Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive289

User being reported: 71.82.105.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What is the recourse with an anon IP who habitually does long-term edit warring, never bunching it up within a 24-hour period? As you can see at User talk:71.82.105.171, ever since this editor joined in June, he has been the subject of near-constant warnings from multiple editors for his disruptive editing. In particular, he was a history of the same consistently reverted edit, containing some POV nonsense term, reverted by at least six different editors at X-Men: First Class, as can be seen at:

• 02:52, 27 June 2015
• 20:36, 27 June 2015
• 07:06, 29 June 2015
• 23:02, 14 July 2015
• 01:08, 15 July 2015
• 03:10, 15 July 2015
• 03:42, 15 July 2015
• 03:02, 16 July 2015
• 17:11, 17 July 2015
• 17:39, 20 July 2015
• 00:07, 21 July 2015
• 18:19, 27 July 2015

The same ridiculous edit ... a dozen times in one month. Reverted by a half-dozen editors.

Never once has he replied to warnings on his talk page. And he is never, ever going to stop. He is

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for the persistent edit warring and for other disruptive behavior. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 21:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Yakub Memon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "did not removed terrorist"
2. 16:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "removed word terrorist as per consensus see talk page"
3. 17:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673329770 by Human3015 (talk) Don't do disruptive editing,dont revert against consensus see talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Welcome to the club, you should know this as a General Knowledge */ new section"
2. 16:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on
   TW
   )"
3. 17:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* You are on 3rr */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply to Alensmith"
2. 17:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply."
3. 15:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply to Alensmith"
4. 17:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply."

Comments:

This editor has removed consensus matter from article for 3 times. You can see on talk page that there has been consensus for that word which was added by one admin. This page is getting daily thousands of views (7000-15000), this subject is under discretionary sanctions of IPA. Considering that he action should be taken against this editor. Human3015 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Also considering that revering 4 times is not necessary to take action against editors. Yakub Memon is going to be hanged in 3 days, so his page has been attacked by his supporters and opposers. Because he is in news these days, this page is getting record number of views and this editor is removing consensus text from the lead. Involved editor is aware of discretionary sanctions. --Human3015 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I have discussed argued and then edited.I removed the word Terrorist as per consensus among various editors.Only User Human seems to be pushing his POV by working against consensus see here discussion.Talk:Yakub Memon.Alensmith (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Alensmith, I looked at the talk page and arguing that there is consensus seems a bit of stretch with one editor on either side and one sitting on the fence. But, the bright line hasn't been crossed - yet. Perhaps you all should try to draw more editors into the discussion (post a note on
  WP:IN for instance?). --regentspark (comment
  ) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• @RegentsPark: Thanks for your reply, I will make just one comment, yes we should bring more editors, but problem is that Alensmith is removing that word without resolving that matter, at least he should have been patient. He can again start same kind of edit war tomorrow. At least you protect the page. He declared on talk page that there is consensus to remove word "terrorist" from lead. You can read his comments on talk page. Now after your decision he will conclude that there is consensus from your side to remove that word. He is new and doesn't know policies. --Human3015 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, Alensmith hasn't yet crossed the 3RR line so there really is no action to take here. I've watchlisted the page. --regentspark (comment) 23:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Chungsen Leung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5] - 4th revert in 24 hours

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR violation by COI user. Article is subject of ongoing edit war concerning "controversy" section of a politician;

As I noted to you in one of my edit summaries when I reverted your content removals earlier this year [9], page protection on Wikipedia merely protects the current version of the page (unless there's defamation or other similar issues, see

WP:NOT3RR), none of which was the case in this instance. I also believe, since you've already outed yourself, that you've previously violated 3RR, but with an IP edit when you reverted me earlier in the year. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}

04:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

John Kasich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:301:77D2:15E0:E893:3F67:2257:E50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "You don't have "consensus.""
2. 01:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "It's "consensus." Learn spelling, please. Stop disruptive editing and vandalism or you will be reported."
3. 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "Proper grammar? I believe it's "demonym," not "denomym." The name of John Kasich's religion is Anglicanism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IPv6 is (based on behavioral evidence) related to Jjgoatin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which has earlier today been editing disruptively over the exact same issue and who was recently (7/22) blocked for edit warring at that article. General Ization ^Talk 01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Has previously used this address: 70.198.201.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) in older vandalism Spartan7W § 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

On further review, the IP actually began the current series of disruptive edits over the religion infobox parameter at John Kasich, was then reverted by the registered user who proceeded to repeat the same edit, and then the IP returned to the article to war over the edit (diffs above). I believe this (as well as the content of summaries) shows that the IP and the registered user are related, and I suggest for the purposes of this noticeboard all of the reverts be considered to have been made by the same editor. General Ization ^Talk 02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Now the IP

talk

) 03:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And the IP

talk

) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Rjd0060: You may want to look at this after all. General Ization ^Talk 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
• All users Blocked indefinitely and Page protected Rjd0060 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• User: 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Page: KIOI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

KIOI KQIV etc etc etc. Kid whines and complains about material being poorly sourced when it comes from a related page within Wikipedia - pages I might add which get left alone.

