Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive300

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 07:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 09:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "The 36% atheist or not religious shouldn't be split because they both mean exactly the same and if we use the 2015 Gallup Poll then we would find out that Germany is around 66% atheist not 48%!"
3. 09:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "I think it's better to have an aggregated figure rather than a split one because the article is about irreligion by country so therefore there should be a combined percentage for irreligion as a whole."
   2. 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:217.22.190.233 received a 3RR warning [1], 14:03, 16 November 2015. JimRenge (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Evading previous block NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: List of Microsoft codenames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seafoxlrt616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2] (24 October 2015)

Next relevant diffs:

• Problematic change, possibly by the reported user
• The reported user's minor edit coming shortly afterward

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6] (3RR violation here)
5. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

User's response: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. First attempt
2. Second attempt

Comments:

The changes borderline on vandalism. They clearly disfigure the article. This could have easily been a dispute (albeit with serious

WP:COMPETENCE issues) has it not been for the user's unwillingness to do anything besides hitting the revert button. Fleet Command (talk

) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:CIR problem, but we can't let them keep reverting forever. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Siege of Mosul (1743) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsa1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16] invitation to discuss at talk page [17]

Comments:
Parsa1993 is edit warring at the count of 4 so far. Plus user made a personal attack against me by calling me a cretin simply for enforcing wikipedia policy. [18] User was warned for personal attack here. [19] User stated on the talk page of the article that I had no knowledge of histioography. User has some serious ownership issues over this article. Other editors are allowed to improve any article. Zpeopleheart (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@

reliable sources noticeboard that can help you two settle this problem. If you continue to edit war, however, you both risk being blocked and/or the page being protected. --slakr^\ talk

 / 01:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[20]

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Comments:
The user keeps reverting the page to the version with his file which is an exact duplicate of File:World marriage-equality laws.svg (I have already reported it on Wikimedia Commons for that reason) even though I have explained on the edit comments that the file is a duplicate and that the other file shows no other difference. I also warned him that he will be reported if he reverts one more time, however that did not stop him from doing so. Turnless (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Update - The user has finally self-reverted his edits [26]. --Turnless (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And now the image is inaccurateTba (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the image is still accurate. --Turnless (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg vs https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/World_marriage-equality_laws1.svg Tba (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

They are exactly the same. --Turnless (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. As noted, User:Tba has reverted his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 17 November 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: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

This IP has been blocked before for identical edit warring - removing Articles for Creation templates, history, and reviewer comments from this draft. Unfortunately, when that 31 hour block expired, the IP resumed edit warring within a few days, despite reiterated 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: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [33] (original case), [34], and [35]

Comments:
The previous block had no lasting effect on the IP's behavior. They continue not to engage in discussion and have extended the scope of their disruptive behavior to a second draft, Draft:Nayan-Apon Production. The AfC process would benefit from a longer block or whatever other intervention would stop the edit-warring. Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 week. The IP has been reverting comments left by others on AfC drafts. See a previous complaint of the same thing at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive298#User:103.15.165.231 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Hammersmith bus station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Football2lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690950878 by Davey2010 (talk)"
2. 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

• Consensus has always been to remove all lists and tables of bus services from articles as they all become outdated and most are unsourced anyway, Prosing them is considered fine, I twice pointed them to NOTDIR as well as left an Unsourced warning but to no avail, I don't believe I've edit warred as as I said consensus is to remove them, Admittingly I could've guided the editor a lot better here, Also I apologize for using Rollback on them - At the time I considered their edits disruptive but obviously it wasn't vandalism and so for that I apologize, Anyway cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've also just realized the prose in the article states - "The bus station is divided into two sections (lower and upper stations). The routes which serve the lower station are 33, 72 (towards Roehampton), 209, 266, 283 (towards Barnes/London Wetland Centre), 419, 485 and 609. The routes which serve the upper station are 9, 10, 27, 72 (towards East Acton), 190, 211, 220, 267, 283 (towards East Acton), 295, 391, H91, N9, N11 and N97.[1] The upper station is also served by Berry's Coaches Taunton to London services.[2]" - Like the table all routes are wikilinked so the entire 2 tables are redundant to the prose directly above it anyway, Just thought I should point that out. –Davey2010^Talk 01:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours While it's not a 3RR, it's clear that the user is continuing to revert multiple editors, even while logged out, and has yet to respond or engage in discussion. --slakr^\ talk / 02:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37] "Poland" did not declare anything. One politician wrote something on an online forum. Until this is official policy or such, it doesn't belong here. WP:NOTNEWS plus a host of other policies
2. [38] uh, it's "countrY" not "countrIES" - did you even bother before hitting the revert button? And this text blatantly misrepresents the sources
3. [39] NOT a "minor" edit, off topic, POV pushing and misrepresents the topic.
4. [40] I'm sorry but there is no such consensus (and it's ridiculous to claim "consensus" when the discussion just started) and it's dishonest to try and claim that there is

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

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

Comments:
This editor has been single-handedly trying to suppress otherwise unanimous consensus that the material should stay (in this article as well as at

). Consensus can be witnessed at: [43] [44] [45]. I think the less-than-pleasing attitude of this editor can also be witnessed in the same places (except #1, where he didn't participate, and which formed the initial consensus). He self-reverted after the 4th revert, but at this point I think that was not done in ) 00:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez freakin crist.

No, I have not been trying to "suppress" anything. I've removed material which is off-topic and which was based on a misrepresentation of a source.

No, there is no "unanimous consensus" that the material should stay. There's two editors, one of them LjL, who disagree. These two users have not really engaged in productive discussion here nor have they asked for outside input.

I did self-revert here because, as much as I disagree with the edit, I'm perfectly willing to wait for this to sort itself out. Basically what you got here is two editors who are rushing to add irrelevant and off topic material about the tragedy in Paris, with what looks like a pursuit of an agenda (blame the refugee crisis for it). Per

WP:NOTNEWS

there's no reason why this material MUST BE in the article now. One of them is also misrepresenting a source. I do think that in a week or two this will sort itself out as it becomes apparent that these are just sensationalist statements from some politicians. I guess in the meantime Wikipedia's going to look a bit more foolish.

Now, this report by

WP:BOOMERANG

.

This is basically an attempt at intimidation. And speaking of bad faith, here is LjL trying to

WP:GAME the edit warring policy I don't know what is. Volunteer Marek 

01:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"There's two editors, one of them LjL, who disagree": this is completely inaccurate. Please check the 3 links given for many more editors. LjL (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In the link you provide, one other editor says its notable, another says it may be notable but doesn't know about reliability of the source, and the third has a question about the phrasing ("who"). You call that "clear consensus", which is... false. Basically, the discussion HAD JUST STARTED, but you went running around immediately claiming "consensus". Which illustrates your battleground mentality.

And then you tried to get other people to do the edit warring and reverting for you. Which illustrates your battleground mentality.

And then, you obviously OBSERVED that I self-reverted and reported ANYWAY. Which also illustrates your battleground mentality.

 Volunteer Marek  01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Battleground like this? LjL (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on the article by LjL

First, just so we're clear, here's the definition of a revert:

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

Let's pause here. That last 4th revert ... is actually EXACTLY the same edit that I made! For some reason however, when I made it, LjL decided to revert it. Puzzling, no?

Ok, now back to LjL's edit warring:

• 5th revert
• 6th revert
• 7th revert

Note these three are reverts of essentially the same material.

• 8th revert
• 9th revert
• 10th revert

Again, these are reverts of same nature.

• 11th revert
• 12th revert
• 13th revert
• 14th revert

Four reverts on the same issue/text.

• 15th revert

(this edit essentially resumes the edit warring in 8th, 9th and 10th reverts)

• 16th revert
• 17th revert

Both on same theme.

• 19th revert

Note that I have NOT included reversion of vandalism, constructive edits or even edits which were not clear reverts - these are NOT all the edits that LjL has made on the article, only the edit warring ones. All 19 of the above diffs are reverts made by User:LjL within the last 24 hours and they involve participation in at least 3 different edit wars (plus a few stray reversions of others). Furthermore I limited this to the past 24 hours but there was plenty of reverting before that as well.

It seems completely disingenous for LjL to report me for edit warring even though they KNEW that I had self-reverted my last edit, and AFTER they've been busy edit warring like crazy for the past 24 hours, have broken 3RR in a number of edit wars and not once even considered self reverting themselves. The frequency of the edit warring, aside from being an extreme transgression of the three revert bright line also illustrates a bit of ownership problem on the part of the user.

The reason why I am not filing this as a separate report is because unlike LjL I try to act in good faith. However, I do wish to note that after I looked at the history of the page I considered filing a report on LjL due to the high frequency of edit warring on this article but decided to warn them first instead. To pay me back, it looks that LjL decided to file this report against me PRE-PREEMPTIVELY (further evidence of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude).  Volunteer Marek  04:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the admin to gauge using their best judgement whether a collection of mostly unrelated edits on a high-traffic article that has had a number of hard-to-follow inaccuracies introduced is equivalent to what I posted about you. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any non-drive-by editor who hasn't technically "undone whether in whole or in part" other edits on this article in the past few days. I also "appreciate" how, by not filing a separate report, you have neglected to send me the compulsory notice that I'm being reported for edit warring.

Note that I had expressed concerns about 1RR sanctions and strict interpretation of revert rules before, and in response, those restrictions were lifted by

yelling all over the place, in my book. LjL (talk

) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not just "mostly unrelated edits", it's about four different edit wars. There's no exemption from 3RR for "high traffic articles". However, I do understand that in a new article sometimes people get caught up in reverting others like you did here. That's fine. But then you run and file a report on somebody else the first chance you get. It's some kind of "edit warring is fine for me but not for thee" mentality. And that is a problem. Volunteer Marek  18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be involved in numerous arguments, Marek, and your behaviour is very much rude: you attack people, you swear, you are even blasphemous. You seem to be engaged in edit warring on many fronts. Is it maybe time for a little time away from Wikipedia, Marek? --109.69.249.37 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Blasphemous? Anyway, the above IP is a user who has been harassing me for a few weeks now, and who 1) just jumped into a dispute only because I made a revert, 2) this dispute involves user inserting

WP:HOAX material based on a non-existent source into the article Warsaw Ghetto Uprising [46] [47], 3) is a sockpuppet of another disruptive user [48]. In fact, I am really sick of having to deal with crap over and over again, with admins not doing anything about it. Volunteer Marek 

08:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See also this previous report [49]. Volunteer Marek  08:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stale --slakr^\ talk / 03:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
User notified (notification removed). DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In the resolution attempt I have tried to encourage the reported user to follow consensus-building procedures in resolving a content dispute with myself and another editor, but was met with a promise to continue edit warring. Msubotin (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Msubotin: Although mine edit revert count might be higher you two have reverted in edit warring too and you were the ones who started the reverting in first place without any discussion. It's funny how you complain just me but don't tell about your own behaviour. I can post all your edit history here as a proof if you want. My saying that I'm gonna revert your POV edits was in reference to in case if you keep inserting your own edits without discussion. This is a biased complaint. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe I exceeded 3RR once, which I regret and was because i wasn't paying sufficient attention, and undoubtedly there has been too much reverting. But the problem is, KahnJohn27, you are responsible for most of the reverting and it's all straight-from-the-hip "you are wrong", nothing's-going-in-the-article-unless-I-agree-with-it reverting. You have been edit`warring against 2 sometimes 3 other editors. On top of which there comes a point where, for example, both myself and Msubotin stop. You don't. You believe you can go on without limit because "you are right". it's a form of attempted bullying which you explicitly stated in this edit: "Let me make something clear here. A consensus cannot add or remove whatever it wants...If you try to add any more POV edits again I will instantly remove them. Now I suggest you move on. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015". This is contrary to some fairly basic Wikipedia values and policy. On top of which there are issues around your understanding of

WP:SYNTH. You need to acknowledge here that if most other editors are against you, you will not try to edit war your personal interpretation into the article, but accept the position of the majority, even if temporarily', and instead seek to persuade the others to your point of view. This means sometimes leaving the article in a form which you don't necessarily agree with while you seek to persuade others to your view. There is no defence to edit-warring (leaving aside BLPs and vandalism) - being right and reverting alleged POV does not entitle any edit editor to break 3RR or edit war more generally. Do you accept that this is the right way to go? If you can do that, this can be closed and we can all get on with improving the encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk

) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:DR. Msubotin (talk

) 23:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@KahnJohn27: You say here that the post I quoted above doesn't mean you'll keep reverting. Does that mean if someone were to revert the last of the four reverts which I cited in this complaint (diffs above) you would or would not revert them? DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: First thing's first. You didn't understand my comment. It was in reference to Msubotin repeatedly edit warring and said that if he keeps inserting his own views and keeps edit-warring and reverting then there is no reason for me to sit back and let him do whatever he wants. Not that I'll repeatedly keep reverting and edit-warring with everyone. If there is a proper discussion for the edits and if they are convincably important, then I have no complaint. The consensus part was true as well. A consensus cannot dictate everything on Wikipedia and Msubotin just using it as an excuse to be able to impose his views here as he realises that I won't agree with his edit insertions and he must get others to agree so he is able to do it. As for there is no defence for edit-warring, I think the same goes for you and Msubotin as well. And seeing as how you not even once mention your own and Msubotin's edit-warring this is obviously a completely biased complaint. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: Completely false. You've been reverting and your edits while the discussion is going without caring for it to even reach a conclusion. As for why my count is higher, the actual reason is because multiple editors which is you and Decause have repeatedly edit-warring with me, not because I want to insert my own views. If I wanted to insert my own views then I never would have agreed with any of your edits, but I let them be added after discussion and consideration of the weight of the edits. I've even removed my own edits which I thought might be unnecessary. The problem here is not me imposing disputed edits, it's you who's doing it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, "If there is a proper discussion for the edits and if they are convincably important, then I have no complaint" seems to be your preconditions for not reverting that edit a fifth time. Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:DR, you either would have been able to use appropriate channels to reach a consensus with broader participation, like we just did here [[57]] with Kautilya3's help; or, when you can't get others to support your disputed edit, you would have accepted that the consensus isn't on your side, and, as you're fond of saying, "moved on". I personally don't care if you sometimes do a second revert with discussion without waiting for an agreement. But if you continue to insist on being the judge and the jury on what constitutes editorial bias and relevance, even when two editors disagree with your sole opinion, I don't see how we can all work together on improving this page. Msubotin (talk

) 23:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Since 14 November KahnJohn27 has reverted about 12 times. This doesn't appear to be a good-faith search for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Oh wow so now you're gonna mock me with my statements. It meant that had you people discussed it first instead of straight away inserting edits based on your views, reverting mine and edit-warring with me I wouldn't have ever warred with you as well not that I'll revert again. As an advice if you want something changed, discuss it first instead of starting edit-warring. Don't put all the blame on me for what you started. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: You only started a consensus when you realised that I won't agree with what you were proposing and you won't be able to force your views into the article. Had you ever cared about discussion or consensus-building in first place you would never have imposed your own edits and would have instead discussed it and waited for the discussion to reach a conclusion. I agreed with several of your edits and even removed my own which I thought might not unnecessary and irrelevant. Even though I did more reverts and might have taken it too far, the fact is that you started it in the first place by brute forcing your edits instead of properly discussing and waiting for discussion to reach a conclusion. If you hadn't started edit-warring and instead discussed it, I would have never gotten into any dispute with you. The one who shares majority of responsibility for this edit-warring is you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR because he was warned on other occasions [63][64] [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66][67]

Comments:

Would probably have blocked if I had noticed this yesterday, but now it's been 24 hours and noo further reverts have occurred. So I will close this with a strong warning to User:Loginnigol to avoid edit warring in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Under the Skin (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page: Ex Machina (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to on Under the Skin: [68]

Diffs of the user's recent reverts on Under the Skin:

1. [69]
2. [70]

Diffs of the user's older reverts on Under the Skin:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Under the Skin talk page:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]
5. [78]
6. [79]
7. [80]
8. [81]
9. [82]
10. [83]
11. [84]
12. [85]
13. [86]

Link to attempt to resolve Under the Skin dispute on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: [87]

Previous version reverted to on Ex Machina: [88]

Diffs of the user's recent reverts on Ex Machina:

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

This 4th time @

: (PCD) took out 7 these edits of mine for the second time:

1. "high-security"
2. "Each day Caleb talks with her, then later discusses the results with Nathan"
3. "one android breaks off its forearms by banging against the wall, demanding to be released."
4. "At their next meeting, Ava cuts the power and Caleb tells her his plan"
5. "The next day Nathan declines to drink"
6. "but is fatally stabbed by Ava."
7. "Caleb tells her that, he will get Nathan drunk, he will reprogram the system to open all the complex's doors at the next outage, she will create an outage at 10am."

For edit 7 above, PCD thrice changed it to an inaccurate edit, even after I informed PCD on talk and PCD agreed [93]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Ex Machina talk page:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]

Comments:
Last week I filed a similar edit warring report [97] but it was not responded to by an administrator. The WP Help Desk suggested that this is because there was too much explanation, and I should redo it and re-submit it. Popcornduff is reverting, deleting, or corrupting my edits of me and many others over many pages over many months. This is not a matter of bold editing; there is a long, systematic, destructive pattern. I can provide more diffs and evidence. If I did this report wrong, or it should be submitted to the Incidents noticeboard, please advise. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Capuchinpilates, but this is not edit warring by Popcornduff. He/she always explains their reverts in edit summaries, participates patiently in talk page discussions and seems willing to make compromises. I am not familiar with either of you, but this is my assessment based on a casual look at the links you provided above. Please continue to discuss and try to reach a compromise. He/she is an experienced (4 year) Wikipedian and you should be able to learn from them, if you are willing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Template:Infobox language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "adjust wording"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690976418 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) take it to talk"
2. 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690817558 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) of course there is: the article is based on sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

• Those aren't even reverts you posted under "reverts". The wording I posted "per talk" was the suggestions of several other editors on the talk page. Mach, on the other hand, is at 3RR after being reverted by more than one person explaining how his edits are inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• The diffs don't lie Kwamikagami, you've been undoing eachother's edits repeatedly, go through your edit contributions and you'll see what you've been doing.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Kwami is right about 3rr here. This is not a revert. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed that diff from the list, he's still on 3 reverts though.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Three reverts is not a violation. --Taivo (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Lerdthenerd, this is not a revert either. It's the original edit. I reverted Mach twice, Taivo reverted him once. He reverted us three times. Funny that you didn't post his diffs when he's actually at 3RR.

If you're going to style yourself "wikidefender" and report people for reverts, you should know what a revert is. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I would suggest closing this as "no violation", at least on kwami's part. Two reverts, with discussion on talk page, really? LjL (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Which talk page are you revering to, I started the thread on the templates talkpage, ME, not either parties.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You started a thread on the template's talk page; however, a long thread about the issue already existed, where various editors had debated the various merits, and kwami definitely took part, but User:J. 'mach' wust, despite having been "ping"ed by kwami to discuss, did not. LjL (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• @J. 'mach' wust and Kwamikagami: Guys, repeatedly reverting on a template with ~8k transclusions is a bad idea anyway. I strongly recommend everyone stop and take it to the talk page, regardless of the current state of the template. At this point, 3RR or not, continuing to revert without discussion is going to be considered edit warring. --slakr^\ talk / 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

See what I said above, though, please: they have taken it to the talk page, "they" being User:Kwamikagami (who nevertheless is being singled out here) and several other editors, but not User:J. 'mach' wust, who has, however, been asked (by Kwami) to take part in the discussion several times, but didn't. Check the talk page, please. LjL (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: What I'm saying is that this is everyone's opportunity to take it to the talk page, and ignoring that opportunity may be unwise. --slakr^\ talk / 03:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the reporting editor should themself be reported for

WP:HARASSMENT. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]}

04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

How the heck am I harassing him? Just because I filed a 3rr report and cocked it up? Nice to see an angry mob gathering...--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Neither editor has actually breached 3RR but both have been edit warring on a high risk template. Both User:Kwamikagami and User:J. 'mach' wust are hereby warned to not to continue or repeat these actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have a grudge against any particular user here, not even Kwamikagami. So I'm not interested in dragging his name through the dirt as some people think I'm doing here, let this go and be sure to learn from this Kwamikagami and Mach.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, warning received.

@LjL: You must have overlooked that I had already been participating in the discussion on Template talk:Infobox language#Wording when we have no population data.

