks (on User talk:JJMC89) and just generally a bad vibe. I won't block indefinitely for CIR at this time. Drmies (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 3 days (WP:OUCH) Stifle (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jerodlycett reported by User:wuerzele (Result: Filer blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [139] [140] The last 2 reverts occurred in spite of and after I opened a discussion of two edits and no response to the discussion here and here

Comments: user has an undated statement on his talk page, that he is "currently experiencing mental health issues". I found no evidence that this was put up "recently", so I feel this sends an odd message. he should not editwar when having mental health issues, or take off the sign, if he is okay. the page is under attack by several tendentious editors, so action is needed.

Response by Jerod

First, Old revision of Talk:Kevin Folta shows I have been trying to have any and all changes discussed before Wuerzele even came across the page. I asked at Old revision of Kevin Folta that any removal of cited material be discussed at the talk page. As per the warning, Old revision of User talk:Jerodlycett Wuerzele placed it nearly an hour after my last edit Old revision of Kevin Folta

For the discussion, I Old revision of Talk:Kevin Folta replied, and felt there was no need to continue arguing once I saw the emotions in play with Wuerzele and Seren. After Wuerzele was warned Old revision of User talk:Wuerzele they made at least two reversions: [141] and [142]. I've included a list of reversions below. I'm not the only editor that had to revert stuff Wuerzele did. While one of us should have reported them we kept reverting, WP:IGNOREing the 3RR in an attempt to keep the article neutral. Wuerzele did make some constructive edits too. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts by Wuerzele

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]
5. [147]
6. [148]
7. [149]

Comment by Nagle (talk · contribs)

This has been raised as an COI issue at WP:COIN#Kevin_Folta. There appears to be a COI issue, a BLP issue, edit warring, personal attacks, a huge number of recent edits starting Sep. 13, 2015, and a surprising number of involved editors who haven't been editing much else recently. I don't think we can do much for this at WP:COIN, and there are too many editors involved for simple 3RR blocks to help much. This article is going to need some form of dispute resolution. I suggest mediation. John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Wuerzele for 31 hours for violating WP:3RR. As far as I can tell, Wuerzele is the only editor among the many that are editing the article to do so. I've also reviewed the discussions at the talk page, and my sense is that Wuerzele's remarks are the least constructive to resolving the issues. Even with Wuerzele blocked, the article may need to be locked if disputes at the article continue without Wuerzele.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:109.148.57.243 reported by User:Guliolopez (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Template:Active Irish Air Corps Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (plus 1989 Jonesborough ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Air Corps (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Irish Volunteers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others)
User being reported: 109.148.57.243 (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. Template:Active_Irish_Air_Corps_Aircraft
   1. [150]
   2. [151]
   3. [152]
2. 1989 Jonesborough ambush
   1. [153]
   2. [154]
   3. [155]
3. Air Corps (Ireland)
   1. [156]
   2. [157]
   3. [158]
   4. [159]
4. Etc (Note: while some of these may not be strictly 3RR, these edits are offered as an example of general edit-warring behaviour on a range of articles over the last few days. Multiple editors have been trying to address. But it's getting tedious)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [160]
2. [161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. (and other unlisted attempts by myself and other editors to get some engagement)

Comments:

• The warring editor is MFIreland (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MFIreland/Archive). As evidenced by this quite obvious restoration of exactly the same copyvio content. This content was added by one of his confirmed socks 3 years ago[165] and reverted/restored by the IP editor last week[166]. This verbatim pattern of warring edits is not something one would expect from an unrelated anon. Ultimately should be dealt with under WP:LTA, but for now this IP should ideally be blocked. It's getting tedious. And while WP:3RRNO exemptions may apply (for restoring content removed/reverted by socks), until a block is applied this pattern of warring is likely to continue. (The same type of editwarring in the past has resulted in a volume of his other IPs being blocked [167][168][169][170][171]. He'll probably pop-up again later - but with an LTA mandate, we'll just have to deal with that when it happens...). Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• His first revert of the infobox at Irish Volunteers actually led me to open a discussion, where there was a concerted effort to agree a format. But 109.148.57.243 just reverted again and again, ignoring an invitation to join the discussion. As a result the article needed to be semi-protected. Given what Guliolopez has said, an SPI is probably in order. Scolaire (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 16:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:JoesphBarbaro reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

List of Zoey 101 episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC) to 21:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "Total nonsense. I'm following production order."
   2. 21:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "Nonsense. Four episodes (Spring-Break Up, The Curse of PCA, Goodbye Zoey and Chasing Zoey) are not one-single episodes. They're two parts according to production code. How about you do this on every other article while you're at it?"
3. 21:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "Take a look at other TV show articles like Danny Phantom, SpongeBob SquarePants, Drake & Josh and get back to me."
4. 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681047851 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Sucking my teeth"
5. 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681050853 by MPFitz1968 (talk) This has been explain in detail and yet nobody wants to listen."
6. 09:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681060509 by Amaury (talk) Don't be so damn silly now."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Episode numbering */ Comment"

Comments:

Both Geraldo Perez and myself have tried to explain to him that production codes basically mean nothing. What matters is how episodes are packaged, and some episodes of Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, Disney XD, and other channels are packaged as one episode that's double the length of a normal episode. For example, the finale of Degrassi season 14 was four production codes, but it was packaged as a two-hour movie (including commercials).

Josepth fails to listen and keeps using the same arguments, such as, "That's how other articles have them." Whether that's correct or not doesn't matter (because some episodes do air as an hour special and such, but are actually two separate episodes). How things are done on other articles shouldn't take precedence over other articles, especially if those other articles are incorrect.

On top of that, Josepth keeps reverting the article to his preferred version without waiting for a consensus to be reached and is being extremely hostile toward those who disagree with him. Amaury (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 16:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Abductive reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: 48 hours for continued warring after original closure)

Page: Sulfoxaflor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sulfilimine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [172]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Sulfoxaflor

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]
4. [176]

Sulfilimine

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

The editor has been attempting in each diff, to insert their own original research that the chemical sulfoxalfor is in a different class of insecticides called neonicotinoids instead of what scientific sources currently describe it as (sulfoximine) and later using newspapers not reliable for scientific claims to do so. Additionally, they have been inserting completely unsourced content claiming, "Dow had been attempting to evade classifying the chemical as a neonicotinoid since neonicotinoids are harmful to bees." while also adding while commenting that future approvals, "are expected to be quashed in the near future." completely unsourced and highly editorialized POV. They have also moved over to Sulfilimine doing much of the same.[182][183]

As of this time, Abuductive has not even attempted to use the article talk page, [184] even after being asked in edit summaries and the talk page itself rather than edit war the content back in (I've run myself up to 3RR trying to get them there):

• "(Undo editorializing language and misstatement that these are neonicotinoids per source. These are different a different class.)"[185]
• "(Undid revision 680478982 by Abductive (talk) still incorrect according to source. Please discuss on talk page per WP:BRD if that isn't clear.)"[186]
• "(Remove WP:OR (please read source and again discuss per WP:BRD instead of edit warring), Also removed editorializing again. Consensus is needed through discussion at this point for these removed edits."[187]