See my other post on the main AN board. I am 72 years old have been teaching and working in the entertainment business for over 50 years and am tired of having my work challenged by kids and bean counters who have zero direct knowledge of the topic at hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 July 2015‎

Aside from this being malformed and incorrect anyone looking into it will need these links

• KIOI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273#Kid and his friends with zero knowledge of a topic keep harassing me a 72 yr old where this persons editing is discussed.
• 66.102.157.201 (talk · contribs) the current IPs talk page where I tried to explain things and was told that they would be happy to edit war to add unsourced info.

This looks like a

WP:BOOMERANG situation. MarnetteD|Talk

19:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:66.102.157.201 blocked 24 hours for promising to edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) ""A long standing consensus"? of english people? What about to give credits to Québécois like the french wiki does? Stop the neocolonialism bullshit."
2. 01:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "First nation traditions are Canadian? Québec traditions are Canadian? Acadian traditions are Canadian? If you don't know what a culture is, at least, have some respect and don't make it yours."
3. 20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "Poutine = Quebec dish now popular in Canada. Stop the cultural appropriation. Good to know that poutine is popular outside Quebec but Quebec gets the credits one that... like Texan cuisine or Louisiana get theirs. BTW Québec is a nation (2006 motion)."
4. 19:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[10] Note that Bearcat made a comment there yesterday, after this edit warrior started up and was asked to come to the talk page, though it is an older thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Now attempting to engage on the IP users talk page, no luck yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Refuses to interact on talk page, edit warred after warning issued. There is an old discussion on the talk page that was added to yesterday after the warning was given, no dice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Beauty pageants */ the "applause" break isn't part of the quote; other than that, this is fine"
2. 16:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Beauty pageants */ reverting some pretty clear white-washing - they didn't dump Trump because he "made comments", they dumped him for these specific comments"
3. 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Beauty pageants */ Per
   MOS:BLOCKQUOTE
   , over 40 words gets blockquoted"
4. 20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "sorry, that quote is the direct reason, and cited as such, for the pageants being dropped from NBC and Univision. Revert again and it's going to an admin."
5. 19:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC) "revert edits by ThomasPaine1776 that are clearly intended to remove negative material and then bury those edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Mexican immigrants comments */ cmt"

Comments:

My edits are attempts to restore sourced material that was clearly notable; two users (Thomas Paine1776 and Eclipsoid) have been consistently removing any material from the Trump page that could be construed as negative or critical of the subject, the material was there long before I restored it; I regard this as white-washing. Thomas Paine1776 has already been topic-banned from the Trump page. Also possibility of sock-puppetry there between the two, see User:Eclipsoid for this. My interest in the page is to prevent whitewashing, nothing more. Rockypedia (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please also note the personal attack here: [11] Eclipsoid (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought my note to you was quite civil, actually, considering that you posted an ominous-looking "edit-warring" notice on my talk page without signing it. You've never forgotten to sign any of your other posts with four ~'s, was it coincidence that a "warning" was designed to look like it wasn't from you on my talk page? Regardless, I'm still trying to keep it civil, and I don't appreciate you attempting to frame my comments here as a "personal attack", when it clearly wasn't. Rockypedia (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You have funny ideas about civility. In your first contact with me, you accused me of trying to intimidate you; accused me of impersonating an admin; accused me of white-washing a biography; accused me of being a sockpuppet... then you pointedly told me to stop editing the article altogether. I'm not sure how any of this was supposed to be helpful. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course, none of those things are true. Let's take it one-by-one: (1) Your posting of a warning without signing it could certainly be seen as an attempt to intimidate. If that was an honest mistake, fine, but you didn't forget to sign anything else that you've posted. (2) see #1. (3) Your whitewashing of the Trump bio isn't an accusation, it's a fact, easily discovered by anyone that looks at your edit history. (4) I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet; I mentioned that it's a possibility, given the similarity of tone and editing done by you and Thomas Paine1776. Others will make that call. (5) I never told you to stop editing the article; I said that I'd rather see NPOV edits than the whitewashing that's currently going on. Rockypedia (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Warned: Both of you are reminded that this article falls within the
  discretionary sanctions
  on American politics articles. The required alert has been posted to your talk pages.

