Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive298

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kworbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
2. 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
3. 01:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
4. 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
5. 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
The user has been warned several times on their Talk page to no avail. This is just one recent example of their disruptive behaviour, constantly demonstrating their opinion on articles. I ask that you seriously consider an extensive block, at the least. LLArrow (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

When I contribute to the article, I provide explanations and proof of my edits. I always have, and if my edits are wrong, then I try to understand why they have been undone. In these cases, LLArrow has reverted my edits without an explanation, and even sometimes with insults. I am here to help make the page for Hotel better, but I cannot when LLArrow personally reverts any edit I do. For example, when I added the new guest stars from episode three, he undid them with no explanation at all. When another user re-added the information I put, he didn't revert their edit. I don't understand his logic in this report as he has done the same thing I have, except without explaning why he did it. Thanks for understanding my perspective. --- Kworbi

Kworbi, time and time again your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. Per

WP:BRD you should have either stopped or raised a discussion in talk page, gain consensus and resumed editing. Instead you chose on to edit war, inspite of the numerous warnings. Serves you well that this report was generated. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat}

] 09:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Also worthy of notation, is the fact that although being instructed how to on several occasions (just take a look at their frequently blanked Talk page history), the user refuses to sign comments. LLArrow (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Stale. The user has not reverted in over 24 hours. Swarm ♠ 05:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1] and earlier [2] as per previous report filed

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as per previous report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page, really, including an open RfC, but see diff given in previous report

Comments: After being unblocked from

.

LjL (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: noticeboard discussion notification was given, but subsequently removed by the editor. LjL (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, because Ljl push a not reliable controversial sources.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. There's an RfC on the article talk page about this very subject. You should wait until consensus (not majority) is reached before making any changes to the article. clpo13_(talk) 18:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

So you create a brand new article that relies entirely on these "not reliable controversial sources"? Makes no sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Reverted again. clpo13_(talk) 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And again. I'm getting a strong

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe here. clpo13_(talk

) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile I am the one vandalizing in his book. LjL (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Zionist political violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemondropzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

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

Comments:
This page is subject to a 1RR restriction. Editor is just coming off a 48 hour block for similar edit warring - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALemondropzzz

• WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 01:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keynesian_economics&diff=687357590&oldid=687336303

Comments:

While there is debate within the academic community about the accuracy of keynesian economics (and for that matter, ALL economic models), there is no tolerance on wikipedia for any other viewpoint. The economics pages read like they were written by a high school clique of Keynesians, and their viewpoint is enforced with "undo" and rollbacks even for a request for discussion (whether that request is on the article page or the talk page -- debate gets squashed immediately).

Discussion or debate is not possible when even requests for discussion are undone, and personal attacks made against anyone who dares to challenge the cliques opinion. Administrators told me last week to request a discussion (which I did now, on two separate occasions) and twice my request for discussion was quickly undone and dismissed. Ogreggy (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Ogreggy for 72 hours for resumption of edit warring after recent block.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Disappearing gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to

[13]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17] - a reversion of [18]
5. [19] - a revision of [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

[21], [22], [23], [24], [25] - apparently a chronic problem.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Disappearing_gun#Installations

Report filed

19:51, 24 October 2015‎ DissidentAggressor

Comments:
As the user's own diffs will show, he attempted to add a minor, barely notable subject to a list of significant examples of the type. As the talk page and history will also show...well, take a look for yourself: [26] Particularly note the poisoning the well throughout. Note that the editor listed a number of accusations on edit-warring which were -all- shown to be unfounded, including a couple by a tag team now involved at Arbcom. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Anmccaff is continuing to unilaterally revert any and all edits I make to that page - even after I filed this report.

WP:OWNership is blatant. The Dissident Aggressor

12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. When I first looked at this report, it was apparent to me that both DissidentAggressor and Anmccaff were edit-warring. However, I also noted that DA had failed to notify Anmccaff of this discussion, which is required. Because it wasn't an open-and-shut case (meaning obvious breach of 3RR by the accused and clean hands by the filer), I notified Anmccaff myself but took no other action. Although in some ways DA should still be blocked for edit-warring, at this point their role has become stale, whereas Anmccaff pointedly reverted yet again, even though this report was still pending. @DissidentAgressor, be aware that if you revert Anmccaff now that they are blocked, you run the risk of being blocked as well. As you correctly state at the article Talk page, there is no consensus for either user's version. Although not relevant to my decision, I have no idea what Anmccaff's reference to ArbCom means.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

List of programs broadcast by Telemundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Zzz369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687337327 by
      talk
      ) por favor no vandalizes"
   2. 22:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687337327 by
      talk
      ) por favor no vandalizes"
   3. 22:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687338231 by Zzz369 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "mi edicion es 100 % correcta, los datos hablan por si solos, primero informate y entonces actua"
   2. 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Soap operas */"
3. 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687334095 by
   talk
   )"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Currently broadcast */"
   2. 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Soap operas */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List of programs broadcast by Telemundo */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

While leave you a message in your discussion and I got rid your edits 3 times, the user wants to impose its editions, asking me who do not vandalism. You wrote in Spanish is the only language this user speaks. Whenever I leave messages to this user on their discussion refuses to answer them and instead, prefers to fall in war of editions.

23:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I will write in English from now on. I was saying that what I edited is correct and I do not know why the user

Philip J Fry to vandalize good work.--Zzz369 (talk

) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The way the table was layed out before looked better and was clearer, also in your edits you added in other shows without actually citing a source for the additions, and as such would be reverted anyway.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not agree with the current table, first because it doesn't fit with the rest of the article, so that a table of colors, when the rest of the tables are in grey. Second if I got rid its Edition was a clear reason. First because "

talk

21:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User Ans2015kivanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in excessive edit warring and continues to do so after being warned by an admin. He reverted edits in the article Ganja, Azerbaijan 5 times in 24 hours:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

In total he reverted the same edits 17 times since October 9. Thank you for your attention. --vacio 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.175.191.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/687111688 (Talk page consensus for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28] (edit summary claims "unexplained removal of content", despite extensive Talk page discussions)
3. [29] (restore substantially the same information; edit summary claims "negotiated clarifications"; no Talk page consensus for inclusion)
4. [30] (edit summary claims "unexplained removal of content", despite extensive Talk page discussions)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/687471990

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

Comments:

NB: 3 intermediate reverts to remove the poorly sourced information are mine, and (I believe) in line with previously established Talk page consensus. I will not further revert. I have also raised an AIV report here.

Editor appears to be IP hopping, may now be at 166.175.57.226. -

20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Swarm ♠ 08:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jay Ward Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Karah kenze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Leve it alone you moron"
2. 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Don't worry I'm the right one I know about the company thanks to a to bill Scott who I talked to before he died"
3. 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Let's keep the page the way it looked a year ago since the other guy has no proof"
4. 20:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "don't worry I left a message on the other users talk page plus it says on the Wikipedia pages witch years the shows ran"
5. 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "I said I took care of the editing war plus you didn't have a reason for deleting my version (the right vision)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[32]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None by me, but edit summaries show editor was well aware of rule breaches

Comments

I am re-reporting this after

User:McGeddon withdrew the original report on the basis that "the talk page agreed with the edits", because there is only one thing on the talk page, while there were several editors reverting Special:Contributions/Karah kenze

, whose user contributions show is being quite litigious (i.e. edit warring, removing content) on other articles as well, with no talk page justifications. So I think this does need to be brought to attention.

LjL (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Also note this threat to an anonymous editor. clpo13_(talk) 21:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See also AN/I thread. BMK (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Disruption and reverts are continuing by User:Iloveyoooou, which I suspect is a sockpuppet (SPI filed). LjL (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock. Swarm ♠ 08:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I'm here to talk you about the incorrect actions of other Wikipedian. There are two users that are percuting me. They delete, change or undo everything I add to Wikipedia pages. They have voted negatively in a AfD debat without reason. User Collect and McGeddon are persecuting me. He voted negatively in the AfD debat of the Internet Horror Movie Database, they are persecuting me in the page [33] and in the page [[34] where I added some titles. He have segnaled me here and here where the debat was archived. They continue to change all I do. Plus, Collect, for what i see in his talk page has various problems with Wiki like sock and blocks. This is why yesterday I afded some of his pages. Please help me stop this persecution. Please verify.Pizzole (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

See

harass any who disagree with his position. Will no one rid ... etc. Collect (talk

) 23:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. I need admin attention about you and your behavior. Yes, you were investigated for sockpuppetry. Stop persecuting me. Pizzole (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How on earth is this an edit warring report? Did you notice there's a form to fill? LjL (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new but in good faith. Can you provide me the correct address to find someone helping me? I'll delete this if is the wrong place. Pizzole (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You want

WP:ANI. clpo13_(talk

) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Pizzole (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

• Declined redirected to appropriate forum Swarm ♠ 08:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Page:

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

Breaking 1RR twice:

• Edit 1 Revert 1
• Edit 2 Revert 2
• Edit 3 Revert 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37] [38]

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 4 days before he engaged in 1RR violation. In addition, you can notice a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his unsourced edits over a period of 1 week. Tradedia^talk 01:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 08:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: List of newspapers published in Metro Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RioHondo (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:

Placed the edit warring notice in User:RioHondo talk page but the user removed it. Appealed in article's talk page to discuss and reach consensus ignored. This fellow, RioHondo continues with his blatant and un-Wikipedian Edit Warring behaviour.Jose de Cura 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC) -->--Jose de Cura 02:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Swarm ♠
  08:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• You were not ignored on the article's talk page. Your conduct seemed condescending, uncollaborative and unhelpful. Just saying. Swarm ♠ 08:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "
   ←Replaced content with 'See [http://www.comelec.gov.ph/uploads/Archives/RegularElections/2016NLE/Candidates/COCFiled2016NLE/Senator_Filed_2016NLE.pdf
   COMMISSION ON ELECTION official...'"
2. 09:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 09:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 09:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 09:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 09:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 09:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "/* October 2015 */"
3. 09:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Edits by Petalcorin */ new section"

Comments:

User is attempting to add a comment that really should go on the article's talk page; has blanked the article to do so but is now simply adding it to the top. Has not replied to any inquiries. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The user also seems to be involved in the election somehow based on this edit. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

"Somehow" indeed. DMacks (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours – If this behavior continues, the next step is probably an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Movement for Socialism (Britain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Greengauge121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) to 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "No evidence on the internet or elsewhere that this organisation actually exists."
3. 19:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "
   ←
   Blanked the page"
4. 19:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "NO EVIDENCE ON THE INTERNET OR ELSEWHERE FOR THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE OF THIS TINY GROUP"
5. 20:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "No evidence that this organisation exists. However, it may exist so I am deleting content but leaving the header in tact and will not be requesting deletion of the whole page"
6. 20:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Content is not verifiable by evidence. Hence deletion of content."
7. 20:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "invalid content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [39]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Twinkle won't let me link to diffs of warnings since the user has blanked their talk page, but they're there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Liz. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ramallah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adir Bar Yohanan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:15, 26 October 2015 changes "About|the major Palestinian city in the West Bank" to "About|the city in the West Bank"
2. 20:44, 26 October 2015 the same
3. 22:37, 26 October 2015 the same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Ramallah#."Palestine" & "Palestinian"

Comments: Article is under 1RR, see Talk:Ramallah. And editor does not self-revert after being asked to do so, but instead continues editing. Huldra (talk) 23:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA. User was asked to self-revert but would not do so. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ramallah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) & Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Al_Ameer_son (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] : This article is about the major *Palestinian* city in the West Bank
2. [diff]: Ramallah (Arabic: رام الله‎, pronounced Rāmallāh About this sound (help·info)) is a *Palestinian* city
3. [diff]: others, same

Tried to resolve this at User talk:Huldra#Ramallah

Comments:

These three users have engaged together in reverting changes I have made to the article by reinserting contentious and confusing language.

a) "Palestine" is repeatedly used without clarification to what entity this word refers to. "Palestine" is not a current administrative entity with clear and unambigous meaning and hence leads to confusion in reading and the need to resort to context for clarifications. This context is not provided and hence the confusion persists.

b) "Palestinian" is repeatedly used without clarification to what entity this word refers to. "Palestine" is not a current administrative entity with clear and unambigous meaning and hence leads to confusion in reading and the need to resort to context for clarifications. This context is not provided and hence the confusion persists.

Clarifications need to be inserted in text as follows

a) either a removal of these words where not warranted and cofusedly employed - as I tried to do or b) by clear reference to what they mean which could be accroding to the disambiguation

These users have worked in consortium as to not break the 3RR rule any of them individually but have done so collectively in a concerted action to maintain incorrect language and hence confusion.

Later edit: adter Nableezy's comments on Ybna / Yavne it becomes apparent this is done as political activism against Wimipedia's rules for neutrality - please see below.

Please investigate this and for the avoidance of doubt reccomend guidelines that will prevent politicised language to be used.

Thank you

Adir Bar Yohanan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adir_Bar_Yohanan Adir Bar Yohanan (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) -->

Just a note, the same issue with the same user at Yibna. Adir Bar Yohanan is apparently under the impression that the words Palestine and Palestinians are verboten on Wikipedia. nableezy - 01:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ABY: No words are prohibited and no words have preference. Language needs to reflect reality. Yibna is not an actual city but a medieval one; for the modern, contemporary city there is the page for Yavne which seems far more comprehensive with ample references to both Arab and Muslim cultural elements. The Yibna page is an attempt by activists to abuse Wikipedia to pass their fictions for reality against Wiki's standard of neutrality. I strongly advise you to refrain from political activism on Wikipedia and use other forums to voice your opinions.

Please enforce neutrality and demand these users to cease their political activism on Wikipedia.