I'm asking for a short block at this point as the editor seems to be coming in with an extremely strong point of view and is attempting to edit war their unsourced views in across articles. In addition to not using the talk page, they have resorted to personal attacks and WP:ASPERSIONS calling me a corporate shill on their talk page.[188] Regardless, bringing the pages back to their last stable version would be preferable, especially if page protection is done on either page.[189],[190] This currently is not in the scope of the current GMO arbcom case since we're only dealing with an insecticide here. I can't work with the behavior issues, but the sourcing issues could have been handled if they used the talk page rather than continue to edit war. It looks like there are more behavior issues associated with edit warring with this editor though as opposed to a regular content dispute, so I'm looking for some help here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• This chumly knows full well that I have provided sources. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made a legal finding that the pesticide is in fact a neonicotinoid. This I have backed up with sources. I strongly suspect that User:Kingofaces43 is editing for Dow Chemical Company. Of course, I can't prove it, but I note that User:Kingofaces43 is at arbcom for similar problems. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments like the above are why I'm go so far to look for a block in clear violation of WP:ASPERSIONS while using it as a justification for edit warring. While it's true we're definitely trying to weed out some of this behavior at ArbCom in GMOs, we definitely don't allow that in other topics either. The source currently used says nothing of this specific claim for content made here (not to mention not being reliable for scientific claims and in clear opposition to previously cited sources). The problematic behavior related to edit warring should be clear in the diffs though as this editor is personalizing content and edit warring it in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

All the wikilawyering in the world isn't going to stop the articles from reflecting the court's finding. Abductive (reasoning) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

You're here because you've demonstrated clear edit warring behavior and refusing to use the talk page to resolve any content issues, but on top of that you're making up content that isn't in the sources you are using against WP:VERIFY in additional to violating conduct policy regarding other editors. I'm normally one to just opt for page protection and move on to discussion, but the lack of acknowledgement of the various problem behaviors by Abductive seems to indicate something else is needed to prevent this in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• 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. @Abductive: this dispute can probably be resolved quickly if only you pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war over this. Swarm ♠ 05:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, could you clarify a bit more on your above comment? I'm seeing four distinct times Abductive tried to insert the content within about a 6 hour period, not to mention completely avoiding the talk page when asked to go there multiple times even if one is going to ignore the other behavior issues such as personal attacks associated with the edit warring. That's only on one page, and they went over to another to insert similar content after they got the edit war warning. Even if WP:3RR isn't broken, it also clearly states that it's possible to edit war without breaking it, and we have a pretty blatant case of that here no matter how you cut it. This is serious edit warring behavior that I'm concerned might be emboldened if not addressed directly, and that's all I'm really asking at this point even though I've seen people blocked for less than this here in the past. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Because I keep improving the articles and adding sources, which you can't see. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Still no attempt by Abductive to use the talk page at this time to discuss the sourcing problems after two more reverts.[191][192] This is starting to get really sloppy with their attempts to only communicate through edit summary, so I really need to ask an admin to step in at this point. I've more than done my part to get things rolling on the talk page to hammer out some finer details, yet we're seeing a very one-sided problem with respect to edit warring here from Abductive. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they've bumped up to 3RR again. [193][194][195]. Could someone at least just return the article to the status quo version [196] before this all started and set up page protection for awhile to at least close this case here for awhile? Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(←) @Kingofaces43: If I missed a 3RR vio it was an honest mistake. Swarm ♠ 16:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was just an oversight and didn't intend anything ill towards you. It looks like we've hopefully got some resolution to this instance finally, so I think we can close this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR (Result: )

3RR has been breeched by Abductive (in about 4 hours), so can we please either get a block or a return to the status quo version [197] with page protection to stop this constant disruption?

My original edit that was reverted each time: [198]

1. [199] 23:51, September 13, 2015
2. [200] 00:28, September 14, 2015
3. [201] 01:12, September 14, 2015
4. [202] 02:07, September 14, 2015

Thanks to Ebyabe for attempting to bring this back to the status quo before being reverted by Abductive. I'm not going to be able to do it, so we need someone to get it across to Abductive that this is extremely inappropriate edit warring. Others have referred to these actions as vandal-like contributions.[203] Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I change my contributions each time to add more sources and clarifications. Meanwhile, as can be seen on the talk page, User:Kingofaces43 insists that the NYT is a bad source, and that an industry group sponsored by Dow Chemical Company is somehow independent. Abductive (reasoning) 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As has been shown to you many times WP:BRD is not WP:NBRD. It's possible to gain consensus on certain areas, but one needs to work on that at the talk page first before re-adding content after it's clear the initial edit isn't sticking. That's why you are currently sitting at four reverts today. It's extremely clear this user is completely ignoring WP:3RR looking at all the edits they've continued to make after their fourth revert rather than self-revert.[204] It does appear to be a method of gaming WP:3RR by inserting all these edits at this time. I'm not going to get drug into the behavior side of things any further though, so I'll let others here address your behavior at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding sources that back up my position isn't reverting, it's building the encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the above comments, this user is intentionally ignoring 3RR after being warned by EdJohnston they can face a block if they don't self-revert.[205] Instead, they went on and kept adding more content, and used this chance to readd similar content in other areas they previously wanted in. I've already asked Abductive five different times to stop edit warring and reach consensus on the talk page first, but they keep reverting. This tactic of running other editors up to 3RR and continuing the make edits after reaching four reverts is highly disruptive and supposed to be prevented by WP:3RR.

Can someone please lock the page down and return it to the status quo version at least? It seems this edit warring behavior is systemic looking at their block log, so could someone straighten out their behavior issue here with a straightforward warning? They just don't seem to get the issue with edit warring here and how it's derailing attempt to work in nuanced content. I'm not going to push for a block, but this amount of edit warring could have easily resulted in one a long time ago already. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Continued warring at Sulfoxaflor on 14 September after User:Swarm's original closure (from September 12). EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pritikin_Diet&oldid=646917490

1. [206] 03:56, 14 September 2015‎ My edit. Two conflicting cites, one of higher quality. Dumped one, explained why. Research: Undoubtedly a brief diet fad -brief because it's stringent - but "fad diet" is little supported overall, and certainly not by these cites.)
2. [207] 05:33, 14 September 2015 AB's revert. Does not, to my thinking explain, beyond the obvious that he thinks the other version good. (Reverted to revision 646917490 by 73.164.140.158 (talk): Rv. to good. (TW))
3. [208] 06:15, 14 September 2015‎ So, I hit the ball back across the net, pointing out... Undid revision 680942659 Follow BRD
4. [209] 06:26, 14 September 2015 For BRD, I did the R - now you do the D

As you'll note above, I included actual discussion with each edit, but just to be sure, I add the following on the talk page:

As you can see, the version reverted to had two very different assessments, one a mention in an introductory level diet text, and one an actual study. The study was largely positive on serious health gains, while the text emphasized...farting. Fails NPOV just on the face of it. When you add in the real question of equivocation -not all sources use "fad diet" to Alexbrn's preferred meaning of "fad diet"- it really is up to him to justify this reversion, not just assert the old version was good. Anmccaff (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Alexbrn discuss this? Well, later, but first, there are priorities!

(cur | prev) 06:27, 14 September 2015‎ Alexbrn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (70,351 bytes) (+1,457)‎ . . (Warning: Edit warring on Pritikin Diet. (TW)) (undo | thank)

...then the "discussion."

The source you deleted is a good one. Some of the other sourcing in this article is however dodgy. May get a chance to look in detail later. Alexbrn (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The article we were working on is a short one. There is only one other source, aside from the bio/publishing details, which rather implies...

There is one other source, aside from biographical details. How do you get "some" out of "one?" That strongly suggests that you don't need to "look in detail later", you need to look for the first time, now, before you simply do knee-jerk reverts. Anmccaff (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to notify him separately, seeing as he's already dropped a warning on my talk page?