@

3RR exceptions). Further edit warring or failure to interact positively with other editors may result in a block or a page/topic ban. —Darkwind (talk

) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.9.122.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]
7. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This is Tobias Conradi, I've protected the page for a bit too. Let's see where the SPI takes us. —SpacemanSpiff 08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Talk:Electronic harassment (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673653045 by SPECIFICO (talk) that's not a good reason - you need to put things in context on the talk page - I see bad faith"
2. 15:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673646199 by
   WP:VOTE
   "
3. 14:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673637942 by
   WP:RS
   is unalignment thus why it's part of the Crime project (since 2010 by the way)"
4. 14:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673616699 by
   WP:RS
   revolve around a purpoted crime - did you read at least the first sentence of the page? - quit this ridiculous POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[21]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Crime project tag */ new section"

Comments:

User has edit warred at this topic before. Reverted after warning given. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a

WP:GAMING, and are continously pushing an unverified point of view, and all these mean you are being disruptive which is such a no-no. Kindly avoid loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia. Clinicallytested (talk

) 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please don't edit war (which I thought you would have learned by now [22]], and, take your content dispute elsewhere. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Clinicallytested is at 5RR now [23] and no sign of stopping. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months by User:Kuru. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, was pulled away right when I blocked. Obvious reverts, increased the length over the previous edit warring blocks. As this is now a long term recurring theme, I presume the next block will likely be of an undefined length. Kuru (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: David Cameron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mabelina (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. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]

Mabelina has edit-warred in the past on this article and has been blocked for it before. Talk:David_Cameron#Problems contains some specific background. An admin gave Mabelina a 'last chance' on 21 July regarding his edits on this article, and specifically warned that Mabelina that Twitter was an unacceptable source [27]. Although Mabelina hasn't gone over three reverts this is outright edit-warring.

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

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

Comments:

Dear all, I have no wish to engage in Edit War (qv. User talk:Mabelina & User talk:This is Paul prior to this posting, and also at User talk:Anglicanus - I have no wish to drag anyone else into such any debate on Wiki matters, hence my earlier appeal for consensus on my Talk Page. I have now also posted messages on the David Cameron Talk Page and that of Brianann MacAmhlaidh in the hope of receiving an explanation as to the continued reversions of my edits (which I maintain are factual - and can prove accordingly - as opposed to Brianann's continuous unexplained and reactionary reversions. My view is simply that should Wiki wish to remain a reliable resource then it should be able to rely on authoritative sources. M Mabelina (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

What I should like to know is how in the future to avert such constant reversions (without explanation) followed by the assertion that I am causing Edit War? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

List of coats of arms of the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom and then linking to it from Cameron's article, a page where another editor had previously added the contested coat of arms. You continue to lack consensus for the assertion that this is his real coat of arms. You were blocked for a month back in April. I think the next block should be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC

Fixed up my closure. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff full rv
2. diff full rv
3. diff full rv
4. diff removal of added tags
5. diff full rv

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
continued after the 3RR notice

accompanied with personal attacks

Declined Close but BMK has raised the topic on the talk page. Perhaps it would be better to take the discussion there? --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• • STRONGLY DISAGREED Please reopen. BMK did not raise the topic in the talk page, I did. He shrugged it off and continued edit warring.
    talk
    ) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Please explain your reasons. the editor is clearly disruptive and uncooperative for a protracted period.
    talk
    ) 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: the filer is asking for further explanation, presumably wondering why you think it's "close" when it's an obvious 3RR violation, why you're telling them to go to the talk page when they're the one who has initiated discussion there, why you're suggesting BMK has "raised discussion" when it's clear they did not do so, and perhaps why an admin who has only visited this page twice in the past year would jump in on this report to quickly decline it, ignoring 4 older, open reports, without so much as passing warning to BMK for the blatant 3RR vio or the obvious personal attacks? This seems to be a reasonable request that I'm inclined to second. I like BMK too and I'm honestly not one to have a problem with other admins over giving some discretionary leeway (read: special treatment) to respected "power users" (read: vested contributors), but there's some obviously inappropriate behavior here that you have flagrantly chosen to ignore completely, without giving any reasonable explanation to the long-term editor in good standing who filed a perfectly legitimate report. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Notice to @RegentsPark and Beyond My Ken: BMK has proceeded to make what appears to be either a thinly-veiled personal attack or an intentionally vague attempt at provocation or intimidation (still a vio of NPA).[29] This is almost immediately after being completely pardoned for violating 3RR and making personal attacks. I will block BMK upon any further harassment of this editor or any further edit warring over this article. RP clearly chose to turn a blind eye to this incident but don't push it, BMK. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 23:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Swarm, the reverts are not clear violations (at least one spans more than one edit) and BMK had opened a talk page discussion to which Staszek had not responded. The diff you post is definitely concerning. Let me take a look. --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's plain ridiculous. The numerous reverts are clear violations. A revert is a revert is a revert regardless how many my edits it spans. And now BMK is triumphantly frolicking in my user talk page. I have a sad feeling that I have to request a formal review of your actions.

