Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive287

• I think you need to look again if you honestly think there are seven reverts: there are nothing of the sort. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Response Whether it is five or seven is really neither here nor there. Five is certainly more than the threshold of three, so you're in violation, regardless. Like others are telling you, SchroCat, Ed Johnston is being extremely patient and generous by offering you an out. Don't you think it would be wise to take that offer (including not commenting at the article talk page)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• I am waitng for him to comment that he thinks that it is applicable to gag someone in an RfC. Once he has clarified that he wants that, leaving someone who has been continually untruthful to continue the discussion, I will give my answer. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Personal attacks have
  Chase (talk | contributions
  ) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note, I have not indicated that I do not plan to stop, so again, please at least try and be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reponse to note The comment, "When you stop misleading and acting incredibly badly I will..." (see here) says to me that you intend to continue with the personal attacks; like a threat, actually. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you misread the situation as badly as your chum has. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a clear violation. I think that SchroCat should accept EdJohnston's generous offer without negotiation as this is something that warrants of block. You have been given an out, you may want to take it.

Can an admin just full-protect the (^&*)%& page immediately please before heads roll. An RfC is in progress and folks are getting het up. That would be the most productive way to proceed. I would but I have an opinion on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Clearly a violation, as EdJohnston pointed out. Whether the article should remain in its current version (which has the material included when the RfC began) or in a version not including those "diva" claims, until the RfC is decided is a matter of debate, of which editors can disagree. Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, and feel the inclusion is a clear violation. Other editors disagree and don't see a BLP issue. Such is life. But that is irrelevant to this discussion which is whether or not an editor violated the 3RR rule, which clearly occurred. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected for three days by
  WP:3RR. If you continue to revert after protection expires the next admin may choose to issue a block. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: United Against Nuclear Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32] - Continues to edit war, this 5th revert (of different material, partially reverting this edit) - even AFTER this report was filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] - was warned about edit warring earlier today, on a different article, and has reported another user for edit warring on THIS article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
User was just here a few hours ago, edit warring on multiple articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's already been discussion about everything

point #4), which was obvious in Averysoda's systematically deletion of sourced material. --MehrdadFR (talk

) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

None of your reverts were of vandalism. You need to read

WP:VANDALISM to see what it means. This is a simple content dispute and you are edit warring.All Rows4 (talk

) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Clear violation of 3RR by

WP:Battleground editor who was blocked for similar behavior in March[35]. Think a longer block is necessary this time. Particularly since the user ALSO in violation of 3RR at Anti-Iranian sentiment. Plot Spoiler (talk

) 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours as 3RR was violated at both United Against Nuclear Iran and Anti-Iranian sentiment two days ago, and user reverted again today at the UANI article indicating disruption is likely to continue. —Darkwind (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Northeastern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

4 reverts in 2 hours

Contributor321 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, imagine having the audacity to suggest someone wanting to add controversial information (which was already in the article almost verbatim) should discuss such a change on the talk page. You made no effort to resolve the situation. And I find it highly suspicious that two IPs, which both made their first edits and geolocate to the same city, decided to join in on the edit war. Finally, the page has already been protected so this appears to be
  T|C
  04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and look who just started a proper

T|C

05:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks like edit warring to me in addition to a refusal to employ
  WP:BRD. After being told by the other editor to take concerns regarding disputed content, Calidum snarkily responds, "Or you could". No attempts to discuss that I can see; no real explanation for edit reversion in edit summaries, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓
  04:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised it took you 15 minutes to find this report. And BTW, the user who filed the report also failed to follow BRD since they insisted on making a change to the article without discussing it first.

T|C

04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I did discuss it: my change included the explanation "if it's ok to mention the rise in rankings twice, it's ok to mention the criticism twice" [43]Contributor321 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected. No blocks issued because the disruption has stopped. @
  Calidum: regardless of your reasoning, you did clearly revert four times on the article, thus violating 3RR. You have a history that shows some difficulty editing in a collaborative way, so I strongly encourage you to avoid even the appearance of edit warring in the future. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 05:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "don't continue your "way of pov pushing" ,there is a discussion at the talk page"
2. 18:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting"
3. 15:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "disruptive editing"
4. 10:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669897819 by Alexikoua (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Illyrians#References