I do confess that I react strongly upon kwami’s edits. I have learned that he does not hesitate to using highly disruptive edits when he wants to force his POV on an article (related to this issue e.g. [98] where he set “Native speakers” to “none” or [99] where he set it to “[deleted]”). I have also learned that stirring up other editors by boldly reverting works for countering kwami’s disruptive edits, even though I know it is not nice. Is there a better way? Since he is over the place, he tends to get his way even when he does not have any sources. I have not yet seen any useful tool for countering an editor like him. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I amend what I said about you not having participated, I was looking for the wrong signature. LjL (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Phantasy Star Online 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.163.226.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 8 May 2014
2. 17 May 2014
3. 28 May 2014
4. 1 June 2014
5. 2 June 2014
6. 31 July 2014
7. 29 October 2014
8. 12 July 2015
9. 25 July 2015
10. 8 October 2015
11. 26 October 2015
12. 5 November 2015
13. 11 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 5 November 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Star Online 2#Uploading Personal Screenshot]

Comments:

This is a long-term, slow edit warring, with the IP address eliminating an image thirteen times out of their total eighteen edits. Only twicee do they offer an edit summary stating, "removing arrogant spoilers from page" and "Do not revert my edit. Personal screenshots randomly placed in the article don't have a place" with their first two removals. Since they they have not used any edit summaries, joined the article talk page discussion or responded to warnings on their talk page. Aspects (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. The IP has been removing this image from the article for more than a year. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

User talk:Kevin Gorman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Wrong again */ new section"
2. 20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* So which is it? */ new section"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690961593 by Kevin Gorman (talk) so which is it?"
   2. 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */ stupid or troublemaking?"
   2. 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
   3. 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:Plus several

talk

) 20

31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• /sigh, I really am surprised to see an experienced user editwarring with me in my own userspace when I hadn't started reverting his comments until they'd hit the level of just insulting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• As Cassianto his final reversion, he has not breached 3RR (See point 1 of
  WP:3RRNO) He did this five minutes before this report was filed, which makes me wonder why that very pertinent fact wasn't included in the initial report, except to show a very distorted and incorrect view of events. – SchroCat (talk
  ) 20:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That is absolutely inconsequential. Add in the other edits with personal attacks, and the fact that edit warring is not only defined by breaking 3RR, the editor should obviously be blocked for edit warring AND personal attacks. Both of which the editor has been blocked numerous times for.
    talk
    ) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Rubbish in many ways.
      1. Self-reversion is always taken into account. It shows an editor has stepped back from their position. This is the board for reporting breaches of 3RR: because of the self-reversion this user has notbreach 3RR.
      2. A users prior block log has little to do with deciding if they have edit warred in the first place, and I wonder why you are so keen to throw it round quite so much. The block log may be used to determine the severity or subsequent action, but not if an infringement has taken place. – SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't particularly care whether or not he's blocked, but there's a reason this is AN/EW and not just AN/3rr. Editwarring in a user's own talk space throwing in personal attacks when you start doing so after the user reverts someone who is categorically unwelcome in his talk space is, well, editwarring - even without breaking 3rr. Note that I'd been perfectly happy to engage with Cassianto in my userspace before he started in on the NPA type stuff. It should be obvious to anyone who didn't start editing yesterday that restoring what is at best uncivil behavior in another person's talkspace after they've reverted it is a no-no Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Perhaps if you had approached the ANI thread that started all this off with no
          WP:AGENDA things may have been a little different? To me, stirring the pot unnecessarily at ANI is a no-no, bout I doubt you'd agree. – SchroCat (talk
          ) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Schro, I didn't approach it with any particular agenda other than except to stop active disruption it's bad practice to indef without consensus someone who has an ongoing ANI thread about their behavior, and to point out that in other recent ANI threads where the editor in question has self-identified differently, it's been instantly pointed out by quite a few people that throwing a punitive indef in the middle of an active ANI thread isn't best practice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @
        WP:3RR), which suggests to me that self-reverting is desirable, but in no way an automatic un-breach of 3RR. LjL (talk
        ) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • There is nothing you have written that counters what I have said (ie "self-reverts are taken into account", etc) – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Uhm, what about "because of the self-reversion this user has notbreach[sic] 3RR."? That just seems inaccurate. The user has breached 3RR anyway, then admins may not sanction that because of the circumstances of the self-revert. That's what policy says. LjL (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • You don't need to break 3rr to be editwarring; it should be pretty clear that when someone is reverting attacks in their own talk space that continuing to restore them is editwarring. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The reverting seems to have stopped.
  WP:3RRNO. An admin who wants to block anyone for personal attacks ('playing stupid', 'moron') can still do so. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 01:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• (e/c) Considered Warned for the edit warring, though given what's going on above, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a block for other reasons resulted. @
  offensive or hurtful, like, you know, calling someone "stupid—" I strongly recommend that you do not re-add it. As far as edit warring is concerned, I'm assuming that a block isn't needed and that you'll stop, given your self-revert—but make no mistake, a self-revert isn't magic protection, particularly in cases like this. There will not be another warning if you continue or ever do anything remotely similar again, as far as I'm concerned. As for your behavior in the collapsed text above, I can say that it's completely inappropriate and exceptional—in a bad way—for this particular noticeboard. --slakr^\ talk
   / 02:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you think I self reverted to "protect myself"? Hilarious! Cassianto^Talk 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I genuinely couldn't care less what your motives were. I was clarifying in response to the wiki-lawyering others were doing earlier in the thread and contradicting it (i.e., someone self-reverting isn't a guaranteed way to avoid a block). If anything, though, I was assuming—or at least hoping—that you were doing it because you realized doing so was a better course of action than continuing the former one. Glad you found it hilarious, though. :P I'm just relieved I didn't even have to break out the rubber chicken. ;) --slakr^\ talk / 02:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Well this is embarrassing. I think you'll find that this conversation died a death a few days ago. Cassianto^Talk 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 91.233.116.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not need, this is a troll making vexatious edits. Told him to take to talk page per

and he has declined.

I did open a discussion on the talk page. I don't expect him to talk dispassionately instead of edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
This is a dynamic IP which has trolled in the past Christianity-related articles from different IPs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Example of trolling: [108] Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Another example: [109]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Edit warring did occur, but this is almost a vandalism-only account, so

WP:AIV may be worth looking at? samtar ^{t}

13:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Block evasion. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
2. 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
3. 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ranjan s nayak: Please take your proposed edits to the
   TW
   )"
4. 14:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by
   TW
   )"
5. 13:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user edit warred with a newbie and gave him a warning [110]. Never opened a talk page discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The "newbie" is a single-purpose POV-pusher who deleted content on multiple occasions. Would you prefer that I just let disruptive editors have their way on a high-profile article until another editor comes along? Try showing a little good faith next time before trying to get people blocked. IgnorantArmies (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

If anyone's in doubt as to how I interact with new editors, I would point to this recent interaction I had with a belligerent IP editor, which only had a happy ending because I did more than others usually do with IPs. I'm a strong believer in bending over backwards to include new editors, but I have zero tolerance for those who aren't here to build the encyclopedia. I should also note that I have never before been taken to EWN, let alone been blocked. IgnorantArmies (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I will note, in passing, that Ranjan s nayak has claimed lack of knowledge on how to use the talk feature, but in fact, that was stated on a talk page, and they also wrote on their own talk page, on Kautilya3's talk page, and on another user's talk page - basically everywhere except on the article's talk page. LjL (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not unusual for new users to take a while to find the article talk pages. They can respond to our talk page posts by clicking on our talk links. How this user found the AIV talk page is a bit of a mystery. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am sorry sir. There are no separate sets of rules for the newbies and us. You gave a 3RR warning to the user at 15:05 and then did 3 more reverts yourself. In my world, we try to set a good example to the new users by following the rules ourselves! - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But there is a separate set of rules for those who are

WP:NOTHERE, and IgnorantArmies seems to believe that Ranjan falls under that category. LjL (talk

) 02:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that it is a plausible explanation. Then perhaps he can be just warned not jump to such quick conclusions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Duplicate report. See above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Happy sage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "making wikipedia neutral would mean presenting all relevant fcts,deleting facts would make it partial,so i have reverted your deletion of contribution :)"
2. 15:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691079621 by IgnorantArmies (talk) well , the article does not become non-neutal if all relevent information regarding it is given ."
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) to 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691072037 by IgnorantArmies (talk) Being a muslim majority does not mean you can insert it anywhere ,moreever there was not a need to delete my contributions too"
   2. 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "added information"
4. 13:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) ""population information not in proper position.comes in between story telling""
5. 09:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "addition"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jammu and Kashmir."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Repeated attempts to add non-neutral (read "pro India") material on a highly volatile article. Thomas.W ^talk 15:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• Single-purpose account. Judging by the user's belligerent edit summaries the chances of getting positive contributions are slim and none. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• It is hard for me to see more than 3 reverts here. The editor is a newbie, and he was trying various things to get around the reverts being done by IgnorantArmies. If anybody is guilty of edit-warring here, it seems that it is IgnorantArmies. Opened a separate discussion him or her below. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". It doesn't have to be a direct revert of someone's edit to count as a revert towards 3RR, both edits that remove material that is already in the article and edits that replace existing material with new material also count since it "undoes other editors' actions". Thomas.W ^talk

19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I can add that it's obvious that they're not an inexperienced user but someone who is very familiar with how things work here, and should know about 3RR, because new/inexperienced users don't add new infobox parameters and perfectly formatted references as some of their first edits... Thomas.W ^talk 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

When I reviewed his edits at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir#Today's edits, I found 5 different substantive edits. From his contribs page, he made a total of 9 edits since 09:31. The other 4 might have been reverts. I see 3 of them above in your list. I don't know what the 4th one is. In any case, I am giving him credit for the fact that he was trying different things. He wasn't simply reinstating the same old content. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Kautilya3: Whether some of their edits, or parts of some of their edits, were "substantive" or not is irrelevant, their edits were reverted by four different editors, including you, and they were repeatedly told to take it to the talk page of the article and get support for it there before making any further edits, but chose to just press on. That's why they were reported here. Thomas.W ^talk 20:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think 2 editors have done edit war in this case. One experienced user may have been unconsciously ignorant towards 3rr rule. Ranjan was not doing any vandalism so repeatedly reverting him and violating 3rr rule by other editor is also not just. I think both editors deserves block but IgnorantArmies have clean block log and have good contribution to Wikipedia so he may get some leeway, then why Ranjan should not get that leeway? I think it doesn't matters if Ranjan gets blocked or not because anyway he is not active editor, as he said below, he is student and don't have much time for Wikipedia, so blocking him for 24-48 hours will not matter to him also, rather Ranjan will learn from this block. But still question remains regarding other editor who was also involved in edit war.--Human3015^TALK  20:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree with this attitude. I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia giving welcome messages to new users and showing them tips in the hope that at least some of them become active contributors. The responsibility to open talk page discussions lies equally with the rest of us. We cannot simply keep reverting. Singling out a newbie for punishment and letting the others go scot-free is not on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Then why didn't you start a talk page discussion? You were the first to suggest it. Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have opened one if I was around when the edit-warring happened. I am surprised nobody did. In fact, it is a requirement for filing an AN3 complaint to have opened a talk page discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's strongly suggested but it's not an absolute requirement, as can be clearly seen on this page. Thomas.W ^talk 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You suggested it in an edit summary where you reverted someone, just as other editors suggested the same in their edit summaries when reverting. It's just that nobody did it. LjL (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD which is the recommended protocol, and the one I follow, says that it is ok to revert a bold edit, but one should discuss when it becomes clear that that there is a dispute. If the other editor fails to join the discussion and continues to make edits then he or she is guilty of edit-warring. I did open a discussion at the first opportunity I got, which is more than I can say for the others. (In any case, I am not sure why I am on trial here.) - Kautilya3 (talk

) 21:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You aren't, you joined the discussion of your own free will. The comments above were just a reminder "not to throw stones if you live in a glass house". Or in other words, don't criticise others if you've done the same thing yourself. ;) Thomas.W ^talk 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not a single purpose account