talk

) 00:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous things to consider Stanzek Lem. BMK is on the correct side of BRD. You boldly made an edit. They reverted.. You reverted. They initiated a talk page discussion to which you should have responded before posting your request here. I agree it is much easier to request a block than it is to discuss things but the encyclopedia always benefits more from discussion than it does from block requests. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

And you have to consider one thing: you got it all wrong. Check the timing and check what was happening. At first I tried to cooperate and every time I did a different edit. And EVERY FREAKING TIME it was reverted. Your reading of BRD is "Strike Two" for your qualifications of an admin. Where have you seen a guideline to trump a policy? Just admit your wrong and stop digging the pit for yourself.

talk

) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) - This is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it? I won't go into the civility of the two editors, but I saw this and took a look at the article's history and was intrigued. First, the way I see this, is that this isn't about a single issue, but goes back and forth regarding 4 separate issues: #1 - "see also" stuff; #2 - "tags" at top of article; #3 - "trimming" article; and #4 - "LA Times" reference.

Regarding #1, you have the following reverts:

• SL #1
• BMK #1
• SL #2

Regarding #2, you have the following reverts:

• BMK #1
• SL #1
• BMK #2 - It was at this point that BMK requested a discussion on talk page about the tags.
• SL #2 - without bringing it to the talk page
• BMK #3 - This would appear to be a 3RR violation.

Regarding #3, you have the following reverts:

• SL #1
• BMK #1 - BMK then tags the article with a major edit tag, and begins to edit the article, including providing sources.

Regarding #4, you have the following reverts:

• SL #1
• BMK #1 - It is at this point when SL opens a discussion on the talk page
• SL #2

Finally, you have this edit, where a cn tag to was added to what appears to be an already referenced paragraph by SL.

While I don't take a position on the disagreement between the two editors, the violation of the 3RR seems to have been corrected by the later addition of references by that editor. Overall, you have one editor making 7 reverts (total), and the other editor making 5 reverts (total). Anyway, it was very convoluted, so I thought it might help to have an uninvolved editor simply summarize the chronology. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

How, many, more, times does BMK get brought here about edit warring and incivility? This makes (at least) five times in three months. User:The ed17 has asked him to stop edit warring. User:slakr said that "this isn't going to fly in the future". RegentsPark - do you have any further thoughts on this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

:(ping fix: @The ed17: and @Slakr:) Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Lugnuts, no comment on BMK's history (which I am aware is checkered). But, I don't see this as a blockable issue. What I saw was a bold edit that was reverted and then not discussed by the reporting editor. That's not a good sign. The first diff posted above includes a revert that BMK did on an edit by the reporting editor that seems to have been done out of pique ([30]). Had they tried to discuss it, that would be different. But asking for a block without participating in a discussion initiated by the other editor is not something that should be encouraged. Much of what I see above is also more combative than is strictly necessary. I see there is a discussion - of sorts :) - in progress on the talk page and that, imo, is a better outcome. The option to block for edit warring (or disruptive editing) doesn't go away when a block request is declined. --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:HORSE, but here is my final remark: by ingenuous spitting edits you can prove that any edit history is nothing but a revert war. And it is disingenuous to equate a wholesale revert with attempts of article improvement. I will only comment on the above breakout.

• No. 4 - false interpretation as a "local" revert war:

1-st was normal edit. related to very old piece of code. It is ridiculous to count it as a revert. Suppose I edit article 4 times, each time deleting a WP:PEAKOCK word. Your interpretation will automatically make me a rever warrior.

2-nd single-click revert

3rd was NOT a revert even by your ridiculous judgement.

• No 3 - false interpretation as a revert war

1st edit was a normal edit in response of the opposite part refusal to allow {cn} tags: Some unreferenced text, which was an opinion, not a statement of verifiable fact, were removed, in perfect accordance with policies

2nd edit single-click revert

• No 2 - this is outright ridiculous. I added first two tags. Then I agreed with removal of another one, which I agreed was unnecessary, and may looked as overtagging, and moved my comment in the talk page, per opposite party request, but I saw "refimprove" tag is absolutely necessary. I even did not think that an issue of policy about
  WP:CITE
  may be a matter of contention. But when the O.P. removed it again, I felt it became a matter of principle for the O.P. I left this dead horse.
• no 1

1-st: Normal edit

2nd -single-click revert

3nd not a revert even in the stretched imagination: I replaced a random "see also" list of links with an expanded (not removed) content: a link to the category, with a detailed explanation what is found here. Even the O.P. did not object.