Thank yo

ABY

Almost all the edits of Adir Bar Yohanan have been reverted, and a cursory look at them shows how inevitable that was. Consider this massive POV push for example. Now he wants to remove the attribute "Palestinian" from one of the largest Palestinian cities, on purely spurious grounds, and thinks that the page should be protected to preserve his version. This sort of

10:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Filer blocked for 1RR violation on Ramallah per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Editor was warned about 3RR rule [47] and asked to self revert the 4th edit here [48] Discussion regarding the content as well as the reverted edits here. [49]

Comments: HughD is an experienced editor and should know better regarding the 3RR violation. All 4 of the listed reverts were "undo" reversions rather than back and forth edits. He was given a chance to self revert and ignored the request while continuing to edit the article. His interactions on the talk page, initiated after the 2nd revert, are confrontational. The listed previous reversion is simply the last stable version before the recent article edits. The reversions represent four editors, myself (the IP edit), Safehaven86, Capitalismojo, and Champaign Supernova. Springee (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Note that 2 of the diffs are Hugh reverting a blank-and-redirect of the page, which was done out of process and without consensus - there was no merge/AFD or other discussion that established consensus for replacing the page with a redirect. At best, it was a

) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there had been merge thread going back to June, with no disagreement. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment HughD is continuing to edit war including re-adding material that was previously twice removed over objections of other editors. Removal of material: [[50]] Reinsertion of material: [[51]] No talk page justification for reinsertion

Removals of material related to Columbia Journaism article (note two of these removals are the ones listed as part of the 4RR complaint): [[52]] [[53]] Re-insertion: [[54]] Discussions that HughD partook in after adding material that had previously been removed more than once. [[55]] HughD has added 70 edits to the article in the last 4 days. Springee (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected three days. I don't see four explicit reverts by HughD but he is keeping up a rapid pace of edits, and one could argue POV-pushing. Please follow
  WP:DR for the disputed items. It is not 100% clear that HughD is banned from editing this article due to the Koch brothers restriction, but he would be wise to check with the banning admin, User:Ricky81682. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a connection but that isn't a comment on the editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Jatav123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "/* History */This is wrong"
2. 17:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "/* History */Where is this stated.don't enter unsourced info"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) to 09:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 09:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
   2. 09:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
   3. 09:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "/* History */This is the real informain.many books state this info"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 13:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
3. 18:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The history topic is under discussion on the talk page of the article here, but the user did not turn up there. He is only interested in making reverts/blanking the contents from other editors.

Comments:

The user adopts disruptive behaviour constantly. Earlier he did on article

18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBIPA due to the caste warring. EdJohnston (talk

) 01:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Jalan Pantai Barat Kedah, Jalan Lembah Bujang, Jalan Tandop and Jalan Rekreasi Tupah
User being reported: Ifzam2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Jalan Pantai Barat Kedah
2. Jalan Tandop
3. Jalan Rekreasi Tupah
4. Jalan Lembah Bujang

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Ifzam2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

Comments:

I changed the header to show that Ifzam2003 rather than Bgwhite is the person being reported. Otherwise the content of the report doesn't make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston What doesn't make sense? There are 4 articles involved. I gave the history of all four articles to show the reverts. Ifzam2003 writes in ALL UPPER CAPS as is stated on the talk page. You've warned them for writing in all upper case.Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What didn't make sense was your original header, 'Bgwhite reported by Bgwhite'. You are not requesting a block of yourself, so far as I can tell. If there is no response from Ifzam2003 a block seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston Ahhh.... ok. Ok, your not making sense about me not making sense, makes sense now :) I'm slow. They reverted the articles again. Bgwhite (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Stephen Harper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687863827 by Legacypac (talk)It doesn't serve readers. There's no rush. Wait until Harper resigns"
2. 04:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687852328 by Legacypac (talk)PLEASE, wait until he actually resigns."
3. 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "1) He hasn't resigned, yet. 2) It's not November 4, yet & 3) We don't exactly know when he'll be resigning, yet."

And several days ago

1. [57] (Undid revision 687004560 by Legacypac (talk)That's not how it's done here. PS see WP:RUSH)
2. [58] Undid revision 687001145 by Legacypac (talk)That's not how wed do it. We wait until the transition occurs)
3. [59] (I checked the calender. It's not November 4, yet.)