You may say that i am belligerent and single purposed sir . But ,unfamiliarity with rules of wikipedia ,may have made me act so .Please ,if you think i am only trying to make it just pro-Indi ,you are highly wrong sir.with all due respect ,with the knowledge i have had and read (you have already decided that i don't have good chances for a positive contribution) ,i felt the article was strongly biased.I did not know how else to change such a bias . I dont even know now .Because ,even the contents i had put with good quotations have been reverted, due to various reasons.only if i was guided rite,i wud have made good contributions too...And dat porported agreesiveness was also due to unfamiliarity and helplessness about ,genuine points not being accepted . i can give u examples of tag-bombing too in the article sir.6-7 tags have been added to make a single point that Indian army is raping etc. N sir,please dont assume from a single day's instance that ,my only aim is to damage the content.Definitely not.Being a student i dont have time for it.My approach according to wikipedian standards ,may be wrong but your comment that " chances of making good contribution is slim" is hurtful ..because that is being judgemental ...definitely everyone can make a good contribution and u cannot comment like dat sir .that will only make new editors go disheartened even before they can make any good .if you sir,cant agree with points i stated ,why dont you subject the articke to independent and neutral review ? So that no side feels the bias ? Thanks Ranjan s nayak (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Both Ranjan and IgnorantArmies seem to have broken

WP:3RR at Jammu and Kashmir. It would be logical to block both of them unless they will agree to stop warring and wait for talk page consensus. It is obvious that Jammu and Kashmir could be the occasion of national disputes. The comments of Ranjan suggest he wants to fix what he sees as strong bias in this article. What could possibly go wrong? EdJohnston (talk

) 23:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I like your complete lack of sarcasm here. I am confident they will now work together in an encyclopedic synergy. LjL (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Happy sage and User:IgnorantArmies are both warned. Each of them exceeded 3RR at Jammu and Kashmir. Any further revert by either party that is not backed by a consensus on the talk page may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• User:Ranjan s nayak has been renamed to User:Happy sage. The header of this report has been updated accordingly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Abdelhamid Abaaoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Salah Abdeslam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Someone is posing with the name Salah Abdeslam. Abdeslam has been on the run ever since authorities questioned him at the Belgian border hours after the bombings and shootings in Paris! --84.170.91.177 (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't look like edit warring... you should probably post this to

WP:ANI as a possible inappropriate name, but I'm not sure it is one. Perhaps their edits should just be watched. LjL (talk

) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it is okay to have the user name Osama bin Laden! And to post: An individual named as Sheraz Sheik is reported to have said of bin Laden, as a "really nice guy". - From the point of view of someone living in Paris: I don't think so! --84.170.80.182 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's good, but I'll say 1) I'm not an administrator 2) this is not the right place to report it 3) I'm not familiar enough with the username policy to definitely say it's acceptable or not 4) I've placed a COI-username warning template on the user's talk page and that's about all I can do. LjL (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:UAA). The username, however, does violate our username policy. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported:My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:

The user has been repeatedly changing the text in the middle of the rfc and continues even after repeated pleas to stop by two people including myself. It has not reached the level of 3RR but the diffs above show repeated edit-warring. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• There was no 3RR violation because two last diffs are dated November 16 and November 14, i.e. two and four days ago. However, I self-reverted, no problem. I am not sure why user Kingsindian makes such a big issue of this. All concerns have been properly responded on article talk page, and the text that was included in the original RfC, remained exactly as it was. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This page is for reporting edit warring as well as 3RR violations. I am happy that they self reverted but a glance at the talk page shows that they think they did no wrong. If I had not reported them they would have kept it up indefinitely. At the very least I want an assurance that this behaviour will not continue. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

At first glance, User:My very best wishes seems to have more article reverts than anyone else over the last few days. There is also some confused editing on the talk page where people seem to disagree about the RfC question. It is unclear whether admins ought to do anything about the conduct regarding the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is main part of the RfC. I agree that the first part of the text in the RfC ("Tottle's book inspired a number of articles") was indeed unsupported by sources and fixed it [118]. That change was supported by another contributor [119]. However, someone else started revering my edit [120] with a claim that it was my mistake (edit summary). Well, even if it was, I fixed it. Why keep it on the page? Right now this unsourced claim was restored by others without providing any sources. That's fine. Who cares? Since it came to reporting on 3RRNB, I am going not to edit this page at all until this RfC is closed or expired. My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Not sure what you are talking about. There is of course discussion about the proper wording but nobody is changing thw text in the middle of the RfC except one. All I want is for the text to remain stable so that people can respond consistently. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian. I said I will not edit this this page until this RfC is closed or expired. What else do you possibly want? Blocking my account when I made only one revert (total) on this page during last 24 hours, but you made two? And no, I did not change a single word in the text under discussion for the RfC, exactly as noted in my edit summary here [121].My very best wishes (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It is understandable that the topic of the Holodomor will be contentious. Please make a sincere effort to finish the RfC. If more reverts happen before the RfC finishes, full protection is an option. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Quran */ RLoutfy stop edit warring, see the relevant place in the talk page dedicated to that, here!"
2. 16:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691245516 by RLoutfy (talk), it's not non-english sources, most of it comes from the M.A.S. Abdel Halem peer-reviewed article on Q.9:29, only Kitabul Umm and Tafsir Maraghi are nonengl"

And the other article

1. 21:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691128645 by RLoutfy, reason: the tags will be added until you actually show how I 'mistranslated' the sources, here."
2. 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691125899 by RLoutfy (talk), PLEASE SEE THE TALK PAGE."
3. 17:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690934588 by RLoutfy (talk), see talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"

1. 20:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (
   TW
   )"
2. 20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also Apostasy in Islam, both users have tried debating on the talk pages but they just go back to edit warring Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither editor seems to have gone beyond two reverts in 24 hours on either article, and I see plenty of discussion on the talk page. They seem to have agreed to revert to an earlier version of the article while discussion continues. I'm not convinced this needs any action at this stage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Religion in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691142824 by Yossimgim (talk)"
2. 00:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691156598 by Yossimgim (talk)"
3. 21:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691217678 by Yossimgim (talk)"
4. 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691417767 by 109.66.23.243"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is a trigger-happy 'undo' reverter with a grudge. I added a new graph. Did all the research by myself. He reverted it first for a lousy explanation which was wrong according to my source, and I had to fix it. Then he got mad and reverted other things 4 more times with biased reasons just to spite me. Yossimgim (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A note: the first two edit summaries you posted do not correspond to the actual edit summaries in the respective diffs, which do not indicate reverting. You also reverted 3 times in the span of the 24 hours, with more reverts outside of that span, and I don't see an attempt to solve the dispute on the talk page. LjL (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A note: Revert summaries that don't start with the word "Undid" still count as reverts. Yossimgim (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean you should incorrectly state what the edit summary was like you did above. It could be construed as an attempt to lie. It's also hard to see whether they were in fact reverts, when you did not provide a version being reverted to. How about filing a proper report? LjL (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

LjL nobody asked for your opinion on how to report. Admins are smarter than you and can comprehend the summaries either way. Please leave. Yossimgim (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Admin note: shortly after the above exchange,
  WP:HOUNDING. LjL (talk
  ) 22:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Admin note: Check if
  WP:Sock puppet of the reported Debresser. Yossimgim (talk
  ) 22:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• They are not, I've come across LjL elsewhere on-wiki. Yossimgim, please stop the personal attacks, because regardless of the issue reported here, they will not be tolerated samtar ^{t} 22:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Admin note: LjL wrote: "editors and admins are stupid." That seems to be his genuine opinion of you. Yossimgim (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Read that again and tell me what they actually said. We're not here to discuss LjL, are we? As I mentioned above, stop the personal attacks otherwise you'll find yourself under scrutiny, not Debresser samtar ^{t} 23:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• A report about this incident has been filed at ANI. Parties notified. LjL (talk)"

And nothing happened because your flawless report has nothing in it worthy of banning. Good for you LjL spending your precious time on those 12 lines. Yossimgim (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you both

drop it now samtar ^{t}

23:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Both parties are edit warring. Neither has broken
  WP:3RR yet. Also not impressed by sloppy reporting of edit summaries. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  23:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Freeland, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691442607 by Atwig16 (talk)"
2. 21:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691441599 by Atwig16 (talk)"
3. 21:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691441272 by Atwig16 (talk)"
4. 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691440373 by Atwig16 (talk)"
5. 21:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691439923 by Atwig16 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user doesn't appear to be editing constructively either. Hermionedidallthework (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• There were 2 attempts to restore the factually correct content by the commenter above, and two by myself. After he reverted me one more time, he reverted himself. Surmizing he finally read his talk page and the non template note I left him explaining the problem with his edit. Altho the reported user did get to 10RR, I don't see a block here as anything but punitive. He finally stopped when someone finally explained what the problem was. No one gets gold stars here, and perhaps An admin might want to converse with the dude. Explaining what the problem is seems to be more effective than templating. John from Idegon (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Just blocked him for 24 hours and then read your message again. Didn't actually spot that the last revert was a self-revert though. If you want to reach out to him and get some assurances that he understands

  WP:3RR I'm happy to unblock. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

  ) 09:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

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

)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]
5. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

First attempt Second attempt Third attempt

Comments:
Fifth diff added, as the reverting continues. - SchroCat (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) - The first diffs show me restoring comments that Cassianto deleted. These obviously follow the 3 diffs of him deleting them. I won't waste time and space creating another report on this board, but both of hit 3RR. Diffs 4 and 4 and my dealing with the attempted hatting of my comments by another editor. Let's be clear about this. -
  ^theWOLFchild
  14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• To be very clear: you have reverted five times. – SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an objective witness...
It is important to note that both editors,

) 14:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agreed with its removal, but capped it instead of removing it - that would have furthered the edit warring. Since the capping, WC reverted the capping, then moved it, then reverted when it was replaced. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto had no business summarily deleting my comments. But, if you find them so troublesome that they must be hidden, then you need to include the comment from Cassianto that I was responding to. It contains the same language and tone that you consider an "NPA attack". Your bias here, SchroCat, is so glaringly obvious, that you have requested a non-involved 3rd party to make these edits instead of doing them yourself. -

^theWOLFchild

14:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto referred to an option of numbering on the term "Option 2 looks ridiculous". That's not a PA at all. I've been asking you for some time not to engage in ad hominem comments, but you have ignored that and continued on exactly the same vein as before. - SchroCat (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I called the discussion "bullshit"; how is that a PA towards you? Cassianto^Talk 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• FYI:
  

Cassianto diffs: [129], [130], [131]

SchroCat diffs: [132], [133], [134], [135]

Just sayin' -

^theWOLFchild

14:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• No one is entirely sure what' you are saying: the first diff is not a reversion of any srt at all.... - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I had every business as I found the comments to be inflammatory, pointy, and designed to derail the consensus building excersise that was going on. You also failed to engage with me on your talk page, as linked above. Cassianto^Talk 14:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure on the etiquette here, but the wider issue including the conduct of the plaintiff has been raised on ANI at Multiple warriors at Talk:Skyfall. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Trivial and pathetic edit war. The comments by Thewolfchild were not helpful to the discussion, but neither were they clear personal attacks and did not merit edit warring to remove them. None of the parties has shown any indication that they understand the disruptive nature of their actions. I have blocked all of them for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You can block editors without calling their actions "pathetic", you know. LjL (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ called the edit war itself, fighting over such innocuous content, was pathetic. Personally, I would have called it senseless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment @

. Basically the course of events runs like this:

• After a discussion at the Skyfall talk page failed to end with the outcome Thewolfchild desired (opinion was evenly split in a 4:5 ratio), he started a fresh discussion at the Film project at 7.39 UTC on November 13: [136]
• Steelpillow posted a "you've got mail" message on Thewolfchild's talk page at 12.16 on November 13: [137]
• Thewolfchild quickly deleted the message at 13.04 on November 13: [138]
• Steelpillow posted support for Thewolfchild's stance at the discussion at 21.20 on November 13: [139] (a board he had never posted on previously: [140])
• In a report at ANI today Steelpillow commented that he had received a "request to help out in the dispute": [141].