Comments:

POV-pushing of fringe theories about Albanians originating from the ancient Illyrians. Will not stop despite warnings. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It appears that trolling is also a way for him to discuss a variety of topics, like in a recent ANI: [[44]].Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

He is edit-warring at

talk

) 17:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

With this edit [46] Rolandi has now broken 3RR on

talk

) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging second Rolandi+ report:

User:Rolandi+ reported by User:Dr.K. (Result

)

Page

Cham Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rolandi+ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "you said that my references weren't fully cited,now they are"
2. 20:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Alexikoua's sock"
3. 16:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "no ,it's not"
4. 11:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "yes of course"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is the second article Rolandi+ has violated 3RR on even while the first report was open. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• 3RR on both pages. Furthermore, both of these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, which you are already aware of per the alert on your talk page. Any further disruption from you in this topic area will almost certainly result in a topic ban. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 05:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

1. 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk)"
2. 08:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670016173 by Ogress (talk)"
3. 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669954844 by Obaid Raza (talk)"
4. 16:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) "Criticism"
5. Another reversion: diff
6. another "(I have removed one sentence to help make the article as CONSTRUCTIVE as possible.)" <== not true
7. another "(Reverted Hypocrisy edits by (talk))
8. another "(Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk))"
9. another "(Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk))"
10. There are even more edits since no one has been able to deal with this case, but I won't list them here.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 08:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Userpage vandalism on
   TW
   )"
3. 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User will not discuss on talk page Response to multiple editors warning his talk page: "Just go and play away, kid! And stop spamming my page with this BULLSHIT!--

Comments:

The user is engaging in edit warring and is refusing to talk about the issue; 3RR right here plus it's not just here. You'll note he also decided to decorate my user page with a statement. Ogress _smash! 08:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours due to clear 3RR violation. —Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Royce Gracie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CrazyAces489 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over a period of time, CrazyAces489 has attempted to make many changes to this article, all clearly in some way attempting to discredit the subject of the article, Royce Gracie. Now he is aggressively trying to restore ALL of these edits to the article, en masse. These edits are either poorly sourced, misapplication of sources, or without sources at all.

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts from today:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]

And a few days ago, before he 'retired' and then came back:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [55] I posted this on his talk page today, trying to explain that there is simply no way to treat this mass of controversy as one edit/discussion point and to stop restoring the whole lot of it. This was of course answered by a full revert on the article by him.

Discussions regarding some of the various issues this dispute has raised on the article talk page: [56] [57]

Comments:

Obviously I am on the other end of these recent reverts, but to illustrate that it is not just me, here are diffs of several other editors in the past challenging CrazyAces489's edits, none of which has deterred him from attempting to re-add all of them, both then and now. (these edits are all part of the current 'package' CrazyAces489 is trying to push:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]

I hope it can be imparted to him that it is unacceptable to aggressively push all of these changes on the article without consensus. --SubSeven (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Article was stable from Feb 17 to May 17 when SubSeven did a massive reversion. [64] I asked him to take this to an RFC to which he has refused. [65] . His edit warring goes back a long way. I have documented them from Oct 2014. [66] I have only debated this with SubSeven as of Dec 2015. Subseven has been arguing this with people on the page since 2006. [67] CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected (fully) for one week. You are both edit warring, but I chose protection as an alternative to blocking you both, so that you can actually discuss the situation and come to a resolution. Consider
  dispute resolution if necessary. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 06:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: United Nations Human Rights Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Welcome to Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Human shield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 76.70.6.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68] - for Welcome to Palestine, as one example

Diffs of the user's reverts: For Welcome to Palestine

1. [69]
2. [70]

For United Nations Human Rights Council

1. [71]
2. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:
Seems like a vandalism-only account, conducting edit wars on multiple articles related to the I-P conflict with no Talk page discussion on any of them All these articles, related to the I-P conflict are under a 1RR restriction

• ARBPIA 1RR restriction. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2015-07-03T03:32:56 (these first three are reverting the cast order)
2. 2015-07-03T03:28:13
3. 2015-07-03T03:24:32
4. 2015-07-02T22:20:09 (which was a revert of [75], a plot detail revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76] (which was promptly reverted, and the editor has not used the talk page as advised)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first attempt, second attempt, another uninvolved editor ultimately agreed with me on the talk page, and that's the only feedback I've received so far.