He's also doing this on related articles.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[60]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Infobox */"

Comments:

User refuses to accept any editor's effort to put the known end date of a defeated Prime Minister's term in, going back for days. Will add more diffs. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already reverted to Legacypac's preffered version. Therefore this report is moot. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The material was speculation and unsourced at the time - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and claims should not be based on what we know weill happen, as a rule. At this point, the issue is entirely moot. Collect (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've already restored Legacypac's version (before the report was made). I'm asking that he withdraw his report. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not speculative, its been in every serious Canadian media outlet you can name. [61]. Given that he has reverted after I filed this report, the only thing I'm asking is that Goodday refrain from editing any article about Stephen Harper until Nov 4. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted before you made your report. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe while I was making the report, it takes time to do these reports. Just agree to stop reverting all the editors that keep adding Nov 4 as a start for Justin's reign and the end of Harper's term and we can all go our happy way. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. We'll allow others to decide if the date should remain or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the above discussion and per Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox it appears that people have agreed on removal of the end of Stephen Harper's term as prime minister from the infobox. The end of his term is predicted by some to be November 4, and this prediction is already in the article text though not currently in the infobox. So there is no longer an edit war. It is assumed that GoodDay will make no further reverts about the end of Harper's term. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ryōtarō Okiayu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: AKS.9955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Unbuttered Parsnip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Unbuttered Parsnip

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]

AKS.9955

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Unbuttered Parsnip

• [69]

AKS.9955

• [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempts made by either editor

Comments:

• Comment: Hello, I am user AKS.9955. Please see my detailed comment on this subject here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. will continue this discussion at ANI. Swarm ♠
  00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Draft:Minhazur Rahman Nayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.15.165.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]

IP persists in removing a draft's Articles for Creation history and comments despite escalating warnings on their talk page not to do so, and repeated restorations of the AfC material by myself and another AfC reviewer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on IP talk page: [77]

Comments:

The AfC process for this draft would benefit from short term page protection or a block to cool the IP down and wake them up to the collaborative no-ownership nature of Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kurzon, blocked 3 times already for edit-warring (the last time about the same situation in the same page), has just violated the 3RR rule: he has performed 4 reverts in less than 24 hour (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mafia&action=history), the first today at 06:12 and the last today at 10:21. I am waiting until 24 hours pass before restoring the page, I hope he will be blocked again for breaking the rules, meanwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.14.131 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Already dealt with. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Das (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Elaborate and broad edit for authentic information. Thanks"
2. 13:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 12:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 00:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After a message on both his and my talk page, user claims ownership of the page and fails to seek consensus. I've used my final revert on the page for now, and it seems unlikely that the user will stop enforcing his own revision any time soon. NottNott talk|contrib 15:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that he hasn't edited since being warned. If he logs in and promises to stop edit warring, then I'll happily unblock. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Spike-from-NH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Revert Shalir Salim again (Summary: "Improved")--As before, tries to expunge references to one of the two alternative sites. See
   WP:AN/I
   "
2. 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687655589 by Shalir Salim--As before; you are welcome to escalate; I already have"
3. 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Anon continues revert war already reported to Admins; additional detail on Greggs incident is pointless"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user, along with

) 18:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The .co site is a fork. It has a drastically lower alexa ranking than the wikia site. In addition to that, UncycloWikia is still actively edited. You are the one edit warring with multiple editors. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the .co site is the actual Uncyclopedia where the majority of the community is based. All social media links and interlanguage project links to the .co site. The Wikia site is run independently from the main site as a fork or a different branch and is not affiliated with the community at the main site. You and Spike-from-NH have been constantly favoring Wikia in your edits and reverting anybody who either says otherwise or amends the article to maintain neutrality and reference the Wikia site as a prominent branch. The Alexa rating covers the entire Wikia network, not just Uncyclopedia therefore that bit of information is both unreliable and irrelevant. I suggest you stop digging.

Shalir Salim (talk

) 19:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if the Alexa rank covers all of Wikia, UnccloWikia still is higher ranked on most, if not all search engines. In addition, the fork was created AFTER the wikia site. Just whois uncyc.co and I'll be proven right. (Domain Registration Date: Sun Apr 03 01:25:50 GMT 2011) In addition, UncycloWikia still is actively edited. Not all the community went there. Both sites are active. Both are Uncyclopedia. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the community, including all social and interwiki references, refer to .co as the main site and therefore should be treated as such. The Wikia site ceased to be the main Uncyclopedia site back when .co was opened and while it is still active, it is not referred to as the main site by any sources except yourself and Spike-from-NH. The Wikia site is still active and still maintained a following after .co was opened but it is no longer the main site and shouldn't be treated as such. The current version of the article takes all of this into account.

Shalir Salim (talk

) 20:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Social Media is not RS. Are there reliable secondary sources that confirm that .co is indeed, the supposed "main" uncyclopedia? In addition, parody wikis are not RS either. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 21:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that point to either as the main site? If not, both would need to be mentioned, probably giving preference to the version which is most linked by official social media (as they are a reliable source for facts regarding themselves if there are no RS that state things to the contrary.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I cannot find a non-social link to say that either .co or .wikia.com is the main site, Uncyclopedia's official social media links (Twitter, Facebook) as well as the projects mirror website and interlanguage portal give preference to the .co site. I cannot find any social media links for the Wikia site whatsoever.

Shalir Salim (talk

) 12:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

All editors involved in this edit war (including

) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course .co's social-media creations link back to .co. The Wikia website has social-media pages too, though Shalir Salim "cannot find" them. Shalir Salim's account is one week old and his business has primarily been to expunge Wikia from the Uncyclopedia page. The fork at .co has used many tactics over the years to divert traffic there, including several waves (pre-2-October) of editing the Wikipedia page and subjecting those who reverts them to disciplinary review. Now PKHilliam creates an account apparently for no other purpose than to weigh in and state the exact opposite of the facts, assisted of course by a couple of IPs. Anyone warning me not to edit ought to review the Incidents noticeboard, the article's history and talk page, and Shalir Salim's talk page including the numerous warnings he has deleted to stop marking articles for deletion, and ensure that this campaign of personal attack by sudden new users does not succeed in stampeding Wikipedia to point to one website at the expense of another. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Facebook Page for the Wikia site has a much smaller following than that of .co and isn't as high up on the search for Facebook profiles. I am all for Wikia's version being mentioned on the article, I have even made my own mentions myself but you must accept that social and project links favor the .co site and nothing you can say will change that.

Shalir Salim (talk

) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Hard Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Reaganomics88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "No you do not need to describe who uses a term when describing. In addition,
   WP:NOR
   ."
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) to 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Not in source"
   2. 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Unsourced"
3. 11:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688057851 by Garageland66 (talk) Not in source"
4. 15:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "I am sorry you disagree with my well sourced definition but it is the truth. I am no right-winger, I find the atomised individualism of the right depressing. I am instead a centrist and a liberal."
5. 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Restoring well sourced and accurate information and combatting
   WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT
   ."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Hard Left */ new section"
2. 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "edits: new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There have been many attempts at talk page discussion, see for example: diff

Comments:

A further warning was given on the talkpage including attempts to discuss the issues and avoid edit warring, see diff. Also, the user has made uncivil comments, accusing others of being "deluded" per diff. ℕ ℱ 23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC) User also seems to think it appropriate to alter other user's comments on this noticeboard per diff. Clearly it is not. --ℕ ℱ 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Katie^talk 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Daraa offensive (October 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guru Noel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]

The article in question is part of the Syrian civil war-related articles, which are all under a general 1RR sanction. The editor made 3 reverts, two above the allowed limit. PS The original article was deleted by consensus, editor in question recreated three carbon copies of the deleted article under three different article titles (with only a sentence or two of difference between them). At the deletion discussion page he expressed his intent that despite the deletion decision, he was going to re-create it under different titles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I expressed my intent to create a different structure to the topic(s) in question. The article was repeatedly deleted without due process or procedure. My reverts include new sources to clarify the difference between one big giant offensive and lots of individual offensives, all equally notable. Both unwarranted deletions and this report would seem part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced

propoganda aimed at targeting these offensives by diminishing their coverage and notability. Guru Noel (talk

) 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment First, the one new SOHR source you provided that you alleged confirmed the offensive does nothing of the sort. The source only mentions a instance of shelling on a town, nothing about an offensive in the province. This would constitute a miss-representation of the source and possible POV OR. Second, accusing fellow editors of attempts of censorship and propaganda is in violation of WP policy on assuming good faith and civility. To the accusation of us being part of some kind of Saudi-Qatari influence I won't even respond. Third, the main issue here (which you ignored) is you broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. And not just once, but twice. Which warrants an automatic block. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Shelling is an offensive. SANA and SOHR report every day on different parts of it, shooting drones down, whatever. You should try reading and counting the dead people killed in the offensive. Iranian and Russian news too. I could find sources about it every day. Why you are trying to hide it is the main issue here. One russian or american soldier dies and they get an article, probably the delta force or whatever operation they die in gets an article. Hundreds of Syrians die in one of several major offensives and you try to cover them up. Why are you defending someone deleting articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia codes of conduct? These are the main issues. Guru Noel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Has Guru Noel been warned about the 1RR restriction? If not, shall we warn him/her now and hope for no further violations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 4, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ I think he is aware since he left the comment here on the noticeboard, but totally ignored the fact he broke 1RR, offered no apologies or to rectify his mistake, and said his potential block is part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have totally ignored the fact that I broke 1RR because I didn't. I restored an illegally deleted page. With new sources. This case seems to have been raised in error in support of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Guru Noel (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• WP:1RR rule. The editor's further comments above indicate he has no intention of undoing his change. Guru Noel hurts his own case by using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly to refer to a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Daraa offensive (October 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guru Noel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]