It is pretty obvious there was off-Wiki canvassing. Around the same time there was a huge surge in anonymous IP activity at the page, all seemingly unconnected IP addresses but all making the exact same edit. Samsara has already dealt with the disruptive IP activity and I am more than happy to let this admin deal with the canvassing issue. I would not have brought the issue up here except for the fact that two editors (SchroCat and Cassianto) are serving 48-hour blocks for edit-warring. Those blocks are twice as long as the blocks that are regularly handed out and the situation here is a bit unusual, with several underhand tactics being used by one side of the debate to undermine the position of the other. I am not excusing the edit-warring by either side, but considering what has gone down perhaps the length of the blocks could be renegotiated? I think they have probably both cooled off now and perhaps the blocks could be commuted, maybe with the condition they do not revert other editor's comments for the remainder of the discussion. Either way, I think it would be harsh to make them serve the full 48 hours considering what has transpired. Betty Logan (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just one question: How is communicating with one other editor (and we have no idea what was in the email message and whether it was received) any different than a group of Wikipedia friends who frequently show up on the same articles, noticeboards and user pages whenever one editor needs support but who were previously uninvolved in the discussion? I mean, you said SchroCat asked you to post these "findings" on his behalf, does that request qualify as canvassing? No, I think it would be considered friendship and it happens among lots of editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

One key difference is that SchroCat made the request on his talk page, so you have a full record of how he approached me. You can look at what he wrote yourself, and judge whether it was a reasonable request or not. You have the choice of reducing or extending his block on the basis of being able to review his action. Part of what makes Wikipedia fair is that we can review each other's actions. Unfortuantely I am not able to see how editors are approached when it it is done off wiki: as explained at

WP:STEALTH, editors who request neutral input at a discussion don't tend to use off-wiki means, nor do they attempt to cover their tracks. Secondly, SchroCat has simply asked me to make you aware of what I discovered about the case. That is a bit different to canvassing support to influence a particular editorial outcome. He shouldn't have edit-warred, I'm not making excuses for that, but I am just trying to explain the context a bit. These two editors made a mistake, but they did so under particularly vexatious cicumstances in the face of a sequence of underhand tactics. A decision has been made to revoke their editing privileges, but it is only a fair decision if all the facts of the case are considered. If other facts come to light then the community has a duty to review those decisions. Betty Logan (talk

) 01:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a couple of points. Nobody "covered any tracks" or did anything "underhand": Thewolfchild routinely blanks their talk page quickly, take a good look at its history. Next, follow that link to Samsara's talk page and you will see paranoid conspiracy theories going way OTT. Now take a look at how the poll on the issue in focus is going - the camp represented by Betty Logan, SchroCat and Cassianto is being trashed, while Thewolfchild and myself align with the vast majority of votes. Yawn. I should be asking for an apology over these unfounded allegations from a sore loser, but hey, it's not worth it. game over. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to explain what form this "request for help" came in, who made it and where can we see a copy of it? Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Given that Cassianto was here quite recently, I think he should serve the full 48. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Asus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2606:6000:ca80:1600:3c1d:a752:dc00:50ce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143] (Accidentally removed templates/wrong pronounciations)
2. [144] (asus is a taiwanese company so taiwanese mandarin is in this case correct)
3. [145] ((asus is a taiwanese company so taiwanese mandarin is in this case correct) and traditional chinese should come first cuz its not mainland chinese)
4. [146] (it is taiwanese mandarin is not chinese mandarin their pronunciations are extremely different so stop using chinese mandarin its a taiwanese company)
5. [147]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Comments:
Edits pushed by this user involved breaking article formatting and removing standard templates. Could not seem to convince them this was not a particularly good thing. Also requested page protection due to possible previous use of a slightly different IPv6.

LjL (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I second

WP:NC-ZH. -Zanhe (talk

) 05:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Bowdon, Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691444566 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Your bias is glaring. Look up the word "reveal.""
2. 21:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "accuracy"
3. 18:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691406056 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Disagree that that was the conclusion of the discussion. You have let your emotions overtake sense here."
4. 16:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "This has been discussed on the "Talk" page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 18:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
3. 22:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ misrepresentation"
2. 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ ce"
3. 19:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ reply"
4. 22:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ reply"

Comments:

IP editor trying to blank out sourced information. Discussion has proven futile over weeks of discussion, and began to edit war in earnest today. Edits under multiple IP's, changes content on talk page[150] to try to make discussion seem more minor than it is. Scr★pIron^IV 22:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 31 hours. ScrapIronIV is warned against edit warring too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

IP User here on mobile device. I'm not sure why I wasn't given an opportunity to respond...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B00D:69F7:D464:DD8A:C1C9:9AE9 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Talk:The Law of One (The Ra Material) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691653111 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) stop edit warring, or you will be blocked"
2. 08:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691652202 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) so?"
3. 08:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691651591 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) are you one of the recruits? go and master policies and guidelines first"
4. 07:45, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691649425 by
   talk
   ) yes, I can; why don't you wait until some uninvolved admin handles your complaint in ANI"
5. 07:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691648760 by
   talk
   ) no it doesn't"
6. 07:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691610430 by
   WP:TPO
   well; see sectioning and section headers, this isn't heavy refactoring, owner of comment salimfedley AGF, so don't revert"
7. 18:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691417007 by
   WP:TPO
   ; also don't wikilawyer"
8. 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691409627 by
   WP:RTP
   is not "violated""
9. Consecutive edits made from 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) to 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691402524 by Location (talk) WP:RTP is just an essay, not policy; and the "refactoring" here is minor, not "heavy""
   2. 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "besides, even my "refactoring" does not seem to violate
      WP:RTP
      ; have you ever read it?"
10. 09:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) "moved the discussion under a new heading, relocated salim's comment to fringe tag"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems like he owns the article and the Talkpage lol FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for talk page edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

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

)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:

Icarus of old (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I have made 3 effective edits to the page within the last 24hrs (one edit and two reverts, I'd say), so cannot possibly have exceeded 3RR. On the other hand by my count you are at 5RR:

1. 16:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Sizeofint (talk) to last version by 50.233.123.210"
2. 19:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691574515 by Sizeofint (talk) just because you personally feel these links aren't helpful doesn't mean other editors might not disagree; WP:Consensus needed for large changes"
3. 19:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691575523 by
   talk
   ) The Guardian newspaper and The New Yorker are certainly reliable sources"
4. 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691575820 by
   WP:3RR
   and Admin notification"
5. 19:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691576955 by
   talk
   ) Just becasue YOU believe that are not reliable does not make them reliable; consensus is needed; will report to Admin page shortly"

and so this report looks pretty rum. Suggest

talk

) 19:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

While you continue to swoop in and make edits before reaching consensus, as I tried to do many times. Icarus of old (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You invoke WP:Consensus, but from the above, it looks like you're the single one edit warring past the bright line against changes championed by multiple editors. LjL (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I confirm that Icarus of old is on five reverts, and he/she is complaining about an editor who has reverted two/three times. A block would be appropriate here. Icarus of old: anything to add, any contrition? I am not especially keen to defile a nine-year clean block log. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ:I admit that I shouldn't have reverted. I do feel bad; certainly I acted in haste and should've let my temper cool. But I just felt ganged up on by both editors. I do apologize though. I hope this helps. All best to everyone concerned. Icarus of old (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Though you evidently didn't feel quite bad enough to self-revert when it was pointed out to you that you've overstepped the mark[156], or to apologise when you falsely said I hadn't been to the Talk page. Coupled with your aggressive use of edit summaries to try and preserve "your" edits by threatening administrator action[157] this all looks pretty poor to me.

talk

) 05:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I've apologized already. The admins will decide what they will. Bear in mind the chronology of the whole thing though; the timestamps matter. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Icarus of old 's evidence shows three identical reverts by Alexbrn within 24 hrs. Which I see as one legitimate revert and two instances of edit warring. Not a 3RR violation (though I recall an admin getting away with insisting, against all reason, that 3 reverts do make a 3RR violation... but that's OT...) I see multiple edit warring warnings in the listing here which suggest Alexbrn believes the policy against edit warring does not / should not apply to him. (The response to the last notification of a listing on this noticeboard was "You're wasting people's time, not least your own.") So some kind of block seems very much in order, so the user doesn't continue to violate a policy against edit warring that he believes does not apply to him. Total intransigence sits in in marked contrast to Icarus of old 's attitude. Oh, and today, right after I urged Alexbrn to "Respect WP:DONTREVERT", he DISrespected it, with a revert that even removed information sourced to the New York Times, and the Times reference. --Elvey^(t•c) 07:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

... which is of course why you're here grinding your axe. Insisting that your edits be treated as sacrosanct is BTW a kind of

talk

) 08:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both Alexbrn and Icarus of old are warned. The five reverts by Icarus do break the 3RR. Icarus has never been blocked; please try to keep it that way. You must be an optimist if you file at this board after already breaking the rule yourself. As to the underlying dispute, both sides appear to have arguments. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Much thanks. I'll definitely be more considerate and calm in my future edits. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.10.236.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [159]
2. [160]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Comments:
Page is subject ti a 1RR restriction. This IP has been edit warring on multiple articles, using several IPs to avoid scrutiny.

I didn't realize the article was subject to 1RR. I've self-reverted. I invite my stalker to join the discussion on the article's Talk page. 107.10.236.42 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked Self-reverted NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pages: Hadith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and

)

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

Previous version reverted to (This ask is confusing, apologies. Following are the versions before the user deleted the material): [[163]] and [[164]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

-- For the Hadith page:

1. 22:38, November 20, 2015
2. 23:00, November 20, 2015
3. 00:05, November 21, 2015

-- Also on the other

page, the same content being deleted by this user:

1. 23:01, November 20, 2015
2. 00:06, November 21, 2015

-- The Actual words that are being removed are to be found in the "Authenticity" sub category, within each page. The text being removed is the same in both of the pages.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[165]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks

Comments:

User has deleted content 3 times on the

article, he has reverted a total of 5 times in a very short timespan. He is deleting the "Authenticity" sub category from both pages, and is no longer countering the argument on the TP entry he himself created, and resorted to simply reverting well sourced material from an established expert in the field, using a JSTOR article primarily, which a content dispute case (which I started) is still on going.

Additional Comments:

• Edit Warring behavior.
• Update: Another experienced editor has now over-ruled FreeatlastChitchat's reverts and restored the material on the Hadith article. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 06:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply

I have reverted only twice on each page. The nom has been quite sneaky in putting my first edit in the "revert" category. My first edit was a cleanup, I started a TP discussion, Code16 reverted me without discussion, I reverted him and told him to discuss two times. That is it, two reverts, not three. As Code 16 is one revert ahead of me, he has come here instead of reverting, because he knows that he will get blocked if he reverts, hence he tried to game the system and sneakily report me. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one "gaming" the system. Taking the initiative to revert first, you know you had the advantage, but you forget that 3RR does not have to be violated for behavior to be classified as edit warring. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb!