As I see it now, I am is but a nuisance for BMK in his noble job of writing wikipedia, since my detailed rants in the talk page are left without comment. So I guess it was just a matter of principle to BMK to enforce his vision of the article, however sloppy it is now. So good bye to you all

• [majestic titan]
  18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  Ed17, I have no objection to being second guessed (by you) but. if you note that this is a minor incident and that you're blocking BMK because of a pattern, then you should be blocking them for disruptive editing and not edit warring. Not only is this way overkill but it also rewards the other editor for calling for a block rather than joining the discussion. But no worries. Let's all just move on. --regentspark (comment) 20:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  Please stop repeating blatant lies. In response to BMK's remark in edit summary I did start the discussion , explaining my usage of the "copyedit" tag. I did no comment of thecitation tag, because I cuold not imagine that a seasoned editor would object the most basic sikipedia policy,

  talk

  ) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• What the hell are you talking about? Edit warring is one particular disruptive editing behavior and this block was specifically for edit warring, within the context of a larger, ongoing problem with edit warring. Not only is it not overkill, but it's pretty lenient for an editor who has multiple blocks for edit warring and totally on-par with what any regular editor would face. And why do you keep saying Staszek is in the wrong for not joining the discussion? As has been stated multiple times, and can be easily confirmed by glancing at the talk page, Staszek is the one who initiated the discussion and while BMK did participate in it, his participation included personal attacks. And, also, regarding the statement that BMK was on the "right side of BRD", that's utterly ridiculous in excusing an obvious 3RR vio (for the record, I do count 5 non-consecutive reverts), and it also goes against the overarching and universally-accepted principal that there is no "right side" in an edit war and thus being on the "right side" of anything does not excuse edit warring, with only pre-approved reasons being exempted. With nothing but respect, I would suggest that either you did not handle this report from an objective, policy-based perspective, or you simply need to brush up on edit warring policy if you're going to handle requests here. I don't say this because you used your discretion to decline to block, but because you declined to take any action whatsoever, your reasoning was out of line with both the reality of the situation, with policy, and with the common enforcement practices, you refer to this report as a misguided "block request" multiple times when it's a perfectly-valid edit war report that makes no request for a block, and you apparently didn't even investigate the situation because you're making claims that simply aren't true. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

A. P. J. Abdul Kalam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) "His Original pic updated"
2. 12:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Recent Pic of Kalam"
3. 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673625363 by Dharmadhyaksha (talk)"
4. 13:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Uploaded better pic"
5. 13:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Recent Pic"
6. 13:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673633430 by Dharmadhyaksha (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Copyrights */ new section"
2. 13:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been uploading webgrab images to commons and linking here, was told not to do it on his talk page, also been warned not to edit war, and has done two reverts since. —SpacemanSpiff 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• The images have all been deleted from Commons and the edit warring for that purpose has stopped here, so unless new issues come up, I think this can be closed with no action.—SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not blocked per your request, but don't hesitate to reopen or re-report if necessary! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 23:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Subway (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673712571 by Keri (talk)Are we here to post information or to protect Subway's bottom line?"
2. 00:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Advertising */"
3. [31] 05:25, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
4. [32] 22:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 00:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ advice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fogle */ notnews"
2. 00:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fogle */ typo"
3. 00:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fogle */ re"

Comments:

Slow warring by

• Account and IP Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Windows RT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673639362 by Comp.arch (talk)"
2. 14:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673447932 by Comp.arch (talk)"
3. 06:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Even though Windows RT cannot be upgraded to Windows 10 Mobile, it is still the de facto successor of Windows RT"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After third edit, similar edit came from a different IP that I presume is connected. Source and statement failed verification. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. —Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Crop circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (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. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Crop_circle#Recent_edits

Comments:

• This editor has a very long block history [37] including many for edit warring. They know better than this, and aren't too likely to stop. Dream Focus 20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• This user was unblocked per a community consensus in August 2013. With the exception of one 1.5 hour block that occurred over a year ago, jps not been blocked since then.
• A corresponding discussion is taking place on the talk page, which I have reviewed.
• jps has brought this dispute to the appropriate noticeboard. This is a correct attempt at dispute resolution and not remotely "canvassing".
• Per
  WP:LEDE
  , the lead section of the article should clearly summarize the content found in the body, and while it does not need to be sourced itself, its statements do need to be factual and supported by reliable sources in the article.
• The corresponding sections of the article appear to be well-sourced and verifiable.
• The edits being made by jps are appropriately reflected by and sourced in the article.
• The other claim being made is essentially "not all crop circles are proven to be made by humans". While this is an understandable claim to make and it may be true (I want to believe), a convincing,
  fringe
  . Therefore, accepting the argument that there are credible, non-fringe alternative theories, or that it remains a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon, would bring the entire standing premise of the article into question. It would require significant reliable sources and a rework of the body of the article, which is quite clear in opposing the premise of those arguing against the inclusion of "crop circles are man-made" in the lede entirely (although the wording could be modified).
• jps has violated 3RR. He is strongly advised not to violate it further as there are no applicable exemptions. However, given the context that his edits are clearly supported by reliable sources along with the manual of style, and that the opposing points of view are relying on unsubstantiated claims and
  bureaucracy. Edit war aside, he's clearly acting in line with policy here whereas the other parties are not. Declined. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive}
  00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  So he can violate the edit warring rules if you agree with what he is saying? Reliable sources cover various natural explanations for some crop circles, they not all done by humans. Crop_circle#Alternate_explanations Dream Focus 01:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• @
  policy, as I've explained above, as opposed to your attempted removal of his content based solely on unsubstantiated claims and fringe theories. Therefore I've chosen to warn rather than block him. Nowhere do I say he can violate edit warring rules, in fact I stated the complete opposite. However saying the same thing over and over again does not change the fact that you've provided no evidence to dispute the position posed by the article and the reliable sources found therein that "alternative explanations" are mostly unsubstantiated and that the general consensus is that crop circles are man-made. The fact that reliable sources cover alternative theories does not change this fact in any way whatsoever and you're not allowed to twist the facts however you want. All appearances indicate that you were opposed to the content due to a personal opinion that some crop circles might not be man-made rather than reliable sources, and that's perfectly fine, but when you're inserting that opinion into the lead section of the article when the body itself disagrees, that's nothing short of disruptive. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive}
  04:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page:

The kyle 3 is engaged in a pattern of unilateral deletion of sourced text without seeking consensus on an incredibly divisive and tragic subject. He displays contempt for the process and for fellow editors and is pushing a blatant POV campaign. He was blocked on 27 July 2015 for this kind of behavior. He has been notified on his talk page of this notice.

• 1) [38]
• 2) [39]
• 3) [40]
• 4) [41]
• 5) [42]

Quis separabit? 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cry your crocodile tears somewhere else, Mr.ITIC. It's not "pushing a blatant POV campaign" to note the fact of the propagandistic nature and wholly subjective claims of such a group, which exists to blame Palestinians for their own deaths at the hands of the IDF, and exonerate the IDF no matter what it does. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:The kyle 3 blocked for a week for disruptive editing, since the previous block was for 48h recently, and they consistently continue to demonstrate battleground behavior. User:[email protected] is not blocked, but it is unfortunately that they did not engage in the talk page discussion, even if the discussion was started less than constructively.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I advised The kyle 3 to seek consensus on the talk page before unilaterally deleting sourced text. He deleted the text and began a cursory, post-facto rant on the talk page. Quis separabit? 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page: Correspondence of Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dave Souza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

repeated extraction of important and verifiably correct information about Patrick Matthew "author of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", however PM's name has at last been allowed on to this page. I have been threatened with blocking which I consider to be outrageous. Dave Souza, you are seriously overstepping your authority and I object to your being given the title of Administrator/Editor.

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

I am appalled at this treatment when supplying correct and verifiable information that Dave Souza does not agree with. He is a bully and overstepping his authority and knowledge bank.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments: I have serious doubts about the integrity of Dave Souza and now FunkMonk (20/07) who has also extracted this vital information. I will listen to a reasonable argument for why this information about PM's book cannot be on this page at this location, what rule does it contravene. These two Dave Souza and FunkMonk are putting the whole of Wikipedia at risk of blind editing with intent to subvert or distort the edits of others. Wikipedia's reputation is at stake.

OPTIONAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuueDee - your comments are objectionable. The link is valid and the red ink is also valid as Patrick Matthew's book is of extreme importance to the issue currently being discussed on his page and to which you extract nouns, adjectives and change verbs to alter the significance of what is being said. Stop it!

• (Non-administrator comment) - There are several issues with SuueDee's actions. First, they are attempting to add something to the article which doesn't belong, and creates a formatting error. Second, they are the ones who are in violation of the 3RR rule, since the other editors are simply trying to correct SuueDee's error. Third, the other editors should have explained it on the talk page, since SuueDee is clearly clueless as to why she keeps getting reverted. Fourth, SuueDee did not notificy Dave Souza about this report, as they are required to do. (I'll take care of that in a moment). SuueDee should look to the talk page for an explanation, which I will shortly put there. I suggest a speedy close to this. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• No violation SuueDee It would be a good idea to read the advice given to you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Page

Template:Infobox gridiron football person (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673859182 by
   talk
   ) stop making idle edits."
2. 23:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673694457 by
   talk
   ) rv vapour edit again (the editor knowing its idleness)."
3. 18:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673666894 by
   talk
   ) ... nor idle edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

The editor has been here long enough to know about edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Template:Infobox gridiron football person revert */ new section"

Comments:

reply

Alakzi mentions multiple reverts (of idle edits). Quite simply, that could only be multiple because Alakzi re-did his multiple idle edit multiple times. (EOT) -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (Repharsed for clarity. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC))