Anmccaff (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: This isn't happening in a vacuum [210] will show a similar pattern, this time tag-teamed, but with the same substitution of papering of talk-pages with warnings for actual discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am wondering if you could explain how something written up within a short time of occurrence could be "stale?" Anmccaff (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ah...yes. I was kindly pointed out that I had mispelled "Pritikin" as "Scarsdale" above, which explains the idea of staleness. Whadda I do now, re-edit or resubmit?

• Note. I fixed the page reported and removed the stale finding in the result. However, I doubt I'll have time to review the complaint tonight, so hopefully another administrator can take a look.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No violation – Three reverts on one side and two reverts on the other. This is not enough to break WP:3RR. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. It is easier for admins to close these reports if you will list out the diffs in the usual way, presenting only the diffs of the party you are reporting (not your own) while linking to diffs and not versions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think my main concern is with the behavior problem, the substitution of template-plastering for discussion or decent editing. Dispute resolution only works with good-faith editing. Anmccaff (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:SWASTIK 25 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Cristiano Ronaldo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

SWASTIK 25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681203077 by Qed237 (talk)"
2. 20:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 17:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681180388 by Kante4 (talk)"
4. 17:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681177811 by Kante4 (talk)"
5. 17:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cristiano Ronaldo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps edit warring and shows no interest to stop. He modifies content without source at Real Madrid article and add not notable content (with live updates) on Cristiano Ronaldo. Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is User:SWASTIK 25. I am just keeping the article updated. What's the problem of User:Qed237 in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWASTIK 25 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - As an uninvolved editor, I have to agree with Qed237. SWASTIK keeps adding pointless information to the article; who cares if Ronaldo is four goals away from breaking Raul's record? All that matters is when he actually breaks it. – PeeJay 20:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Protected)

Page: Anna Politkovskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (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. [211]
2. [212]
3. [213]
4. [214]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [215] [216]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [217]

Comments:

I anticipate that User:Beyond My Ken will try to excuse their behavior by invoking WP:BLP policy and argue that the 3RR restriction does not apply to them. This is not the case. The BLP exemption is for cases where the possibility of BLP violation is fairly unambiguous. Here half a dozen reliable sources, including books by scholars, have been provided to support the text under dispute. Beyond My Ken is just choosing to ignore them. Likewise, in the talk page discussion they stated that they will no longer discuss the matter but just revert others. This is unacceptable and BMK should know better.

Since the article has been protected, at this time a block is not necessary. Beyond My Ken does need to be warned however to ensure that this behavior does not resume once protection expires. Volunteer Marek  00:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I should note that the 3RR page is pretty explicit about this: " What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.". BMK has not heeded this advice. Volunteer Marek  00:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking at the situation in more depth, there's a bit more disruptive here. Immediately after violating 3RR with their 4th revert, Beyond My Ken ran to the Requests for Protection page and asked to have his preferred version protected [218]. This shows that the user is not interested in resolving the dispute but rather in "winning". It's also a pretty transparent attempt at WP:GAMEing the rules. Volunteer Marek  00:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverting BLP violations is an absolute defense against edit warring. VM and another editor are attempting to add information connecting Vladimir Putin to a murder, because the murder occurred on Putin's birthday, and the murdered woman was a political opponent of Putin. The evidence they present does not show any causal connection between them, it merely shows that some people suspect that there may be a connection, or that conspiracy theorist believe there is be a connection. It is thus unsourced innuendo about a living person, and therefore completely disallowed by BLP policy.

I have explained this numerous times to them on the article's talk page, until I got tired of repeating myself, but they seem not to understand the difference between sourcing the existence of the suspicions, which they have done more than adequately, and sourcing the actual connection between Putin and the murder. Without a source for an actual connection, the material is in direct violation of BLP and may be removed from the article on sight by any editor -- indeed, it is the duty of a conscientious editor to do so.

I'd also like to note that page protection was granted by Callanec, an Oversighter and Arbitration clerk, who surely must be familiar with BLP policy. It was not my "preferred version" that was protected, it was the version without the blatant BLP violation. BMK (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not "defending against edit warring". You ARE edit warring. You are the only person to break 3RR on this article.

There is no "unsourced innuendo". The text says exactly what more than a dozen sources say. We could quote DIRECTLY from reliable secondary sources and it would be exactly the same thing. You are just using WP:BLP as a bullshit excuse. And yes, it was, "your version" which you tried to get protected. Which evidences bad faith. Volunteer Marek  01:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I did not say I was "defending against edit warring", I said exactly what I said to you on the article talk page, that edits which remove BLP violations are immune from 3RR, so that is an "absolute defense against [the charge of] edit warring". What I was defending the article from was unequivocal BLP violations by you and the other editor. Since BLP-violation-removing edits are immune from 3RR, I cannot, by definition, have been "edit warring". As for innuendo, the mention of Putin's birthday in relation to the murder most certainly is innuendo, as it implies some connection between them - or else why mention it at all. I am sorry that you cannot, or do not want to, understand this, but it is absolutely so, per Drmies' argument regarding Desmond Tutu on the talk page. That's all I will say here, since this is not the place for the continuation of talk page disputes. BMK (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

There was no "unequivocal BLP violations" except in your mind. Over half a dozen sources were presented to support the text. The policy explicitly states: " What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." You did not choose to pursue that option but instead engaged in edit warring. The mention of Putin's birthday is made in pretty much. Every. Single. Source. On. The. Subject. For you to demand that we ignore what sources say is about as twisted, backwards-ass, reading of WP:BLP as one could possibly come up with. For you to use that to excuse your edit warring and breaking 3RR merits at the very least a stern warning. Volunteer Marek  03:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't want to see anyone blocked, and I haven't looked at the history of who reverted who when and how many times. But I do have to say that I believe that the basic statement that "Mrs. X was murdered on Putin's birthday", even if expanded to "Many sources note that Mrs. X was murdered on Putin's birthday", is a BLP violation since it asks the reader to speculate on what the meaning of that possible coincidence might be. I am more interested in an admin acquainted with the BLP confirming this fact (that innuendo like this is a BLP violation) than I am in anyone getting blocked. The talk page section is a bit long by now, but you can skip the parts that I didn't write, haha. (I didn't come up with Desmond Tutu--another editor did that and actually stuck it in the article, as a very POINTy point.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Here is my edit on this page. As should be clear from the text, authors of every book claim about 'an actual connection and explain why the date of murder was important. However, these sources served only to justify inclusion of the fact noted as extremely important in a vast majority of RS on the subject. There is no way the reverts by BMK can be justified as removal of poorly sourced materials per BLP rules. The books are written by professional historians who are experts on the history of assassinations in Russia, among other things. Unless BMK admits that he did it wrong (including gaming the system and refusal to talk on article talk page after loosing the argument), he is going to repeat the same on other similar occasions in a future. My very best wishes (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, there will be no fighting in the war room. Marek, My very best wishes, it seems to be obvious that there is edit warring here. (The claim that BMK is gaming the system by asking for protection is silly--if BMK is right that this is a BLP violation, they are doing the right thing.) The only thing, then, that matters is whether BMK can reasonably argue that he can invoke BLP. I think that he can, and I am speaking through my administrative mouth piece. It's for that reason that I earlier removed the claim from the article, an edit reverted by, well, someone. Why this is a BLP violation, I have explained this a few times already. You can disagree, of course, but what matters here is whether an uninvolved admin (who's not being paid by the Kremlin, of course) thinks that BMK reasonably invoked the BLP. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that this is a very well-grounded BLP concern. Thinly-veiled innuendo such as this that obviously implicates Putin in a murder of one of his opponents is entirely non-neutral and out of line with BLP. If reliable sources directly discuss his connection, there's nothing wrong with including it, but the contested phrase is horribly passive-aggressive innuendo that implies much more than is written, and that's not appropriate for a neutral article. Swarm ♠ 04:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much every single source which discusses the murders states that it happened on Putin's birthday. The fact that it happened when it did is a central and key aspect of this topic. Which is why almost every single source mentions it. You can't just omit something that every single reliable source talks about - that's a straight up misrepresentation of sources. Volunteer Marek  15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Here I've listed over thirty sources which mention the fact. I can easily list thirty more. Like I said, almost every single source on the topic talks about it. Volunteer Marek  15:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 weeks by User:Callanecc. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Alan Azuma reported by User:Pankoroku (Result: Declined)