Only in your mind is a cleanup a "revert". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And only in your mind is vandalism called "clean up". cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 06:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Code16: Please can you supply evidence of FreeatlastChitchat making at least four reverts to the same article (preferably within a limited period of time). It would help a lot if you added dates and times.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Toddy1:I'm only alleging edit warring behavior, no breech of 3RR has occurred. In any case, another editor has since reverted this user's revert. The situation has stabilized and a content dispute is proceeding normally now. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 22:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: No action. It appears that the filer, Code16, is satisfied with the current status. Also, User:Drmies has been helping out at Talk:Hadith. If the dispute continues, Drmies will probably have worthwhile advice on what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Moral panic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691750515 My summaries - NOT original research - of two important points taken from two published works are being deleted by an 'editor' whose arguments make no sense whatsoever."
2. 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691675275 by Fyddlestix (talk)"
3. 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691615601 It's not synthesis - I took the argument directly from the book I referenced. If crime is not really declining public concern is rational and not a 'moral panic'. If you can't understand that you shouldn't be editing this subject."
4. 00:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "/* 1970s–present: Crime increase */ reverting Rhododentrites' deletion because reason given made no sense - if crime is not declining then fear of crime could be rational and not the product of mediated 'moral panic'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on
   TW
   )"
2. 23:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Crime increase "...however..." synthesis */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Amin al-Husseini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 7uperWkipedan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [166]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [167]
2. [168]
3. [169]
4. [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171] Warning by NeilN

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]

Comments:

The user 7uperWikipedian is an obvious sock [173] created with the sole purpose of supporting the sock master on 1RR restricted articles. While both the sockmaster and the sock games the system by not reverting inside the 24h limit (reverting even once in 24h would be an immediate block), the diffs above makes it clear that 7uperWikipedian is actively edit-warring, despite

) 12:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) -->

7uperWkipedan topic banned. [175] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Abu Qatada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.42.122.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 80.42.119.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person.

Previous version reverted to: edit by 80.42.122.69 at 18:23, 20 November 2015 deleting paragraph (→‎Views: PoV source. Extremist salafi scholar condemning another extremist salafi.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert by 80.42.122.69, 18:27, 20 November 2015‎ (how is salafiminhaj.com a reliable source?)
2. revert by 80.42.122.69, 18:29, 20 November 2015 (how is salafiminhaj.com a reliable source? Don't just revert)
3. revert by 80.42.119.75, 12:54, 21 November 2015 (no it's not. Read reliable source examples)
4. revert by 80.42.119.75, 13:36, 21 November 2015] (not an acceptable source. Stop edit warring and adding non encyclopaedic info in a bio of a living person)

IP 80.42.119.75 has admitted being the same person as IP 80.42.122.69 by reverting edits on the talk page of the latter, [176] and [177].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 1824-18:34, 20 November 2015 by @CatcherStorm:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:38, 21 November 2015 by Toddy1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abu_Qatada#Shaykh 'Abdul-Malik ar-Ramadani al-Jaza'iri -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Couldn't answer me in the talk page so decided to make a complaint here. He also accused me of being another editor. The guy is a PoV pushing retard who doesn't like it when people disagree with him. Toddy1 also reverted twice and is gaming the system. He refused to continue discussing on the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.16 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Editwarring on another page
Page: List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.42.122.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 213.205.198.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person.

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:58, 20 November 2015 80.42.122.69 (Undid revision 691293354 by Toddy1 (talk) undid edit of pro yazid PoV pusher)
2. 06:11, 21 November 2015 80.42.122.69 ((Undid revision 691625190 by Edward321 (talk))
3. 05:29, 22 November 2015 213.205.198.16 reverted Edward321 (hippocrene books : famous for fairy tales. What a rubbish source)
4. 10:37, 22 November 2015 by 213.205.198.16 reverted Toddy1 (find a proper acceptable publisher : not some crap that suits your pro Yazid PoV)
5. 15:28, 22 November 2015 13.205.198.16 reverted Edward321 (rv unexplained addition of poorly sourced material)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:40, 21 November 2015
Removal of edit warring notice by 80.42.119.75: 13:02, 21 November 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala#Army or Companions

• Evidence that 80.42.119.75, is the same person as 80.42.122.69.[179] and [180]
• Evidence that 213.205.198.16 is the same person as 80.42.119.75.[181]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He/she is still at it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Toddy1 has himself undone 3 editors for the same content on this page. Pot kettle black. Also he refused to discuss further on the Abu qatada talk page. I was the last one to talk. He is playing the system as he has experience of edit warring and getting people blocked and getting people blocked who disagree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.16 (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not refused anything. When I started the talk page discussion, I also asked the other editor you had been reverting if he/she would also contribute.[182] To achieve consensus it requires other people to contribute. You might note the unfortunate heading on his her talk page, but you were the one that put it there.

I also noted how your statements on the talk page seem irrelevant to the questions. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't explain on the talk page how the unknown bloke ramadani from the crappy website salafiminhaj.com had any relevance to the Abu Qatada article. Because you couldn't explain this you made a complaint here to get me blocked. it is you who are a tendentious editor.

Result: Fully protected the two articles named in this report for one month: Abu Qatada and List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala. Blocks would be undesirable, because the IP editors who are defending the quality of sources are also hopping IPs and leaving personal attacks. Consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

November 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

obsessive edit waring and vandalizing the page Dman41689 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that User:Deb seems to be the only involved party who said anything on the talk page. Why did you not attempt to resolve the dispute, Dman41689? You didn't provide a full report here, either. LjL (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@

vandalism, for starters, but Deb has also not been very clear on what guidelines are involved and what criteria she's using; from what I can tell, these are bluelinked and the dates seemingly correct. I'm also not familiar with date pages. --slakr^\ talk

 / 23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The best I can explain it is to ask you to look at the long discussions at

Wikipedia_talk:DOY. It's inconclusive, as you can see, but the topic has been raised repeatedly over the years and there are archived discussions in more than one place. It doesn't trouble me if people change what I've done, because I go back every few weeks/months and re-prune (and obviously some entries that seem inappropriate one day can become appropriate a little while later). However, it does trouble me to be called a "vandal" when I have made an effort to discuss potential improvements. Deb (talk

) 09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Deb: While that link is helpful—it was difficult to discern from the actual article's talk page—I'm still concerned that repeatedly re-pruning the same article with the same changes over only a couple of days might be construed as edit warring, hence the reason why we're even here. :P Furthermore, the guideline doesn't seem to actually reflect a minimum-inclusion standard of 'n' number of interwiki links, which makes this much more along the lines of a simple content dispute, and while being labelled a vandal is poor judgement on the part of another editor, I'm concerned that using rollback on the corresponding revert might be considered equally, if not moreso, problematic. I'd strongly recommend that you avoid continuing to revert on that page (which it seems you have) and simply gain consensus to change the underlying guideline if that's what's appropriate. That way people will understand why you're making the changes you are and will be less likely to revert (or make the mistake of calling you a vandal). For what it's worth, I just filed an RFC to deal with a bot matter, and I promise it's not that painful. :P --slakr^\ talk / 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, I have already made huge efforts to "gain consensus to change the underlying guideline". Others have suggested criteria, which I am still trying out. Earlier this year, Redsky89 appeared to be in agreement. I always try not to revert and it's very rare for me to make the same changes I did previously, for reasons I explained above. When I remove entries, I re-check to see if they have five corresponding other-language articles to show that the person is internationally known and also whether they are listed on an appropriate "Year in topic" article - if not, I go to the additional trouble of adding them there. I believe that even the complainant would agree that there are good reasons to prune these articles. There's a history of certain individuals adding entries relating to their own nationality or interests that affect the balance of the lists. For example, adding all Estonians or all porn "stars" or all cyclists, and this has to be dealt with somehow. Deb (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concerns; there is a problem with excessive entries being added to these pages. I understand that, and it's evident from the referenced talk page. However, the problem is that the consensus needs to find its way into the guideline, and barring that, you need to build consensus on the individual talk pages of the date articles. Even then, that only gives you benefit of the doubt when it comes to edit wars and the three-revert rule. The normal

undue weight, for example. It's not a good idea to revert war when you feel that part of the article fails UNDUE or is slightly NPOV, because those are judgement calls. That said, I'm fairly confident socks were involved here. :P --slakr^\ talk

 / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that I've always tried to avoid reverting. I agree, that last one was unwise even though I felt provoked by Dman41689's conduct. I've hesitated to consider sockery because I've always assumed good faith on the part of Redsky and he did previously appear to be in agreement with the proposed approach.Deb (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• This report is nonsense. I'm engaged in a similar dispute with Redsky89 and DMan41689 in an AFD, where they're similarly ignoring consensus on the applicable guideline talk pages and casting aspersions on the nominator (moi). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Well, yes and no. See below. --slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked as a clear sock of Redsky89 (also blocked). Editor interaction and behavior demonstrates clear pattern of being used to edit war with other editors. --slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E-960 (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. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]
4. [186]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [187]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (talk page is a mess due to this disruptive editor: [188]

He has been disruptive for a long time, but this latest round began when he decided to ignore the results of a previous RFC and removed referenced information without achieving new consensus. Diff of RFC being closed: [189]. My request not to remove info before reaching consensus: [190]. Comments:

I'm posting this here because it looks like the ANI he filed against against me which was rejected has been avoided by admins, (perhaps understandably) unwilling to wade through the stuff he posted on it: [191].