The disposal of a superfluous escape character and underscore does not constitute an "idle edit" - no matter how you spin it. I don't know if it's because you can't stand being corrected, but this behaviour is both discourteous and counterproductive. And a time drain.

talk

) 00:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

a time drain, yes. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please find ways to waste your time that don't involve me.

talk

) 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Could this be reviewed please. The history of Template:Infobox gridiron football person shows that Alakzi's first edit was 13 July 2015 and DePiep's was 15 July 2015. There were no clashes. Then things went wrong:

• 17:44, 29 July 2015 DePiep added a maintenance category with a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary
• 17:55, 29 July 2015 Alakzi removed some of DePiep's edit
• 18:17, 29 July 2015 DePiep restored it
• 21:32, 29 July 2015 Alakzi repeated
• 23:49, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated
• 23:55, 30 July 2015 Alakzi repeated
• 23:57, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated

Then the mattter was brought here with the result that one side was blocked. DePiep did not discuss the matter in an ideal manner, but neither did Alakzi. Instead of raising the issue on the template talk (in the section pointed to by DePiep's edit summary), Alakzi posted at DePiep's talk: (18:20, 29 July 2015) with "Why would you revert this?". Posting on an editor's talk is what is done with vandals or disruptive editors—Alakzi did not offer a reason for why their edit was desirable. DePiep's response (18:25, 29 July 2015) of "As I said in the es: your edit was immaterial." was not particularly illuminating, but it was more helpful than Alakzi's comment. Both Alakzi and DePiep perform valuable work and both should be reminded that being right is insufficient in a collaborative encyclopedia, and in particular, edit warring at a template will result in blocks for both sides. The above comment refers to defiance, but I don't see one side being any less defiant than the other. Recently, a dispute over accessibility and colors was discussed at ANI on 24 July 2015 with the result that Alakzi's AWB access was removed and Alakzi was blocked. Both sides need cold water and my suggestion would be that DePiep be unblocked with a message to each that disagreements must be discussed on template talk pages. DePiep's edit at the infobox could be justified by saying that the template should not rely on Module:String's default setting for plain, but neither Alakzi's nor DePiep's version is obviously "correct"—the only objectively defensible wikitext would be |pattern=<small|plain=true. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@

reverse my and other admins actions. Hope that explains my decision.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Based on the diff lists provided above, I'm wondering who first violated 3RR? Does Alakzi get a pass because his first revert was only a partial revert? Note that 3RR says "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—" (emphasis added). I think it is an open question as to who was most disruptive (least constructive?) here. Both editors seem to take the 'my way or the highway' attitude. YBG (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@YBG: Technically, neither of them violated 3RR, which looks for "more than three reverts on a single page ..." At any rate, the block was for a pattern of disruptive editing.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no requirement that disagreements are discussed on the template talk page, specifically. As this was no issue with the template, but with the behaviour of the editor, I approached the editor directly. Though pattern matching is not required, and |plain=true would've been preferable, < is not a special character and does not need to be escaped. There's also nothing stopping anyone from improving on my edit; unlike DePiep, I'm not going to take it personally. The rest of your message is holier-than-thou nonsense that I need not waste any time on deconstructing.

talk

) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Comments:

A continuation of an archived ANI-thread. Diff 1 and Diff 2 of recent disruptive editing/edit-warring on Spiro Koleka. Burridheut (talk · contribs)'s edit comments include (Irrelevant, controversial and totally provocative comment. Propaganda will be removed from this article. Greece can be advertised on CNN (for tourism maybe), not here. Last warning to the vandals polluting this article!). User warned several times. Only contribution is to this article.--Zoupan 21:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a thread about me 10 minutes after I create one for you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spiro_Koleka#Edit_warring_and_propaganda_editors.2Fvandals) is a bit confusing for me! Could you not wait a bit? What is the hurry? You are undoing my edits again. Are you not aware of the rules here? You seem to be a seasoned user. Burridheut (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Administrators should exercise caution here regarding Burridheut and see the talk page in full, as the issue was still under discussion and editors (separate to Burridheut) have taken it upon themselves (who are pushing a view) to change or redo the article as they see fit.Resnjari (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. —Darkwind (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Burridheut clearly displays a disruptive pattern and insists on wp:own. Moreover tendentious editting and offensive edit summaries are quite typical [[50]][[51]]. It appears we have the definition of an

wp:spa.Alexikoua (talk

) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have proven all my claims, with historic sources, pictures, scans of documents and have gone great lengths to explain and remove the propaganda added recently by Zoupan and Alexikoua from this article that I have created since 2012. My only sin is that I am not a wikipedia expert, I am outnumbered and do not know how to complain properly about edit warring coming from these two editors. I asked for the page to be protected, and it was (thanks), but unfortunately incorporating the latest disruptive edit from user Zoupan. Burridheut (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I created a DSN thread at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Spiro_Koleka Burridheut (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Page: List of most expensive films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alvandria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55] (as 178.118.64.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:
Although User:Alvandria has not violated 3RR I believe the editor is edit-warring. They have also engaged in socking, personal attacks and misrepresenting themselves as an admin. User:Alvandria made huge sweeping changes to the List of most expensive films involving numerous aesthetic alterations, the removal of pertinent notes, the removal of content and also changes to content which contradicted the sources. I reverted these edits and gave an extensive explanation on the article talk page. Despite repeated requests the editor has been unwilling to discuss their alterations, instead choosing to just revert to their preferred version. After giving them a 3RR warning the editor carried out a revert logged out just moments later. Judging by the IP's talk page the editor seems to have been disruptive in other areas of Wikipedia too. Alvandria subsequently left this message at my talk page and claimed to be a "moderator" and threatened to "ban" me. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Alvandria for a serious personal attack. I've also semi-protected the article as there were IPs causing problems too. Sarah ^(talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed the protection after I submitted this report. Thanks for your assistance. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Page: Lanni Marchant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chocolatecoveredorangestuff2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/673687670

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. #1
2. #2
3. #3
4. #4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/674089628

Comments:
The edits are quite unsourced and rather dodgy, so I was sorely tempted to call "Not here ...". Note also that the same editor has "contributed" the same material as Chococoveredorangestuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Favonian (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 24 for edit warring, 24 for BLP violations. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Page: Immanuel Kant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arjun1491 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61] (Although an IP address, it's most likely the user in question.)
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:
User:Arjun1491 is conducting an edit war to include a quote from Ayn Rand, claiming there's a consensus for this inclusion. But there isn't. Several editors have reverted the user's edits. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Comments:
Seems to me like Arjun is just a bit enthusiastic about Ayn Rand, the content they want to add is now removed, I suggest they are good faith enough to not require blocking if they do not replace the content and stay on the chat page looking for support. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked Per agreement by Arjun1491 not to edit war. [67] NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Le Grand Bleu (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. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70] (note they call me vandal in the summary)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71], also the talk page of the article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the whole page is about this, but in particular the bottom section

Comments:
The users comes off a 48h block and starts inserting a POV template in the contentious article where this template was already inserted many times and rejected by consensus. They assume bad faith and have their own interpretation of Wikipedia policies. They also suggest I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies (apparently implying they are). I think a longer block is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Beacuse of the battleground mentality of the user, and since the article is under

WP:ARBEE, I decided not to wait until they strictly speaking overstep 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk

) 09:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

He sure likes not to bother with those useless things called rules of Wikipedia. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I remember, mentioning previous blocks is against the rules, but that's not my biggest problem with that person. I simply put an NPOV tag on a section and started a legitimate discussion hoping to resolve the issue. The administrator above rammed into me with unexplained reversions of my edits (the reasons for which he still haven't explained) and threats of blocking. Could someone please explain to him that his title of the administrator doesn't give him the right to push his POV on other users. Or explain to me that administrators can do whatever they want. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"I simply put an NPOV tag on a section and started a legitimate discussion hoping to resolve the issue" - Nah. You edit warred, insulted other editors and made it known that you're here for

WP:ARBEE which means that this report is more than justified given your behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 22:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, my previous behavior has nothing to do with this discussion. I put in information that shows the other party's point of view. I started a discussion on the Talk page as civilized people do on controversial topics. You on the other hand called it weaseling and reverted it without as much as posting a word on the talk page. Instead of finding consensus you, just like the administrator above, ran here to complain about it, your only argument being "given your behavior". Is that how you write an encyclopedia? By group jumping on anyone who disputes the neutrality? The fact that the article is on

WP:ARBEE means that editors should try and find common grounds. What you and the topic starter are doing is anything but. You just want your and only your POV to remain in the article. Le Grand Bleu (talk

) 23:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is their "official" fourth revert, made AFTER this report has been filed (i.e. they knew better and did it anyway): [72].Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And here's is their fifth revert [73], a clear case of

And your third. After I asked you three times to finally go to the Talk page and discuss it. Should be block you? Or will you finally stop this? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"And your third. " - no, it's actually not. You know the article history is right there for anyone to look at, right? So why make false claim which can be easily dis-proven?

Again, this user started edit warring IMMEDIATELY after coming off a 60 hours block for edit warring. This is pretty clear cut.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

You are wasting SO much time here instead of discussing it in a peaceful manner on the Talk page. You just want to drown me for disagreeing with you. You didn't even look at what I added to the article which was simply the official position of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the tag indicating I started a talk page section on it. You're so blinded by your rage at someone else's differing opinion that you don't even look what you're reverting. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sixth revert (of another editor).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for aggressive edit-warring and personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ahmad al-Hassan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.6.11.253 (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. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
No response on article talk page. The user is unregistered, so has no personal talk page.