Page

File:Concentration of whites in the American Continent.png

User being reported

Alan Azuma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• 1
• 2
• 3

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps reverting the improved changes on the map to an old version with no logical or official source, to that thematic map. The following map File:Concentration of whites in the American Continent.png was improved since the old one had some errors on it. It was improved with official sources. Between the errors on this map is that Venezuelan concentration of white people were located on the old map on the Eastern side (something it's not true since the white population in Venezuela are in the andean, western, central and capital region), and it's sourced to be below 20% when offical data for the entire country is 43,3%. Colombia is shown as an homogeneous country, while official data shown that white population are mostly concentrated in Andean states, and some coastal and amazonian states are less this. Other fixed countries are Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, Chile and Cuba. The official sources are:

• Cuba: http://www.one.cu/publicaciones/cepde/cpv2012/20131107resumenadelantado/tablas/4.pdf
• Peru: http://espejodelperu.com.pe/Poblacion-del-Peru/index.htm
• Ecuador: http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/resultados/
• Chile: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-98872014000300001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
• Colombia: http://www.dane.gov.co/files/censo2005/etnia/sys/colombia_nacion.pdf
• Venezuela: http://www.redatam.ine.gob.ve/Censo2011/index.html

The user Alan Azuma keeps reverting this improvements, without an explication nor data to defend his revert. --Pankoroku (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. @Pankoroku: this image is actually located at Wikipedia's sister site, Commons. Wikipedia administrators have no power over actions taken there. You should file a report regarding this at ANB on that site (the administrators' noticeboard for blocking and protection requests). You can log in there with your Wikipedia username and password. To get to the page, you can type in the shortcut COM:ANB at Commons, or c:COM:ANB from Wikipedia. Swarm ♠ 05:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a Commons admin; I'll take a look. Stifle (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

    Both users warned on Commons. Stifle (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Garageland66 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Protected for a week)

Page: Hard left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Garageland66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent edit-warring over articles on UK left-wing politics. See Talk:Communist_Party_of_Britain#Requested_move_10_August_2015 and particularly [219]. They've now switched to Hard left, a term that is widely applied (usually pejoratively from the right wing press) to a few left wing UK politicians, particularly in the '80s and '90s. This is hardly even a contentious term: those to whom it was applied have proudly embraced it. Garageland disagrees and, as we saw at Communist Party of Britain, only his version is the one true correct version. This is refuted by several other editors.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [220]
2. [221]
3. [222]
4. [223]

As first stated, these claims were unsourced. That's not a problem to any reader familiar with UK politics (there is no credible challenge that "Red Ken" hasn't regularly been described as hard left). However policy wants sources, so I added sources to each one. Garageland has now seen fit to remove those too, with the utter nonsense claim, "Put these references on their Wiki profile pages first. If they're accepted there, then they can go here. Unlikely to be successful. Wikipedia should not be smearing current politicians." That is not how sourcing works on WP, even when Garageland disagrees. Any discussion at Talk:Hard_left has just seen Garageland stone-walling.

I'm suspecting that a topic ban might start to be considered (certainly a topic ban on undiscussed POV page moves, such as [224] [225]), given what an ongoing and topic-focussed problem this is. Garageland certainly has no appreciation for collegial editing and consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in edit-warring I'm trying to achieve a consensus. I'm not sure why there should be a topic ban for me when I have been trying to reach a compromise. Each attempt at this has been responded to with flat rejection. I don't know what it is that gives Andy Dingley the power to respond to my request for compromise with a flat "no". Please read the Talk Page, to see his inflexible approach.

On other pages my contributions HAVE achieved a consensus. For example on the Communist Party of Britain page it was finally agreed to compromise with Left-wing/Far-left as a compromise.

After you wore everyone else down with your intransigence and you were blocked for edit-warring. Do not mistake exhaustion for agreement. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I asked that the reference for Jeremy Corbyn as hard left be removed because the source is a very partisan right-wing newspaper - hardly in keeping with Wikipedia's impartial reputation. I've also asked that the leader of the United Kingdom's opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, be removed from the Hard Left page as it is a smear on a high profile political figure. His Wiki profile page makes no reference to him being Hard left. But Andy Dingley is acting as judge and jury on this and deciding that no change can be made.

I have tried the compromise of leaving Ken Livingstone on (or 'Red Ken' as Andy Dingley chooses to disrespectfully call him) because Ken Livingstone's page DOES list him as hard left. And then take the other names off. But again Andy Dingley has acted as judge and jury and flatly rejected such a compromise with a "no".

Can somebody intervene and try to arbitrate? To leave some high profile names on the Hard left page (while Wikipedia does not describe Nigel Farage or other such figures as Hard right) is to smear those names. (Garageland66 (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC))

• Continuing by once again bulk-removing the references [226] Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

And again [227] Andy Dingley (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Someone needs to deal with Garageland66 -- he's stripping out parts he doesn't like, again; [228] [229] [230] [231]

(.. continue) he has gone ahead and stripped the parts which he doesn't like, yet again, although he's a complete one-man band minority on the talk page. We didn't reach a consensus, yet he went ahead and edited out names which he doesn't like because he thinks it's "slander" when it's not. He's clearly only removing the names that have recently become a lot more popular in UK politics. He seems to forget that he's the one who decided to go ahead and remove names years after they were put onto the article - yet he believes his copies are the ones which should be live whilst we 'talk' - although no one reached a consensus. He has removed them at least a minimum of 4 times, now. Attractel (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 07:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:User:SyriaWarLato reported by User:Mztourist (Result: 4 days)

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

Previous version reverted to: [232]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [233]
2. [234]
3. [235]
4. [236]
5. [237]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Vietnam War#Infobox edit war about casualties

Comments:

User:User:SyriaWarLato continues to edit war at Vietnam War, despite being blocked for this last week: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SyriaWarLato reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked) and refuses to accept consensus on the Talk Page Mztourist (talk) 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 4 days. A further offense will tend to establish a contravention of WP:NOTHERE and will be considered very dimly. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ududafggfg reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Why is this image odd?"
3. 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Why did you keep removing waterfall image?"
4. 14:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681320370 by Serols (talk)"
5. 14:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 14:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "STOP REMOVING WATERFALL IMAGE IDIOT!"
7. 15:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "This is clearly a waterfall, are you blind?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned twice on TP. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 16:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

== User:Mahir007 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: No violation ) ==

Page

Binbir Gece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mahir007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC) to 11:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 10:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   2. 10:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   3. 10:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   4. 10:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   5. 11:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   6. 11:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   7. 11:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   8. 11:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   9. 11:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
   10. 11:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */"
2. 10:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Binbir Gece‎ */ new section"
2. 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Binbir Gece. (TW)"
3. 19:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Binbir Gece‎ */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Now delete this information. Since Wikipedia does not allow programming guide. According to WP:NOTVGUIDE.But the Mahir007 user, does not want to accept this, and has decided to wage a war of editions, with your own account and an ip.I clearly explain because I got rid of his edit and delete this information, but the user does not want to understand. I hope that any admin can do something about. Philip J Fry • (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – these edits are all consecutive and so count as at most one revert. Please discuss your edit dispute on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Wrabbjr902 reported by User:Starship.paint (Result: Protected)

Page: Template:WWE personnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wrabbjr902 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and QuintLight (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: (4 reverts within 5 hours today)

1. [238] reverts in part edits by HHH Pedrigree, including moving Christian to Unassigned personnel
2. [239] reverts in part edits by HHH Pedrigree and / or ClassicOnAStick, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from Unassigned personnel
3. [240] reverts in part an edit by Keith Okamoto, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from Unassigned personnel
4. [241] reverts in part another edit by Keith Okamoto, including moving Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce out from Unassigned personnel

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by HHH Pedrigree and by Keith Okamoto

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242] Back on 6 September, in response to edits made by Wrabbjr902, I started a discussion on why Christian should not be in Unassigned personnel, but Billie Kay, Nia Jax and Peyton Royce should be. I pinged Wrabbjr902, who did not respond. Wrabbjr902 started an edit war over these items (and others as well) today. starship.paint ~ KO 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Wrabbjr902 has a long history of warnings on their talk page over unconstructive editing, particularly on List of WWE personnel and Template:WWE personnel. There has been at least one level 3 warning for a wrestling / WWE-related subject. Wrabbjr902's customary response is to blank their talk page after receiving a warning. starship.paint ~ KO 08:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC) QuintLight makes the same editions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think there's sockpuppetry going on here. -Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• I am minded to block User:Keith Okamoto, User:Wrabbjr902, User:QuintLight, and User:HHH Pedrigree for tag-team edit warring. I'll give you all one chance to quit reverting and start talking. Stifle (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Stifle: - Keith Okamoto and HHH Pedrigree have already attempted to talk to Wrabbjr902 on Wrabbjr902's talk page. The posts were removed by Wrabbjr902. It's in the evidence I submitted above. starship.paint ~ KO 09:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okamoto and me are removing vandalism from the template. We need help. No matter what, Wrabb stills editing the article, balnking his talk page and doesn't answere the discussions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected. Because there was a previous indefinite semi-protection and full move-protection on the page, I have upgraded this to full protection. Any admin is free to restore it to the previous level if things calm down. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:99.233.155.197 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 60 hours)

Page

Girl Meets World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
2. 22:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) to 22:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   2. 22:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
4. 22:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) to 22:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   2. 22:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC) to 22:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   2. 22:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   3. 22:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   4. 22:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) to 22:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   2. 22:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Characters */"
   3. 22:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Girl Meets World. (TW)"
2. 22:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Girl Meets World. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked for 60 hours by User: 5 albert square. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:95.89.18.195 reported by User:Mountaincirque (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ""long-standing consensus" referred to is not sufficient reason for bias"
2. 11:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC) ""mainstream encyclopedia" should mean that negative bias is not acceptable"
3. 11:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "negative bias is proper justification - by the way, you're the one who is waging an edit war"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly made and reverted correcting edits claiming they are biased when this IP is obviously biased in nature, trying to remove text claiming that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience, a referenced fact in the article. Mountain^cirque 13:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that only the direct statement that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience was removed because this was a prejudicial judgment. Additional comments in the article referring to claims that cryptozoology is a pseudoscience were left in. So the purpose of these edits was to establish neutrality in the article. This was repeatedly attacked and my good intentions were castigated as an edit war. A similar warning should also be sent to other editors involved, otherwise this is simply a form of censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.195 (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected Take it to the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hoojaboard reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Lexus RX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681533169 by Thomas.W (talk) There is an article for the Toyota Harrier, again the Lexus RX home market is not Japan"
2. 19:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681497894 by Thomas.W (talk) no home market is not Japan Home market refers to the market the vehicle was primarily designed for, which is usually the country that the vehicle's manu"
3. 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Fourth generation (2015–present) */ home market is North America, why it was originally written as such"
4. 15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681255904 by OSX (talk) why?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lexus RX."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring on Lexus RX over whether imperial measures (inches) or metric measures (millimeters) should be listed first in the infoboxes (it's a Japanese car and metric measures have always been listed first, until 'Hoojaboard started changing it...). Thomas.W ^talk 20:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

the 1st 2nd and 3rd generation infoboxes originally listed inches first, you changed them.Hoojaboard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I never violated 3RR since the original OSX edit on the 4th generation infobox still stands.Hoojaboard (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:楊千呱 reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rebel Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

楊千呱 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [243]
2. [244]
3. [245]
4. [246]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [247]

Comments:

User insists that Hong Kong is not part of China and keeps using "Hong Kong" in a "country" field when it is already used in a "city" field. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Cassianto reported by User:Erpert (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Ariana Grande (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [252] (if this counts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (The edit summaries in the above diffs contain the conversation, but it stems from here.)

Comments: While I can respect that enough users don't appear to agree with my side of the situation, what I don't condone is Cassianto's way of handling things. He first appeared to have an attitude in his comments earlier in the discussion (albeit those weren't directed toward me); but things really came to a head when he deleted my entire comment by claiming that it was off-topic. I clearly explained that the comment was not off-topic (as well as warned him for violating WP:TPO); still, he wouldn't let up. I then told him that if he reverted a third time, I would start a thread here; after which he not only archived the thread, but he also left a message on my talk page stating that he didn't "give a shit" if I made a report.

I really don't think edit-warring by closing a discussion that he not only participated in but also categorized incorrectly was appropriate. Wouldn't it have been better if someone uninvolved closed the discussion if they felt the need to? (I didn't revert the close because I didn't want to violate WP:3RR myself.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Erpert was sprawling for a fight with SchroCat and despite being told on the Grande talk page to "keep to the topic", Erpert still decided to pursue their conquest by engaging in an unproductive argument. The thread header was "Navbox" and the topic of that conversation should remain at "Navbox". If the user wanted to change that subject, by talking about another improvement-based topic they should've built a sub-header or started a different subject altogether. However, if they felt the need to discuss the conduct of another user, they should've approached that user on their talk page to discuss things, not conduct a public argument to the detriment of that article's talk page. Bringing an edit war argument to an article talk page, which is designed for article improvement, is disruptive and does not benefit the article in the least. I closed the discussion, which I'm permitted to do as an uninvolved party, as a productive way to end the dispute before things got worse. And guess what, it worked! Cassianto^Talk 07:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• As an semi-involved editor (involved in the thread, not the reversions), there has been no breach of 3RR here. It requires four reversions to breach 3RR, not the two that Cassianto has undertaken. The third diff provided above was Cassianto closing the discussion leaving Erpert's comments in place, and not edit warring - or even coming close to it. (A reminder that WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period").