Comments:

As linked to above, I left a note on the users talk page, also warning them of 3RR when I saw they had reverted me while I was leaving them a message. I submitted my talk page message, then went back and corrected the page one last time. The editor reverted my message on their talk page and reverted my change again, in defiance of the message I'd left them. If you filter the editors contributions to the Talk namespace, they've only ever made two edits to that namespace in their time here. :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: I recommend a 42 hour block for DisuseKid because of a previous 2RR violation on June 30 in the article's history: [77] & [78] and a

2RR isn't a "rule" though. It is a prior example of edit warring behavior, which is problematic, but this user is also new. I'd tend to err on the side of

not biting the newbies, go for a 16-24 hour block to get their attention hopefully and bring them to the talk page (which I note this user posted a question to, and then sadly deleted it a short time later). I'd even be fine with an uninvolved admin just leaving the user a note, letting them know they violated the rule, and getting them to agree to discuss edits in the future instead of blindly reverting. I disagree with the full protection: it's not necessary when it's limited to this small number of editors, and the page was only recently semi-protected (which has cut back on the anon edits). —Locke Cole • t • c

05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As evidenced by this recent interaction at Charleston church shooting — B-DisuseKid, R-VQuakr, R-DisuseKid — DisuseKid still prefers to debate via revert/editsum instead of article talk. Any block would tarnish her/his record forever, so it seems a bit harsh for a 14-day editor. I'd suggest some slack, but only if s/he says that s/he now knows the correct way and plans to use it from here forward. S/he could also show good faith by self-reverting in that article, thereby returning the situation to its proper state, and going to talk if s/he wants to pursue the debate. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That interchange was collegial, and certainly not evidence of a need for administrative action. I haven't had any issues with DisuseKid edit warring, so please don't drag that interchange into this. A bit of "discussion in edit summaries" is acceptable as long as the environment is productive - the point of WP:EW and WP:3RR is to prevent disruption. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I was here representing Wikipedia, not you, so it's not like I was sticking my nose into your business. Editor behavior is everyone's concern, whether involved or not. That situation was notable because it was part of a pattern and therefore relevant to this report. As always, I'm open to correction by experienced consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Of the three diffs you linked, the first was a non-controversial (maintenance) removal of a broken link, the second was insertion of a different, replacement link (not a revert), and the third was a WP:BRD-compliant removal with a new and quite reasonable rationale in the edit summary. You are on EW/N and suggested that DisuseKid needed to self-revert for some reason; I am replying that that particular set of edits documents a "pattern" of DisuseKid editing constructively. VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Stale. Although
  Blocks are not punitive, and there is no apparent disruptive editing going on at the moment. DisuseKid, please remember that 3RR applies regardless of whether you are undoing the same material each time or different material, so if you frequently edit a particular page, you need to take specific care to watch your reverts. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 04:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like User:EdJohnston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) had taken this issue up a couple of days ago with this edit. Not sure if he's had any lucky though, as it looks like the editor has completely ignored this discussion of their behavior. At least there hasn't been any edit warring since this incident. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Jackson Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (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. [85]
2. [86]

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

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

Comments:
User reverts the content constantly, with reasons pretty obviously false. I tried to discuss the matter at his talk page, but he first refused to discuss and then started putting irrelevant Wiki-Help pages ([88]). After another edit revert, I tried to change the content for the first time, after what the user sent a report on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)