The article in question is part of the Syrian civil war-related articles, which are all under a general 1RR sanction. The editor made 3 reverts, two above the allowed limit. PS The original article was deleted by consensus, editor in question recreated three carbon copies of the deleted article under three different article titles (with only a sentence or two of difference between them). At the deletion discussion page he expressed his intent that despite the deletion decision, he was going to re-create it under different titles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I expressed my intent to create a different structure to the topic(s) in question. The article was repeatedly deleted without due process or procedure. My reverts include new sources to clarify the difference between one big giant offensive and lots of individual offensives, all equally notable. Both unwarranted deletions and this report would seem part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced

propoganda aimed at targeting these offensives by diminishing their coverage and notability. Guru Noel (talk

) 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment First, the one new SOHR source you provided that you alleged confirmed the offensive does nothing of the sort. The source only mentions a instance of shelling on a town, nothing about an offensive in the province. This would constitute a miss-representation of the source and possible POV OR. Second, accusing fellow editors of attempts of censorship and propaganda is in violation of WP policy on assuming good faith and civility. To the accusation of us being part of some kind of Saudi-Qatari influence I won't even respond. Third, the main issue here (which you ignored) is you broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. And not just once, but twice. Which warrants an automatic block. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Shelling is an offensive. SANA and SOHR report every day on different parts of it, shooting drones down, whatever. You should try reading and counting the dead people killed in the offensive. Iranian and Russian news too. I could find sources about it every day. Why you are trying to hide it is the main issue here. One russian or american soldier dies and they get an article, probably the delta force or whatever operation they die in gets an article. Hundreds of Syrians die in one of several major offensives and you try to cover them up. Why are you defending someone deleting articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia codes of conduct? These are the main issues. Guru Noel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Has Guru Noel been warned about the 1RR restriction? If not, shall we warn him/her now and hope for no further violations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 4, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ I think he is aware since he joined in and left the comment here on the noticeboard, but totally ignored the fact he broke 1RR, offered no apologies or to rectify his mistake, and said his potential block is part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have totally ignored the fact that I broke 1RR because I didn't. I restored an illegally deleted page. With new sources. Guru Noel (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment There was nothing illegal about it, all articles are subject to change by anyone at any time (also read WP policy on being bold). And you did not provide new sources. You provided only one source, which does not even confirm your allegation that there is an ongoing offensive. 1RR is when you revert any kind of edit more than once. You made 3 reverts. The fact that you do not even want to acknowledge you broke WP policy (1RR) makes me believe you will violate it again. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am not violating anything, I am repairing Wikipedia:Vandalism, pure and simple. Case closed. I would direct your complaints towards the vandal. I have provided more sources for JUST today's action in the Daraa offensive (October 2015) (which took a while) and would be pleased to discuss things more there. Guru Noel (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Duplicate report. See below. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jeanne Shaheen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688029555 by Roscelese (talk) This is a consistent attempt to insert bland language in place of informative terms like the truthful pawn shop"
2. 03:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688021945 by Roscelese (talk) The material is sourced."
3. 03:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688021641 by Roscelese (talk) The source is reliable to people who accept the truth that the Manhattan Declaration is about religious freedom"
4. 03:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688020519 by Roscelese (talk) You are trying to turn Wikipedia into a POV pushing enterprise that only allows liberal sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None at Jeanne Shaheen. See however Talk:Bill Shaheen where I raised the same concern.

Comments:

JPL also created a separate article on the issue at

06:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert and User:Roscelese blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait;

Washington Free Beacon. Please unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 22:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the article or source and you think I've made a mistake then go ahead and unblock. I haven't got time to look more deeply at this time, but will return later. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't. But per your comment above, I'll ask the next uninvolved admin who comes along to take a second look. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Did you look at what was being reverted and the edit summaries? There is no way the Washington Free Beacon is a RS and there were

talk

) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I got this wrong. Apparently what's obvious to one editor is not as obvious to another. I'm happy to go with the consensus on this, especially people more familiar with the article and "source" in question. In this light, so people feel that the block I placed on User:Johnpacklambert may be too lenient? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Partially struck the above as I see events have progressed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vormeph (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:

Vormeph's response to the 3RR warning is here, after which they made their 4th revert. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: As the accused here, I only reverted such edits under the grounds that they were biased and were not appropriate for the said section. For the moderators' own knowledge, a personal relationship between me and DeCausa exists and there are more personal than political/editorial reasons as to why DeCausa, having not been invited to join the discussion at the talk page, persisted in reporting me. He is reminded that reporting another editor isn't going to resolve a single issue and will only brew more fire. I therefore call on DeCausa to retract this report and bring himself back to dialogue to resolve our differences. Banning me will only prolong that.