As there has been no breach of WP:3RR here, I suggest this is speedily closed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• 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. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  I strongly urge an admin to close this thread asap. Pointless bollocks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  It's already closed. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  If I got 3RR incorrect, I apologize because I always thought it couldn't be three reverts—although it is still edit-warring. And maybe Cassianto has a different definition of "fight" than I have (I refer to fighting as battling, which I do not engage in; also, if SchroCat thought I was fighting with him/her, wouldn't s/he have said that?) because I was calmly answering the questions given to me; at any rate, IMO, closing the thread when he was already involved (despite his claims to the contrary) seemed like a clever way of saying: "Well, technically that isn't edit-warring because I didn't do exactly the same thing." (And no one bothered to give an opinion on the WP:TPO violation?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Aslanstatistic123 reported by User:Akerbeltz (Result: both blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Adıyaman Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aslanstatistic123 (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. [253]
2. [254]
3. [255]
4. [256]
5. [257]
6. [258]
7. [259]
8. [260]
9. [261]
10. [262]

This user has a persistent problem with anything relating to Kurds. Deletion of Kurdish place names (most of the above diffs, there are more), population statistics involving Kurds (also the above page), see also

1. [263]

and [Turkic peoples] where the user attempted to falsify the figures given in the source:

1. [264]
2. [265]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [266]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [link]

This is a simple case of vandalism, there was nothing really to resolve through talking to the user, having run into this attitude on numerous occasions.

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I have considered whether User:Akerbeltz was exempt under WP:3RRNO item 4 and have concluded that he/she was not as the edits reverted were not obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell the reason why I'm winding down my activities on the English Wikipedia. Good luck. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:173.206.84.241 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Scream Queens (2015 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 03:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC) to 03:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 03:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
   2. 03:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
2. 03:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
3. 02:29, September 13, 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
4. 18:27, September 12, 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
5. 01:09, September 6, 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
6. 21:11, September 4, 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
7. 16:05, September 4, 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
8. 18:29, August 27, 2015 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Scream Queens (2015 TV series). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has been edit warring (slow-mo) over unsourced content. The user has been warned, but has not stopped. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Drmies. Swarm ♠ 05:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:BiKaz reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: 60 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: 00:40, 6 September 2015

There has been a slow edit-war concerning the Barelvi#Criticism section. The editor refuses to participate in discussion on the article talk page, and only communicates through edit summaries.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:16, 6 September 2015 reverts User:ScholarM
2. 22:11, 7 September 2015 reverts User:GorgeCustersSabre
3. 22:25, 8 September 2015 reverts User:GorgeCustersSabre
4. 22:32, 10 September 2015 reverts User:ScholarM
5. 20:09, 16 September 2015 reverts User:GorgeCustersSabre

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:40, 11 September 2015

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Barelvi#Ehsan Elahi Zaheer's book.

Attempt to persuade BiKaz to discuss the issues User talk:BiKaz#Barelvi

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 2½ days Stifle (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Further edit-warring
The edit warring has been continued by a new ID, who appears to be a sock puppet of BiKaz - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BiKaz

1. 19:46, 18 September 2015 777EVIL10 reverts User:Alipied
2. 16:11, 19 September 2015 777EVIL10 reverts User:C.Fred

-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
This might as well be archived. He/she has been indefinitely blocked for abusive use of multiple accounts.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:186.9.131.187 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Richard Parks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "if the bbc credulously reports that everest is a pole, then we are under no obligation to slavishly follow their wrongness."
2. 15:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681650791 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) hardly curious to understand that the earth has two poles, and will not never have three."
3. 17:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "Stop being ridiculous. No-one considers Everest to be a pole because a pole is where the axis of rotation intersects the surface of a body. Everest is not, never has been and never will be a pole. You're simply being disruptive."
4. 17:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "You know very well that Everest is not a pole. Repeatedly inserting false information like this is vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 17:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Richard Parks. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly blanks warnings; edit summaries consists of a blanket denial that sourced material should be kept: and which he insists on removing despite the attempts of two editors to dissuade him. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A claim that the earth has three poles is laughably ridiculous. Repeated insertions of information that could hardly be more false are vandalism. 186.9.131.187 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In which case, your concerns should be addressed on the article's talk page, rather than the repeated deletion of what is- regardless of your particular point of view- material sourced by the BBC. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

An article which gullibly reproduces his own PR-speak as if it were geographic fact does not mean that the BBC considers Mount Everest to be a pole. It is not. Also, perhaps you should check the talk page and the discussion I started a while ago before telling me to take it to the talk page. That just demonstrates your lack of interest in the actual content here. 186.9.131.187 (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand: Good Luck. LOL. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours by Sarah, 72 hours by me when declining the unblock as it's Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

3RR by User:Gothicfilm on Battle for the Planet of the Apes reported by User:Taeyebaar(result: protected, apes warned to keep protection to selves)

Gothicfilm (talk · contribs) removed a label from Battle for the Planet of the Apes a total number of four times today [267].--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected, as an alternative to blocking both of you. You perpetuated an edit war just as much as Gothicfilm. Consider dispute resolution. Swarm ♠ 04:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Take your stinking protection off me, you damn dirty ape! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Even if the user broke the 3RR [268][269][270][271]. I even gave a warning [272]--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Taeyebaar: I could certainly issue a standard 3RR block, yes, but in the interest of fairness, if I did so I would absolutely block you as well. Yeah, even despite the fact that you did not violate 3RR. You still propagated the edit war to an equal degree. Or, rather than ruining both of your clean block logs over something stupid, I can opt for protection instead, preventing the continuation of the edit war all the same, while giving you some time to discuss the dispute and pursue dispute resolution. The superior choice, in my mind, was clear. Swarm ♠ 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But I do have a clean record, I have not broken the 3RR and I gave reason to add my edits and sources do term it as an action film. Gothicfilm usually reverts people on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no regards to sources. In any case I have saved links to the 3RR and report for future reference if necessary.--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Abecedare reported by Swastik (Result: Page protected)

Page:Subhas Chandra Bose [[Subhas Chandra Bose]] 
User being reported:User:Abecedare [[User:User:Abecedare|User:Abecedare]] ([[User talk:User:Abecedare|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/User:Abecedare|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/User:Abecedare|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/User:Abecedare|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/User:Abecedare|block user]] · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [273]
2. [274]

• Warned User:Abecedare 19:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [275]

Comments:

Swastik (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Swastik

• Page protected for 7 days; please discuss on article talk. Bishonen | talk 19:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC).Bishonen | talk 19:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

References

References

User:CFredkin reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: Warning)

Page

Political positions of Jeb Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Removing content until there's consensus in Talk regarding whether and how it should be included per WP:BRD."
2. 04:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Civil liberties and electronic surveillance */ add source and edit for neutrality"
3. 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Civil liberties and electronic surveillance */ source doesn't say it would increase government surveillance."
4. 15:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681325783 by MrX (talk) sources don't say the plan would increase government surveillance by establishing a "command focus""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

CFredkin has been blocked several times before, so no warning is required. Although the last edit to this page was a few hours ago, he continues to make successive reverts on other pages. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The first edit above was made in error. I noted that and apologized for it in Talk. The edit was re-reverted before I could self-revert. Interestingly Vanamonde makes no reference to the Talk discussion (which he did not participate in) at all in his complaint.CFredkin (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

To clarify Vanamonde's statement above, the last edit in the dispute was almost 9 hours ago. The last edit of the article was less than an hour ago by Vanamonde when he chose to re-initiate the edit war without participating in the Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if current activity on other pages is relevant here, but in any case I don't think the example Vanamonde provides supports his point.CFredkin (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Warned – as things have calmed down now, all of you play fair please. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
• @Stifle: - CFredkin continues to revert this same content ("advocates for more government surveillance") that he has now removed five times. Note, that this revert occurred after you warned him and after he blanked his talk page. Can something please be done to curtail this?- MrX 22:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Almost 29 hours expired before I made the edit MrX is referring to. Mr.X has refused to address the issues with the content in dispute at the article Talk, despite the fact that I raised substantive policy issues there (regarding synth and undue) over 33 hours ago. (And despite the fact that he/she has been quite active on the project during that time.) Is s/he exempt from engaging in Talk? Instead MrX waited until I posted the edit I proposed in Talk and then almost immediately ran here to complain. S/he has been engaged in a persistent campaign to insert POV content in that article, and more than one editor has expressed concerns with the content. I'll also note that Mr.X did not notify me of his/her post here, despite the fact that the original complaint has already been addressed by an admin. In my opinion, that is definitely outside the bounds of good faith behavior.CFredkin (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. Here are my talk page edits in for the past few days [276]. Actually no less than three editors support the content that you have removed five times. I don't know how the content could be "POV" since it's almost a direct quote from a reputable source, but of course, that's not an excuse to edit war anyway. Also, you have been heavy handed with reverting at Carly Fiorina, even after being warned about edit warring.- MrX 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A review of the actual edits you've made to the Talk page in the last ~34 hours indicates that you've made no attempt to address the issues I've raised there. And as I stated above at least 2 editors have objected to your edits to the article. Content can be POV when you engage in synth to make a point and insist that it appear multiple times in the article to emphasize that point.CFredkin (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Also a review of the Talk discussion regarding this content indicates that you're the only editor there arguing on behalf of your content.CFredkin (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity reported by User:NickCT (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [277]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [278]
2. [279]
3. [280]
4. [281]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [282]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [283]

Comments:

User:Nomoskedasticity seems to feel that an image multiple editors have tried to put into the infobox at Jeremy Corbyn violates WP:BLP. He has unilaterally taken upon himself to revert all attempts to add the image. NickCT (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It was also addressed on his TP here. He has never actually expanded his proposition of a BLPVIO, merely repeated that it not the case. He has been advised that it is not taken 'out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light,' and the consensus on the article TP reflects this. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I asserted in good faith the sincere view that the image being restored was a BLP violation, for disparaging the subject (it truly looks awful), and I’m disappointed to see that NictCT is pursuing things in this way. I contributed to the talk page discussions in several sections, making this view entirely clear. In my last edit, I removed the picture entirely rather than again restoring the one I had been restoring; I did this because NickCT drew attention to his own view (which I had not noticed previously) that he thought the one I was inserting was a violation of WP:MUG – in other words, I did not try to override his own BLP objection (once I was aware of it), while the reverse is plainly not true. The current situation of no image can stay as is until we can find an image that does not raise these concerns and gains consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture is on Commons - and is not a police "mug shot" which appears to be the only specific type of image of a living person generally deemed to be a BLP issue. Thus it is a matter of consensus among the editors there entirely. If it were actually remotely near a BLP issue, I would assert that it should be removed for sure. I do think "who keeps fucking with the photo" appears to be a tad less than civil, and might be deemed a personal attack, possibly actionable per se. For matters of editorial discretion, the only proper recourse is to the article talk page. Collect (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Page protected Nomoskedasticity appears to be sincere in their belief that the picture violates BLP so sort it on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)]]

His sincerity does not give his assertion validity, CambridgeBayWeather- and has found no support. BTW, what is the point in protecting the page? This has had nothing to do with IPs. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He has found support. Actually he didn't find it, it went from here. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Well I happen to think they are sincere. Fully protecting a page can be done when confirmed editors are Wikipedia:Edit warring. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm also a little confused by User:CambridgeBayWeather protecting the page. Seems like overkill. The entire page is locked down over a dispute regarding the infobox image.

And saying someone has a "sincere" WP:BLP concern seems like poor rationale. I have a sincere WP:BLP concern that not using the image I was trying to add constitutes a violation. Does that mean I can edit war? NickCT (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed; it is effectively a green light to edit war- as long as you have a deeply-held belief! We're through the looking glass people! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No it is not permission to edit war. How can you when the page is protected? The thing is that if the page is protected then a discussion can be continued on the talk page with the possibility of it being resolved. As long as one, and sometimes more, editors are blocked then the edit war is only postponed and no discussion gets held. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

'No discussion gets held'...? It has been discussed since 1045 AM today. The edit warring only began when one party disagreed with others. Still. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't cricket though Cambriweather, changing the image to your preferred version after you protected the page. Admins are not supposed to favour a view that way. You should have left it as you protected it. Very bad form. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 16:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Roxy the dog: - Not sure what you're on about. CambridgeBayWeather didn't change the image. Regardless, still not sure page protection was a great call here. There was clearly an ongoing discussion at the point the page was protected, and the actual warring had stopped. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, I made two edits, this and this. Which of those two edits changed the image from this version? If you still think I changed the image then I suggest you report me for abusing my admin tools. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have struck my inaccurate comment, and apologise to Cambriweather. -Roxy the inaccurate dog™ (Resonate) 16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: - re "No it is not permission to edit war." - But you're effectively saying it is permission to edit war by forgiving User:Nomoskedasticity's obvious edit warring by saying simply that you believed him to be "sincere". NickCT (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

NickCT, go read Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions, #7 and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Page protection, blocks. Thanks Roxy the dog. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions specifically says Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Why not expect people to go to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption? NickCT (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Edit warring#3RR exemptions makes no allowance for such editwarring. And if one of those exemptions was relevant, then this would also apply: "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert"... that seems pretty clear. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"to go to the BLP noticeboard" because people react. When it comes to BLP almost all editors, that I have seen, will revert rather than make a proper report. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: - "almost all editors, that I have seen, will revert rather than make a proper report" - And you condone that? NickCT (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said that I did condone it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, dismissing edit warring by saying it was done with "sincerity" seems to condone it. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, it's probably time to move this debate forward. Any chance you could un-protect? I think there is little risk of the infobox picture being subject to continued warring. NickCT (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I normally avoid heavily-edited articles, and if I do touch them, it's only to fix minor formatting and spelling mistakes and the like. Above all, I try to stay out of edit wars (I'd rather spend my time on productive work). But I have to say that I agree with Nomoskedasticity that the image was tantamount to a BLP violation, and I commend CambridgeBayWeather for a good admin call. I think NickCT errs in thinking that the absence of commments implies that no-one supports Nomoskedasticity. --NSH001 (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@NSH001: - re "the image was tantamount to a BLP violation" - Great. It's good that you thought that. If you read the talk page, it's clear that many others didn't. The point is, it wasn't an undisputed BLP violation (as evidenced by the support the image garnered on the talk page). If it isn't an undisputed BLP violation, you shouldn't edit war it. NickCT (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

perhaps Nick might have more correctly said "you shouldn't edit war it in" -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And of course @NSH001:, how can an absence of comments imply such a thing. Consensus is, I'm afraid, built on the slightly more tangiible presence of commentary and opinion. Slightly misleading interpretation of policy I fancy. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't understood what I said. On the talk page, NickCT wrote "Snow Image 2", which you then promptly implemented, when there was absolutely no consensus to do so. CambridgeBayWeather made exactly the right call here, as this is the sort of disagreement that is obviously going to take some time to sort out on the talk page, and should wait for a clear consensus to emerge. If the process is done properly, I expect it to take several days, unless a suitable photo becomes available from the Labour Party or Corbyn's team in the meantime. FWIW, I think all the images are pretty bad, but the said "Image 2" is by far the least suitable for the infobox. --NSH001 (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I have understood you perfectly. You, however, have not understood what you are citing. Yes: that was implemented: and it was continually reimplemented by a body of editors. That = a form of consensus. Waiting for people to arrive: NOT consensus. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@NSH001: - re "which you then promptly implemented" - I didn't actually, but that's OK. Regardless, I had a "sincere" concern that the image I was replacing presented a BLP concern. So you'd support that move, right?