His pattern is extensive, and as noted by Iryna Harpy (talk) : "He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple."Faustian (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to refute claim

I would like to make a statement in my defense, we are in the process of discussing RFC feedback with several editors who have lent considerable input regarding the subject matter. The general consensus is that the section in question contains

) 06:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"he argues in favor of keeping text which other experienced editor have agreed DOES NOT reflect what the source says" refers to the text that had passed an earlier RFC. The other editor isn't edit-warring to remove that referenced text before consensus is reached. You are. As noted by another editor in the ANI you opened against me : [196], "You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you."Faustian (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Pls refer to commetns made by editor SMcCandlish regarding your constant objections: "But see WP:VESTED and WP:CCC; there is no such thing as an "established [topic] editor" whose views count for more than those of other editors. Consensus forms and changes (any time, anywhere on WP) based on who cares enough to give their input into the matter. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are also relevant in this regard; many wikiprojects collectively delude themselves into thinking they have the right to control articles they feel are entirely or mostly within their scope, but they do not, and the entire point of WP:RFC is to bring in outside editors" --E-960 (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pls see most recent comment from another editor participating in the RFC who also objects to Faustians editing and his reverts: I have to concur with E-960 here. That was both inaccurate and unnecessary. Volunteer Marek 06:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --E-960 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you are flooding this with quotes taken out of context and that are off-topic to this report. TL;DR strategy?Faustian (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As no one else has attended to either this request or the thread on ANI, I have reviewed the situation and issued a short block for the 3RR violation. The violation is clear, and there has been no inclination to self-revert or admit they were wrong. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Faustian: Looking further I see you have been blocked previously for edit warring on this very same article. If evidence is produced that more than three of your five edits on this article yesterday were reverts, then I will consider blocking you too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Thomas Jefferson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hoppyh (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. [197]
2. [198]
3. [199]
4. [200]

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

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

Comments:
On the Thomas Jefferson talk/GA page I made

) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The GA reviewer has advised the complainant on the review page that the article's detail is too great to meet GA criteria. The complainant disagrees and refuses to comply with the reviewer's guidance. That said, I plead guilty. Hoppyh (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth talking to the GA reviewer in question here, Viriditas, before taking action on this. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Both users have clean block logs, so one can only surmise this was a temporarily lack of judgment in their shared pursuit of article improvement. Both users are honestly trying to bring this article to GA and above, and tensions have been raised in the process. My personal preference would be to see both users sternly warned without blocks, with the idea firmly lodged in their heads that if they show up here again, they will likely be blocked for edit warring. A block right now on either party would be punitive as we are trying to work out the dispute on the talk page. I have previously raised the idea of compromise, which led at least one user to leave. I would very much like to see both of these users keep working together constructively without any further reverts. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Warned @Hoppyh and Gwillhickers: Please heed what Viriditas says above. Any more edit warring will result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas and NeilN: Viriditas, thanks for your encouraging words. To all concerned, I have always gone along with consensus, even when I strongly disagree. I made an attempt to discuss the importance of the 'Separation of Church and State' issue, pleaded for discussion in edit history when reverts were being made, and even waited another day after the 3RR violation in the hopes that a discussion would ensue. When it became clear that the editor in question had no intention of even talking to me, let alone striking a compromise, I felt I had no choice but to pursue the matter here. I'm in partial agreement with the decision here and feel that a block was not called for, esp since the editor is doing much work on the article, but feel that lumping me in with Hoppy is in appropriate. I made attempts to discuss the issue on the Jefferson/GA talk page, made several appeals to Hoppy and violated no policy -- yet I receive a warning also. Not exactly fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please examine the article history to see good evidence of your reverting and edit warring on November 19, which is what this report entails. I'm curious why you believe you are exempt from this report. It takes at least two people to edit war. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Bigg Boss 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

On a mission to eradicate the entire Bigg Boss 9 page. Keeps deleting information from the page without given the users a chance to install references. First he deleted the entire weekly summary in this edit here regarding it as fancruft despite the fact that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother states that these sections are essential in any Big Brother article [201]. The same goes for the voting history which he removed. Under this part of the project it clearly states that a Big Brother article must contain a nomination history in all incidents where votes have been cast which lead to evictions of housemates. None of the sections he has removed is promotional in any way. Furthermore he recently blanked the entire sidebar stripping the page of what little progress the page had. It seems that this user is oblivious to how a Big Brother article operates and is making these changes in ignorance. Regardless of that this needs to be dealt with. Both of these sections are clearly being retained in all the international versions of Big Brother. See [202] [203]. --StigmaUncured (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Three consecutive edits spanning almost a month and that's it. Small
  trout for StigmaUncured for posting this. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

He's been given a rather larger trout William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

hi again;

NOW is is an edit war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=history

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=690562425

& see: Wikipedia:Edit warring for relevant WP.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

notice to user hillbillyholiday (again)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hillbillyholiday&oldid=691801758

Lx 121 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

AND the user hillbillyholiday is still completely ignoring any attempt to discuss/resolve the matter on the article's talkpage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Furlong#latest_.22dispute.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&oldid=691799830

"whitewashing" & lack of "good faith"; requesting the user at least be blocked from editing this article, if not given a blanket "time out".

Lx 121 (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

side note -- i did not "double sign" the previous post, & that's the 2nd time tonight i've had a duplication-type signing error on here. is mediawiki glitching like that for anybody else? Lx 121 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments make me suspect that a previous request was denied, but the page history easily shows edit-warring by multiple parties. It looks like a content dispute rather than someone(s) fighting against significant abuse by someone(s) else, so page protection is best. Lx 121, for future reference, it's easier for admins if you use the preloaded form; select the "Click here to create a new report" near the top of the page (run a search for "be sure to use the pulldown"; it's immediately below), because the system will prompt you to provide specific evidence. This was an obvious enough situation that you didn't need to provide specific evidence, but many edit-warring cases aren't so blatant. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• comment -- i used the "form" the first time i filed. i found it complicated & use-unfriendly. i included a link to my earlier request above, it is the second link in in the original post:

"re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=690562425"

with all due respect, that kind of proves my point about people not reading before they respond.

i appreciate finally getting some action on this, & i know there's a large volume of material to get through, but perhaps we should have a rule about being required to read & check before responding?

this is not directed @ any one particular person; i had the same problem with the previous filing, & many many, many times before, in other matters. it gets very frustrating...

Lx 121 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: White Ribbon Campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hellznrg (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. [204] restore of previously removed material
2. [205]
3. [206]
4. [207]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [209] (only one discussion)

Comments:
User has added and then repeatedly restored poorly, unreliably sourced contentious material to the article and has been reverted by three other editors (including me). The fourth revert ocurred less than an hour outside the 24-hour window.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 07:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Sukhoi Superjet 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First sock report

Coordinated LTA attack with another sock Cyclopsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see second sock report below. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Coordinated LTA edit-warring by multiple socks to replace a featured picture with a picture the socks prefer.

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692162822 by Dr.K. (talk) Rv sock."
2. 05:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692162548 by Dr.K. (talk) see talk"
3. Consecutive edits made from 05:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) to 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "per talk"
   2. 05:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Variants */"
   3. 05:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 05:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "/* New Image */ I agree with Bilcat"
2. 18:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "/* New Image */ ce"

Comments:

Coordinated LTA attack with another sock Cyclopsox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gbgfbgfbgfb. Dr. K. 06:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Second sock report

User:Cyclopsox reported by User:Dr.K. (Result

)

Page

Sukhoi Superjet 100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691942091 by BilCat (talk) i have explain it alredy"
2. 04:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "rev"
3. 02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "better picture"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC) "/* New Image */ I agree with Bilcat"

Comments:

• Please see report above for Yazebi. Dr. K. 06:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked indefinitely Swarm ♠ 07:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Korean sword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tkaehfdl1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 04:54, 27 October 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,152 bytes) (-463)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 98.224.110.9 (talk): Unsourced addition. (TW))[210]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:22, 21 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎[211]
2. 22:06, 21 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Undid revision 691727363 by Phoenix7777 (talk))[212]
3. 02:23, 22 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Stable version)[213]
4. 05:34, 22 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Stable version Revert.)[214]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:06, 21 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,494 bytes) (+13,494)‎ . . (3rr warning) [215]

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

Comments:

Phoenix7777, Tkaehfdl1234: If I had seen this yesterday then a block would likely have been issued. As this report is now stale, I will warn both of you that this kind of conduct is not acceptable, and if it persists then I will issue blocks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Warned Swarm ♠ 07:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Metrostar Rattler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Natsume96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• [216]

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [217]
• [218]
• [219]
• [220]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [221]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is repeatedly removing a deletion notice from the article claiming that the "discussion is closed", despite the notice haven only been added less than an hour prior, and so not after the 7 day period. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that other edits also revolve around fake video games. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Einstein95: which articles are you alleging are fake? If there is a wider problem, we may need to consider a longer or indefinite block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ:: The "Metrostar Rattler" and "Proton 1M" systems, "Natsume: Moonwing Warrior (Metrostar-Bizzare/Studio Vector) 2001/Codename: Nightstar 2002", "The Star Knight", "Street Wings", "Street Warrior Natsume", "Wing Knight", "Streets of Rage Remake" (using MUGEN and "E-Metro32"), "Metro-Active X: Streets of War", "Streets of War: The Bureau", "Project R: The Contagion" and "Project X: Love Potion Disaster", of which the last four would be fan games at best (not regarding Project X is supposedly a Sonic hentai game). -Einstein95 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through deleted contributions and can find nothing related to "Proton 1M". Can you provide links please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[222] and [223] -Einstein95 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Vague Rant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

For edit warring on this page (I had to laugh at the irony) I have blocked again for a week. But I think we could be looking at an indefinite block in the near future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User Special:Contributions/Retro-redakteur.u12 without arguments delete text from page Yury. In the his user talk page do not want talk about this and delete my questions. What can i do the next step? — Green Zero обг 18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

First, new editors need to be warned about edit warring before being reported here. I've added an appropriate warning. Next, Retro-redakteur.u12 please stop reverting and explain your deletions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And when reporting, you need to use the prescribed format. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Sand War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:35, 24 November 2015
2. 12:36, 24 November 2015
3. 02:42, 24 November 2015
4. 00:46, 24 November 2015
5. 23:37, 23 November 2015

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

1. 02:51, 24 November 2015
2. 12:47, 24 November 2015

Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link

Comments:
Omar-toons is completely out of control, despite having been warned (twice) to stop his edit war. M.Bitton (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 00:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691735530 by Sitush (talk) If it's ongoing, then you don't alter the status quo."
2. 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691671951 by John (talk) already discussed on talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

DS notice

Comments:

This page is under

00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Until a short while ago,
  User:Castncoot did constitutes edit warring deserving of sanctions, I have no opinion, but I wouldn't consider 1RR as a factor in deciding it. LjL (talk
  ) 00:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Much as I disagree with Castncoot regarding the specific issue, I too am bewildered regarding the 1RR thing and was not aware of it. I would be surprised if I have not breached it myself. There is some sort of mission creep going on here, and some assumption of the legal notion that "ignorance is no excuse". I'm afraid that I find that unacceptable in the current situation and I think that Castncoot should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Let's do a bit more IAR and a bit less GovCom or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this and am flabbergasted myself. I'm sure this can't be serious. I've never heard of this before within Wikipedia. I am a respectful editor in good standing. How can one particular topic (or any topic for that matter) be given a 1RR limit? That completely paralyzes the ability of editors to debate and edit effectively. That violates Wikipedia's mission. It's also completely ambiguous whether this applies to a reversion issue with one particular editor or in total. I in fact thought it applied in a one-on-one situation and really wondered about its authenticity. And how far peripherally within a topic does this go? This is not even the parent article in question. And for how long? It's already been one week since the attacks have occurred, and the evolutionality has slowed way down, such that it's not much different in tempo from many other relatively "current" events. I have to agree with the term "mission creep" here, and on a broader note, it's exactly this kind of operative conduct among some within Wikipedia that is disillusioning many new and current editors from editing. I think this rule (if it really exists as this complainant wants to interpret or enforce it) is patently bizarre and should be voided, returning this subject to the general Wikipedia policy. Best,

Castncoot (talk

)

You have no reason to be bewildered. I provided the standard notification to you, which informed you about the 1RR. If you did not read it, that is on you. The procedure has been followed, and should be enforced. The notice that I provided you says "All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described

here". If you'd have clicked the link, you'd have seen that it says "When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert". There was no reason for you to continue reverting, contrary to the 1RR that has been in place on SCW and ISIL-related articles for years. RGloucester — ☎

03:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this topic "for years," nor have I ever heard of a 1RR policy in Wikipedia before this. Obviously, if that's the policy, then that's what I will follow. But I am bewildered.