• Page protected There's no 3RR violation as the fourth diff isn't a revert, but I have no confidence the edit war won't resume. Work it out, people, and keep your personal differences out of this project. Katie^talk 02:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: The fourth diff isn't a revert? Vormeph's first three reverts to the infobox changed

de jure Islamic republic de facto some variant of Theocracy: Unitary presidential republic under absolute islamic sovereignty

to

Islamic Republic.

Vormeph's fourth revert was to change it to

de jure Islamic republic de facto Unitary presidential republic

i.e. he removed for the fourth time the words "some variant of Theocracy" and "under absolute islamic sovereignty". Can you please explain how the fourth removal of those words doesn't breach 3RR? Surely it's not because it's not an identical revert to the other 3 reverts as policy is clear that is still a revert for 3RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." It clearly is "in part". Also, page protection implies that more than Vormeph is involved in edit warring. Vormeph's 4 reverts were against two other editors: myself with one revert and UCaetano with two reverts. Vormeph was trying to change text that was longstanding, with no support from any other editor. You page protected the page with Vormeph's fourth revert. Can you reconsider your decision here please.

By the way, and for the record, the only "the personal relationship" between me and Voremph exists entirely in Voremph's mind. We had one very brief exchange about a very minor issue several months ago. It appears to be an issue for him, but not for me. I only remembered him when I posted the 3RR warning on his talk page and saw my previous post. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the lock @KrakatoaKatie:, I tried to bring @Vormeph: to the talk page to discuss but he/she seemed pretty driven towards pushing his POV. For the record, this is my first interaction with him and we're already discussing on the talk page now. Could you please revert the page to the status before the edit war begun? As it is now it's locked in an intermediary status with no consensus. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano:, unfortunately it's unlikely that she will revert Vormeph's last edit on the ground that it's "the wrong version". She could if she or any admin reads the consensus on the talk page as being in favour of the pre-edit-war version, I guess. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Honor Thy Father (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ron Karlos L. Castillo (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

This user keeps adding a second date template in the infobox, which goes against the MOS for films. At first, I

09:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

And a few hours after logging this, and notifying the user, he goes back and re-adds the template! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked– 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: Diploma mill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Reporting editor: 2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Other articles that User:Davidwr has reverted and refuse to comply

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
Keeps reverting article to fit his personal opinions. Very

and not one-sided.

2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education#Remove Atlantic international University from the list. I've notified User:Davidwr of your complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I think this is the first time since my early days at Wikipedia that I've been seriously accused of misconduct at an administrator's noticeboard. It's entirely possible that I have a blind spot here and bringing this to my attention - and everyone else's - will open my eyes and make me a better editor.

However, I'm not willing to concede this just yet. Please read on...

I could be mis-reading things but as best I can tell, the disputes revolve around whether:

• The accreditation of a particular school in Hawaii which was very recently accredited by a non-US accreditation agency but whose programs are not accredited has meaningful accreditation or if it is, from a potential employer or graduate school's perspective, accreditation in name only (obviously I think the latter is the case here). The matter is complicated by the fact that the accreditation agency's accreditations of schools in its home country are generally considered valid - but that is in part because schools in that country also have to meet other standards as well. In general, reputable schools in the United States that wish to be accredited with seek regional accreditation and the will seek to have their programs accredited (there are are of course rare exceptions of known-high-quality schools that do not seek accreditation), and
• As of 10/29, whether the recently added text and its reference demonstrate that the text that refers to the state of affairs in 2007 is outdated and should be removed, or whether the recently added text belong in the article alongside the text that discusses the state of affairs in 2007 (obviously I don't see the new information as superseding the previous information).
• Additional background can be found in recent conversations on Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education and Talk:Diploma_mill as well as the recently-closed-as-delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic International University. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

These two articles' talk pages seem to be lightly-trafficked, making it difficult to determine what the Wiki-consensus on this matter really is.

I would welcome a WP:Third opinion, preferably from editors with expertise in how colleges in the United States and Mexico (respectively) are accredited and what accreditations are taken seriously by employers and reputable graduate schools in those countries. Even better than one "third opinion" would be a full-blown discussion with many editors, so no one editor (such as myself or 2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443) will be able to dominate the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi

) 04:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Diploma mill has been semiprotected three months, due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. The same person has edited the article using three different IPs in the month of October. Feel free to create an account and resume editing, so long as you make a good-faith effort to find consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: and anyone else reading this:
    • Is there anything I should have done differently?
    • What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).
  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. See User talk:EdJohnston#Continued from WP:AN/EW#User:Davidwr reported by IP editor (Result: Semi). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Emergency, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Turkey List of wars involving Russia, Cyprus Emergency, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, List of wars involving Cyprus, List of wars involving Turkey

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