We all think all the images are pretty bad, which I why I encouraged everyone to be constructive and look for new images instead of edit warring. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Unsigned edit warrior at Garage rock article

Page

Garage rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:241:8001:87a4:acc5:c228:6f53:552 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2601:241:8001:87a4:8a63:dfff:fec7:f7a5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an unsigned editor engaged in an edit war (from different IP addresses) at the Garage rock, who has now done it three times. I don't know whether his/her intensions are sincerely misguided or if it should be regarded as a case of vandalism. But the situation should be monitored. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide diffs to facilitate administrators. --TL22 (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the log (see link [[284]):

• (cur | prev) 08:05, 19 September 2015‎ Ghmyrtle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,697 bytes) (+20)‎ . . (Undid revision 681732303 by 2601:241:8001:87A4:ACC5:C228:6F53:552. You need to discuss this proposal on the article talk page, and stop edit warring.) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 04:29, 19 September 2015‎ 2601:241:8001:87a4:acc5:c228:6f53:552 (talk)‎ . . (206,677 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:46, 17 September 2015‎ Garagepunk66 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,697 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South: You are engaged in an unconstructive edit war with a knowledgeable editor who understands the Florida 60s rock scene--if your actions continue, I will report the incident to administrators.) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 04:35, 17 September 2015‎ 2601:241:8001:87a4:8a63:dfff:fec7:f7a5 (talk)‎ . . (206,679 bytes) (-17)‎ . . (Undid revision 681370683 by Garagepunk66 (talk)) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 20:37, 16 September 2015‎ Garagepunk66 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (206,696 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South: wording) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 03:40, 15 September 2015‎ 2601:241:8001:87a4:8a63:dfff:fec7:f7a5 (talk)‎ . . (206,679 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Florida and the South) (undo)

I've never reported an incident before, so I'm not and expert at this kind of notice. Above, I have printed out a log of incidents above. You will notice that both Ghmyrtle and I have tried to appeal to the unsigned editor to stop the warring and discuss the issue on the talk page. We would be very open-minded about hearing that editor's perspective, and even consider finding sources to justify any of his/her proposed changes--if it is done in a civil way according to protocol. But, right now that editor is not going about it in a constructive way. I want to believe that the his/her actions are sincere and well-intended, but with an unsigned editor, we can never rule out the possibility of vandalism. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Swarm ♠ 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:楊千呱 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Rebel Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

楊千呱 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Shows */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring at Rebel Heart Tour */ leave a note about talk page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "/* HongKong/Macau vs China */ new section"

Comments:

Instead of attaining consensus about the matter, the editor chose to continue edit war for the same thing that he/she was blocked, not even 24 hours ago. Same persecution in Born This Way Ball and there are also open suggestions of sockpuppetry. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This user continues to lie and keepS changing the originality as well as disregards the discussion to find out a final solution. He/She insists what he/she does is right even tho editor tries to communicate with him/her. He/ she should be blocked as well if he/she disregards the message I tried to convey to him/her. - User:楊千呱 21:21 20 September 2015 (UTC+8)

No 3RR violation at the moment, so this report was filed too soon. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no need of this report now, in lieu of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gpcv77. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sockpuppet. Swarm ♠ 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:99.233.155.197 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

Girl Meets World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) to 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
   2. 13:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"
2. 13:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Main characters */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP user has been recently released from a block for edit warring on the same page (see article's edit history on September 16), and decides to continue making the exact same change(s) to the article which led to the edit war and their block three days ago. MPFitz1968 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Swarm ♠ 06:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mendezes Cousins reported by User:Jeh (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: NEMA connector (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mendezes Cousins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: "previous version" is to MC's first edit

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [285] misleading edit summary, as he simply copied the removed material to a new article, Twist-locking connectors, losing edit history in the process
2. [286]
3. [287] another misleading edit summary, "everything's fixed"
4. [288] yet another, "already discussed!"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [290] [291] [292] [293] [294]

The only response was a declaration that "I'm right" (diff).

Comments:

Not just 3RR, but also copying entire article subsection (6000 bytes) to another article hence breaking edit history, and using deliberately-misleading edit summaries. Week-old editor, has even requested adminship! Clearly does not know how WP works. Jeh (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Well I cannot exactly self-revert because a bonehead that calls himself C Fred has lately entered the edit war and has misused his admin powers to join in the battle. So everyone that edit warred against me including this so-called Jeh person should be questioned for their actions. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. Mendezes Cousins (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 06:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:IndianBio reported by User:楊千呱 (Result: Nominator blocked indef)

Page

Rebel Heart Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Born This Way Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 09:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Shows */"
3. 10:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 07:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 05:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 13:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC) "
7. 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC) "

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user continues to lie and keeps changing the originality as well as disregards the discussion to find out a final solution. He/She insists what he/she does is right even tho I try to communicate with him/her but what I received was his/her hateful speeches. He/ she should be blocked because of violating the 3RR warning as well if he/she disregards the message I tried to convey to him/her. - User:楊千呱 21:21 20 September 2015 (UTC+8)

See above for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gpcv77. In retaliation. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 13:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Having two accounts doesn't mean sock puppet. Come on. Maybe you got two or more as well lol —User:楊千呱 —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment — This report seems to be in retaliation of IndianBio following the reporting user's 24-hour block for edit-warring. IndianBio was merely editing in defense of consensus talks. sock-puppetry and apparent on-going vandalism. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked indefinitely Swarm ♠ 06:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mahir007 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

Page

Binbir Gece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mahir007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC) to 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "added useful content"
   2. 06:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "/* International Broadcasters */ useful edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I hope an administrator can do something... This is already the second time I come to here. The first time they did nothing. I have already explained to the user about editing and does not want to understand, here is the discussion.While it has already reverted so many times, I don't want to get injured in this, I just am meet the standards of Wikipedia. Philip J Fry (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not violates the law of wikipedia at all. User:Mahir007 —Preceding undated comment added 08:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Blocke)

Page

California Chrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681883159 by Softlavender (talk) gee - thanks for giving me zero minutes to respond to the section you opened on article Talk!"
2. 04:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681880908 by Softlavender (talk) it isn't a "bold change", removing cutzie, unnecessary decorative quotebox coloring, from encyclopedic article (*adding* them, would be)"
3. 04:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681879291 by Viriditas (talk) I call BS - why do you waste pixels w/ hollow argument in editsum, when there's space here for inclusion of argument w/ some modicum of substance?"
4. 02:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681870461 by Montanabw (talk) "if passed FAC" is not responsive to the reasons I gave for removal (FAC is not omniscient, and, an encyclopedia article is not a coloring book), an"
5. 02:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "a Featured article s/b "enjoyable to read", yes, but this kind of kitsch decoration (playing with quote box background colors to match jockey uniform colors) belongs in something like "Picture Magazine", not an encyclopedia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on California Chrome. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This appears to be a deliberate, pointy attempt by the user to harass Montanabw during her RFA. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary in my opinion. He has already indicated that he has no intention of continuing to edit war, so the block locks purely WP:PUNITIVE. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)