• Declined as a clear "revenge report", see above. @Oldstone James: STOP editing disruptively, or you will very likely end up blocked for a longer term next time, or interaction-banned. —Darkwind (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Really? You must hold a grudge against me. I tried to DISCUSS the matter at the user's talk page, he refused. I explained my point. What else do you need? ^Ol^Ja 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Filing a revenge report is not the right way to state your case; it is a disruption to this noticeboard and honestly comes across as petty. You had plenty of space in the report filed above this one to defend yourself if you felt it necessary. Also, accusing me of acting in a biased fashion isn't going to make your behavior look any better. As for this discussion, if you really feel the need to continue, take it to my talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Indian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Pakistan Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Siachen conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Zadon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MCIWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit-warring on multiple articles, the ones listed above plus a few more (see page histories of the articles listed since there are too many reverts to list) that are all subject to ARBIPA discretionary sanctions (diffs of DS-notice: Zadon19, MCIWS), as both of them very well know, since neither of them is a new user. They both also know the rules for 3RR, but have still both received a 3RR-warning (Zadon19, MCIWS). Both of them are POV-pushing, Zadon19 for Pakistan and MCIWS for India, and have been reverting each other multiple times on each of several articles (see page histories, with edit summaries like "lunatic" and "sock" (the pot calling the kettle black...). Both of them were told to stop by me before I had to do real life things for a while, but when I came back the articles were a mess, clearly showing that neither of them is here to build an encyclopaedia, only to fight for "their side", like many times before. The sock part of it, i.e. the catalogueing, will be dealt with separately, what's important now is to get them both out of circulation.

Comments:
Just a note I have not edited for any side as Kautilya accused me off I did however engage with the sock user MCIWS in a edit war I just wanted the articles back to their consensus state as you can obviously see hes adding pure pov to the said articles above I have added no "Pro-Pakistani" edits just removed his pov to a state before the edit war. Furthermore I have not POV pushed what so ever Kautilya being Indian will obviously state I was also pov pushing even though I have not added any content. Zadon19 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Indian, but I still say that both of you have been both edit-warring and POV-pushing, because you're responsible for *all* material you add to an article, even if you're just adding back material that someone else has removed. So if someone else replaces pro-Pakistan POV in an article with pro-Indian POV, and you just revert it, returning the article to what it was before, you're guilty of adding pro-Pakistan POV. And claiming that the other side started it is no excuse, as you ought to have learnt by now. Thomas.W ^talk 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

let me defend myself to these claims, First of all sir please see My Contributions. I have only Contributed to Various indo-Pak Articles with providing neutral claims and no Experienced editor has pointed me because I was right till this User Started reverting my contributions and by attacking me personally. I join Wikipedia only with the motto of contributing to the encyclopaedia and debating on Talk Pages so that I can present my claims with sources.

Now I will request Administrators to please see the Edit History of this

For Example this I requested this experienced editor to Have a look on one article where figures were incorrect. But what this Biased POV Warrior @ Zadon19 did it just looked at my Contributions and attacked me personally there on Experienced Editors Talk Pages too.

Sir since he just crossed his limits, I angerly said him Lunatic and I feel sorry for it but belive me sir , he just forced me to speak such word. See this he keep on reverting my contributions and attacking me personally. Sir please see the edit history of

@MCIWS: Enough of this charade, just leave it to the administrators here at AN3. If it hadn't caused a lot of disruption here, and extra work for others, the Indo-Pakistani fighting here on en-WP would have been quite entertaining, though, reminding me of a game of chess, which I used to play when I was young, with today's show looking like one player sacrificing a pawn to take out one of the pawns of the other player. Thomas.W ^talk 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He again and again doing personal attacks on me, see the latest one this Now I hope Administrators will block him indefinitely for Gross Pushing

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours due to the severity of the disruption spreading across four different articles. @Zadon19 and MCIWS: You are now both "officially" aware (as per the notices left on your talk pages by Thomas.W (t c)) of the high standards we expect editors to maintain while editing articles related to India and Pakistan. Any further disruptive behavior from either of you once your blocks expire will result in sanctions as appropriate to prevent further disruption. —Darkwind (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670249571 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
2. 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 20:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 19:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246398 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
6. 19:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246362 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
7. 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246259 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
8. 19:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246073 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
9. 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670245756 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
10. 19:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670245222 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
11. 19:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670250501 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
2. 20:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670249320 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
3. 20:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670249074 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
4. 20:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670247945 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
5. 19:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246460 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
6. 19:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246390 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
7. 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246283 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
8. 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246227 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
9. 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670246049 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
10. 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670245436 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
11. 19:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Do not incite edit wars without proper sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: United Against Nuclear Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.207.88.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
This IP editor is most likely MehrdadFR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) trying to evade his block - making the exact same reverts as MehrdadFR was, before he was blocked for edit warring on this article earlier today. If so, it is probably appropriate to lengthen the block of the master, as well. All Rows4 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours No comment on the socking charge. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: John F. Harvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (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]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]/Talk:John F. Harvey and [102]/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey

Comments:

Hoestermann 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reporter blocked. At least five reverts in the last 24 hours. I had previously warned them for their comments on the other editor's talk page and I see they have stacked up at least four other warnings since. Incidentally, the "edit warring" they were listing above is in fact three reverts over five days. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Alexander Suvorov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Svryantz (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. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the only revision of the talk page at the time of the submission

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the whole talk page is about this

Comments:
The user is trying to insert an original research about the Armenian origin of Suvorov based on the supposed name of his mother. We have on a regular basis Armenian users who come and insert this information, which was investigated at the talk page multiple times and found to be a hoax. The user was advised to read the policies, including

• Result: No action. To avoid a block for 3RR violation, Svryantz has agreed to wait for consensus before changing the Alexander Suvorov article again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jackson Martínez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oldstone James (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 669808662 by SLBedit (talk) Official website announcement not a primary source"
2. 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 670065254 by SLBedit (talk) Well, I guess it's you edit-warring now - I attempted to discuss the matter at your talk page, but you refused. It's me who has the reason to edit (c below)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Atlético Madrid */"
2. 03:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Jackson Martínez "start class"

Comments:

I started a discussion in talkpage, then user was blocked. User's block expired and now user is back reverting the same content. SLBedit (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC

• Declined because the user self-reverted. —Darkwind (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Darkwind: user added it back, this time without ==a section== SLBedit (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@SLBedit: I see that he did so pursuant to the talk page discussion on the matter. It comes across as somewhat disingenuous not to mention that when you're reporting that he repeated the edit again. —Darkwind (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought only other user should add it back, per guidelines. SLBedit (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Template:Microsoft Windows Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FleetCommand (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments: Another damned edit warrior

• Result: Malformed report. There is no article or template called Microsoft Windows Family, and you didn't supply any diffs of edit warring. There is a differently-spelled template called {{Microsoft Windows family}} but nobody has touched it since May 23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• FleetCommand hasn't edited over the last five days either... - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108] 05:17, 6 July 2015 (although out of the 24-hour window)
2. [109] 06:19, 7 July 2015‎
3. [110] 15:39, 7 July 2015‎
4. [111] 15:45, 7 July 2015‎
5. [112] 15:58, 7 July 2015‎
6. [113] 18:59, 7 July 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

See

• (uninvolved editor) - clearly a violation of the 3RR rule. Both experienced editors (Ssilvers and SchroCat) who have reverted have pointed out to the IP editor that FB and YouTube are not considered RS. There is a very good discussion on the talk page which should be adhered to. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• The editor has also subsequently involved themselves in disruptve edits to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Another revert added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Abuse from IP spills onto the talk page here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not abuse the talk page. You said to use the talk page for discussion and all you guys do it just make executive decisions because you think you're better than I am. Sorry for wanting to provide accurate information on a Wikipedia page. Silly me, I thought I didn't live in North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Swimming pool (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC) "Quit your fucking whining and stop revising. The dictionary definition is one of an ARTIFICIAL pool for swiming in."
3. 17:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC) "Stop this edit war"
4. 13:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC) "They are man made. Stop changing this it is getting ridiculous"
5. 00:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC) "This is getting ridiculous and this is to be the final revision. Please refrain from reverting this to avoid the perfectly legitimate phrase "man-made""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Swimming pool."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Silly edit-warring related to various attempts to make the lede in the text gender-neutral (basically a discussion about whether "man-made" is sexist or not...). Thomas.W ^talk 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]
4. [119]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120] [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this is an active subject of discussion for the last couple of weeks at the talk page; the page was semi-protected twice

Comments:
The user seems to believe that a talk page discussion, or, for this puprose, any discussion, does not belong to dispute resolution, whereas edit warring is a primary means of dispute resolution. Sorry to file here already the second report in two days, usually I am closing reports here, not filing them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Note also move warring by the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The talk page discussion was beginning. A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, user doesn't want to discuss his changes. I asked him to discuss move first on talk page regarding this Neo-Nazi group[122] but he still reverted[123]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see this 5th revert, after the user was reported[124]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminator Genisys: Terminator Genisys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
IP user repeatedly remove film's poster without relevant reason.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. —Darkwind (talk
  ) 04:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

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