Castncoot (talk

) 03:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. However, that's why I gave you a DS notice, in line with the procedure specified at

WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The purpose of those notices is to notify editors of the system, so that they are not bewildered. If you did not read the notice, again, that's on you. Having had the notice, which clearly mentioned the scope of the sanctions, and explained 1RR, etc., there was no reason for you to revert more than once per twenty-four hours. RGloucester — ☎

04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Since blocks are meant to be preventive rather punitive and since the editor says that they will now follow the restriction, I don't think there's a need for any type of sanction here. Volunteer Marek  04:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I can understand this position, and it seems sensible. RGloucester — ☎ 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result:
  WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. This noticeboard is not the right forum to complain about a sanction regime. If you succeed in winning support for your changes on Talk you will find that staying within the 1RR is a doable task. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Note I've added {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} to the page to hopefully avoid this issue in the future. --slakr^\ talk / 01:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "please recheck your edit"
2. 20:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "your edit is vandalism, you cannot add religious info on the main paragraph also you have changed the grammar to very poor read."
3. 20:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "you are changing the grammar and the basic structure. Discuss before you want to add anything in the main paragraph on talk page."
4. 20:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "you'll reported to the admin. your destructive edit has been reverted even before. To add or change main paragraph talk page.
   WP:VANDALISM
   "
5. 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "there is no personal attack. Be productive instead of destructive. Don't destroy the grammar and the paragraph style. Don't make Wikipedia your personal diary."
6. 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "
   WP:VANDALISM
   "
7. 20:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "This is a country page. stop it. Make an edit only after your edits are verified /discussed on the talk page.
   WP:VANDALISM
   "
8. 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "
   WP:VANDALISM
   "

Page

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

User being reported

Akbar the Great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "rv
   good faith
   . reduced paragraphs from 6 to 4. but change was necessary, previous version has poorly written content and grammar"
2. 20:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692304062 by
   talk
   ) why? explain any issues in the talk page"
3. 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692304754 by
   talk) why are you taking it personally?! plenty of countries have religious info- Nepal, Turkey
   ."
4. 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692305283 by
   talk
   ) what are you talking about? you have a problem with religious percentages?"
5. 20:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692307058 by
   talk
   ) stop making personal attacks. give a valid reason on your problems"
6. 20:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692308306 by
   talk
   )"
7. 20:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692309001 by
   talk
   ) stop shouting"
8. 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692309270 by
   WP:EDITWAR
   , grow up and reply on the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Both of them are engaged in edit war. --Human3015^TALK  21:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing but a senseless personal attack campaign by these two users. They accused me of vandalism and destruction for simply ±this lede edit.--Akbar the Great (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I also posted on the talk page of the article, requesting BB26 to discuss. Strangely, he only responded after this complaint was filed.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: You are allowed to do 3 reverts within 24 hours, but here you have done 8 reverts. You are not new editor, now you are experienced enough, you should know this. 2nd thing is that you were doing it at article like "Bangladesh", which is very important article with many readers, this is not any minor kind of stub or start class article. This is one of most important article. So you should have keep that in mind. --Human3015^TALK  22:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I was being accused of vandalism and destruction for simply this edit. Clearly, I understand the value of the article given my contributions. But when it's patrolled in such as a nonsensical way by users like BB26, you wonder if there's any decorum left on the scene.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:BRD. And BB26 replied to your talk page thread before I open this complain, so your above comment is wrong. Obviously I am not supporting BB26, but as you are commenting here so I am talking about you. --Human3015^TALK

  22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was told the edit was too long, so I then reduced it to 4 paragraphs per Wikipedia guidelines. Then BB26 barged in and started the edit war. Can't we reach a conclusion over the actual content dispute? The discussion on the talk clearly isnt going anywhere. So we should have stuck to the DRN.--Akbar the Great (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Akbar the Great: Case on DRN has been declined because there was not talk page discussion at that time. See, you are relatively new user, I am not discouraging you to go for DRN, but case would have declined there even if I would have not commented there. There must be detailed talk page discussion before going for DRN. Another thing is that, you should not edit war in any case even if you think that you are right. I think if you get blocked then you will learn more things, I myself got blocked for 5 times for edit warring, so its ok to get blocked, people learn new things after getting blocked. You will come back as more sensible user. --Human3015^TALK  22:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Note @

WP:VANDALISM. If either or both of you continue to revert war, you risk being blocked from editing. --slakr^\ talk

 / 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to restore my work, which was totally undone by BB26 without any concrete reason. He can't claim ownership for the lede since he hasn't written it.--Akbar the Great (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@

neutral third opinion. --slakr^\ talk

 / 01:47, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page

Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "What he did was the technological ability equivalent of peeling a banana and putting it in yogurt. That line needed to be fixed"
2. 07:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692376305 by VQuakr (talk) If you think technological ability and the ability to repackage electronic components is the same thing then you are just as clueless."
3. 07:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 07:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692377899 by 76.104.189.139 (talk)"
5. 07:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692378088 by
   WP:EW
   3RR"
6. 07:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692378508 by 76.104.189.139 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

Removed the 3RR notification from their talk, but obviously read it per this edit summary. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Titanic (1943 film)
User being reported: Emlodik

Prior version

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692437768

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692421904

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692418435
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692418266
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692415473
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692414959
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692133963
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=69241826
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692133963
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titanic_(1943_film)&oldid=692133820

Linked Edits and request to take it to talk page:

• November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692420477 by MarnetteD (talk) Badly written, repeated info addressed elsewhere in the article.) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
  • {cur | prev) 15:41, 25 November 2015‎ MarnetteD (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (restore info rmvd w/o explanation - other than PAs that is) (undo | thank)
• 15:21, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418342 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 15:21, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418342 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 15:20, 25 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎top) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 15:20, 25 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,512 bytes) (+601)‎ . . (Undid revision 692418004 by Emlodik (talk)If you have objections, bring them to the talk page, and do not edit war\) (undo | thank)
• 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692417457 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
• 14:54, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Fixed grammar) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
  • 14:52, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692414959 by Emlodik (talk) Take it to talk page. You are the WP:Vandal) (undo)
• 14:49, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Repeated vandalism with pointless, badly written redundant info.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
  • (cur | prev) 09:27, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 692372904 by 2601:280:C500:B700:2417:B34:4550:209A (talk) Better this way. Please take it to the talk page.) (undo)
• 01:09, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-250)‎ . . (→‎Themes and propaganda context) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 01:08, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | c
• (cur | prev) 15:17, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692417457 by Beyond My Ken (talk)) (undo | thank)
  • (cur | prev) 14:52, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (Undid revision 692414959 by Emlodik (talk) Take it to talk page. You are the WP:Vandal) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 14:49, 25 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-599)‎ . . (Repeated vandalism with pointless, badly written redundant info.) (undo | thank) (Tags: Mobile app edit, Mobile edit)
  • (cur | prev) 09:27, 25 November 2015‎ 7&6=thirteen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+471)‎ . . (Undid revision 692372904 by 2601:280:C500:B700:2417:B34:4550:209A (talk) Better this way. Please take it to the talk page.) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 01:10, 24 November 2015‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,510 bytes) (+599)‎ . . (rem POV edits) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 01:09, 24 November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,911 bytes) (-250)‎ . . (→‎Themes and propaganda context) (undo | thank)
• November 2015‎ Emlodik (talk | c

Warnings

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Emlodik&oldid=692416846. Warned and asked him to go to talk page.

Blatant violation of

) 15:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a 'moving target' as he continues to edit war even after being given notice of this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And here 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

And here. Res ipsa loquitur. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Includes multiple personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.104.189.139 (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. 692378508
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:

• Result: Article semiprotected five days by
  WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 01:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Article: Mafia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Kurzon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reporting user: 151.20.120.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm reporting User:Kurzon's edit war in Mafia article. After being blocked 4 times for non-stop edit warring (twice for edit wars in Mafia) and warned here (You are continuing to edit war over that pointless IPA thing. I can't imagine why you would let something like that bother you so much. But you should know that if the escalating blocks have still not had the desired effect, the only logical next step will be an indefinite block. The other side will also be dealt with appropriately. — Martin) and here (As far as I'm concerned you're both at fault. I have nothing to add to the warning above. It's your choice whether to heed or not. Regards — Martin), he just kept on with the edit war, again, again and again, choosing not to heed. Please take appropriate measures. 151.20.120.221 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

See previous reports about the same editor at this 3RR search. The IP wants to add '([ˈmaːfja])' following the word 'mafia', but Kurzon doesn't like it. Regrettably, all attempts at persuasion have failed. The next step is probably an indef for Kurzon (until he will promise to desist) and long term semiprotection for the article. I'll ask User:Kurzon to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Swarm ♠ 08:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Page: User Talk:2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63
User being reported: User:2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63

1. 10:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692529755 by
   talk
   ) another one and I'll request assistance from admins"
2. 10:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692529410 by
   talk
   ) speaking of harassment, please don't leave any more messages here"
3. 10:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "/* November 2015 */ remove as well meaning but misinformed"|warnings=# 09:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on
   TW
   )"
4. 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: "Biting" newcomers. (
   TW)" 10:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
5. 10:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)" 10:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "*You've made at least four errors in perhaps ten minutes: Misconstrued a spammer's purpose for editing; persistently harassed me at my talk page after I made it plain you weren't welcome here; referred to my removal of your inappropriate warnings as edit warring, when any unblocked account is welcome to remove such; and opened a report for edit warring. I suggest you walk back the report, rather than continue down this road. And as previously requested, do not post here again. "
6. 9:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC) Heatwizpromo (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) "Violation of the username policy as a promotional username that implies shared use." He's reported this account as "promotional username." I've told him on his talk page 10:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC) that it is biting a newcomer, however he reverted it.
7. 9:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Spam account." The account has only — Preceding
   talk • contribs
   )

Comments:
Is deleting my warnings. I kind of sadly got dragged into it a bit, but am trying to be as professional as possible.

• WP:BOOMERANG; nobody dragged the user into filing this misguided report. I've reported a spam account, Heatwizpromo (talk · contribs), and as a result received a series of inappropriate warnings, which I've removed. User didn't like this, and has opened a thread here. My suggestion is that the user be mentored re: Wikipedia interactions, prior to misusing warning templates and wasting other editors' time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk
  ) 10:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Declined
  WP:EW in its entirety before filing reports in the future. NeilN ^{talk to me}
  10:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• NeilNThe 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period
• NeilN Also, A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
  • WP:3RRNO. "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." --NeilN ^{talk to me}
    11:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: GUtt01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(UK_series_eleven)&oldid=692490249

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Apprentice_(UK_series_eleven)&oldid=692525665
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

User repeatedly removes useful content re Dulwich Hamlet FC. Crookesmoor (talk) 11:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: