Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive302

Page: Portal:Current events/2015 December 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Wow, I am not going to manually list them all: look here

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here

Comments:
Phoenix-based IP which is reverting me at a prolific rate when I correct the name of a British newspaper. Has made absolutely NO attempt to discuss, not a single word, despite several requests for his/her logic. '''tAD''' (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this IP has engaged in edit warring behaviour. The user was recently edit warring at

User:AlexTheWhovian). DarkKnight2149

03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Defensive gun use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Help! This user is attempting to add statistics that aren't in the references he cited. Please block him from Wikipedia! Undid revision 694064339 by Clpo13 (talk)"
2. 22:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "You are a fraud. The article you link to does not say 33 million. Show me the inlinecitation or stop LYING. Use some common sense, vandal Undid revision 694063935 by Clpo13 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) to 21:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Are you stupid? 33 million is not logically possible. Undid revision 694055972 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
   2. 21:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Yes, let's restore the fraudulent 33 million figure which you made, you intellectual fraud. Undid revision 694055551 by Gaijin42 (talk)"
   3. 21:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted clear vandalism by GaijinUndid revision 694053525 by Gaijin42 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "{{subst:alert|gc}}"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Please watch out for pro-gun fraud in this article, when I originally found it yesterday, there had been a completely made up figure of 33 million defensive gun uses annually, a logically impossible figure someone just made up. Beware of gun-lovers!..."
2. 22:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Pro-gun fraud in this article */ r"

Comments:

See also edit warring at Gary Kleck and the multiple personal attacks as well. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked Sockpuppet of Kingshowman. Katie^talk 19:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Biology and sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rafe87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Hist of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments: By way of defense, I'm calling attention to the fact that the user who filed the complaint unilaterally decided to remove extensively referenced content from the entry, and when challenged on his behavior, all he could only vaguely muster in justification was that "Wikipedia guidelines" allow for removal of sourced content. The excuse he gave for one such removal is that one scientific theory defended by the author of one of the articles was widely criticized - but my edits never made reference to THE THEORY, only to the EMPIRICAL findings mentioned by the author, which, by the way, were produced by research teams that have nothing to do with the author (who was only describing the research) or his theory.

I don't also see how I'm guilty of edit warring. I reverted the content removal, and when reverted myself, I reverted back. In my understanding, this is not a violation of 3RR. Rafe87 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are obviously guilty of

WP:3RR

is but one portion of WP:Edit warring, and it is clear that "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." and "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

This is what the article looked like before the recent cognitive additions and edit warring. Per what is stated at the bottom of

talk

) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of

WP:3RR by User:Rafe87, which normally calls for a block. There's also the issue of personal attacks on Talk:Biology and sexual orientation, "You have been maniacally hostile this entire fucking time". EdJohnston (talk

) 19:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 19:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Visa requirements for Turkish citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694210706 by Eteethan (talk)"
2. 20:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694209716 by Eteethan (talk)"
3. 20:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694207403 by JoeSakr1980 (talk)"
4. 19:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694204060 by Twofortnights (talk)"
5. 18:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694196088 by JoeSakr1980 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

History of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arman ad60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "The negative parts of Islam is not acceptable. Please don't revert my edit without taking with me."
2. 21:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Included text from an earlier version. Mr. Eperoton, It was mentioned in the original version."
3. 20:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Included text from an [earlier version]. It was mentioned in the original version."
4. 20:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Mongol invasions */ Removed humiliating part of Timur."
5. 19:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Included some text from an [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Islam&oldid=644966462 earlier version]] and removed some unnecessary parts in the end."
6. 10:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* City-states and Imperial period */ I have changed some sentences in the beginning of the section. I think they were wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC) "/* December 2015 */ trying to clarify"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor continued to revert after warning and clarificationI think there may be a competence problem here. See talk page also for extended discussions. Doug Weller (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week. A review of the talk page confirms there may be a competence problem as well as some difficulty with English. An unblock might be considered if the user will agree to wait for consensus on the talk page before making further changes at History of Islam. He may have trouble editing neutrally on a topic close to him. One of his edit summaries says "The negative parts of Islam is not acceptable." EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Maverick.Mohit (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: Several reverts have been taken place the past few days, in an attempt to censor this page. Today, Maverick.Mohit reverted 5 times, which is edit-warring:

• IP 106.219.50.191 11:44, 7 December 2015: "I have written the original definition of the word "Bhakt". This word is of sanskrit origin and had been widely used in the scriptures of Hinduism such as BhagvadGita, ShrimadBhagvatam, Narad Bhakti Sutra etc."
• IP 123.201.152.142 20:38, 7 December 2015: no edit-summary
• Debasishsinha 21:52, 7 December 2015: "removed the misinterpretation"
• Maverick.Mohit 10:36, 8 December 2015: "Corrected the opening lines of article. What ever was written before is already mentioned in article. Request trolls to not treat wikipedia as facebook or twitter."
• Maverick.Mohit 15:18, 8 December 2015: "Don't spoil the article."
• Maverick.Mohit 15:23, 8 December 2015: "Already mentioned in previous edits that this can't be opening for the article. Things are already mentioned in recent usages."
• Maverick.Mohit 16:09, 8 December 2015: "Did you cared reading details of my previous edit? Bhakt is an ambiguous term known mostly in Hindu religion. you can't spoil it."
• Maverick.Mohit 16:21, 8 December 2015: "Ok will discuss"

It's clear that this page is not about "bhakta," but about "bhakt"; removing the summary of the term "bhakt" from the lead are therefor misplaced.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• diff talkpage

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
The term bhakt has religious meaning ahead of political or social media troll terms. So opening of an article can't have a different introduction as per wikipedia policy. Whatever is being mentioned by you and others seems motivated by political vendetta. Please help wikipedia remain free from trolls. As this is even used in facebook by trolls. I just tried improving the article as Bhakta and bhakt have different meaning and that meaning is more about religion rather than poltical. You also never cared discussing on talk page. Now you are acting on grudge. Maverick.Mohit (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I requested for protecting page as it was being edited by being politically motivated. This can't be opening of an article which has a different meaning all together. Disappointing that you acted on his complain,even i could have nominated him for edit war.Maverick.Mohit (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Holly Holm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (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]

Comments:

User has been blocked twice before for edit warring. This person has ignored attempts at communication and has not cited any policies, simply resorting to name calling. -- James26 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang on 3R. The editor above is just abusing wk policy to try and push his pov.Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see myself violating the three-revert rule within a 24-hour period on the page's history. Your opinion of me is incorrect too. The fact is you've violated policies, just as you have before. -- James26 (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. Last block for edit warring was one week. Katie^talk 14:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Just want to mention that, based on the page's history, it's likely that 202.144.186.24 is the same person. I'll keep an eye on that, and report if I notice anything. -- James26 (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Fascism in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

70.199.83.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)2600:1017:B41C:3E19:E0B1:F855:AC64:33C0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Look there are about 1000 references where Trump is being called a neo-fascist. Mostly by his party. If you'll allow me I'll gladly addUndid revision 694249006 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) to 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694248777 by 2602:252:D5E:C250:C972:B05:E727:E537 (talk)"
   2. 01:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694248760 by Philip Trueman (talk)"
3. 01:41, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694248466 by 2602:252:D5E:C250:C972:B05:E727:E537 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: Won't take pause and has switched accounts.

This is demonstrably false. I've accepted others changes to my edits. Please have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.83.173 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected the article one month. One IP has already started using the talk page but didn't get any response. Somebody should be willing to discuss whether Trump is a fascist. But IP editors who want to contribute on messy BLP topics should consider creating an account. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Visa requirements for Turkish citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694365122 by Eteethan (talk)"
2. 20:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694343539 by Twofortnights (talk)"
3. 23:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694230546 by Twofortnights (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected Katie^talk 21:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(undid vandalism by IP 82.132.225.11) Historiador (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Stirling engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caballero1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

New GF editor Jcflyer58 (talk · contribs) recently added some new content to the article. For some unfathomable reason, ClueBot took exception to this and reverted it, with warning [21]. I can see no good reason for this. I thus restored it and improved the technical citation of the pre-existing NASA source (presumably ClueBot didn't recognise the prose citation).

This is a good addition.

Jcflyer58 continued to work on it. Caballero1967 then reverted it, with a further warning [22]. I struck this warning through as incorrect, restored the content and invited Caballlero to comment further.

This addition is sourced. It is part of a two line para, with a cite at the end of the para. We have no reason that each sentence must be individually cited, when the cite at the end of a short para covers it.

Caballero1967 has now reverted this three times, as if it were unsourced. They have issued warnings to all concerned:

• User_talk:Jcflyer58
• User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Stirling_engine
• User_talk:Caballero1967#December_2015

They have not however discussed the substance of this, why they are reverting continually. If it's "because it's unsourced", that's a failure of

. If it's because it's unclear, they could discuss it. They have not done this, they have simply dismissed both other editors as if they were idiots adding unsourced content, "Every addition should be explained and sourced. It is simple".

I don't like this addition. It is too close to "close paraphrasing" of the source and the extent of the claim (as is not unusual for Stirling engine material) is "optimistic" to a point that raises eyebrows (Stirling engines have been "the next big thing" for a long time, yet they still have yet to deliver.). I would like to see this claim toned down and put in NASA's voice, not WP's objective voice. However one thing that is clear about this is that it is sourced content. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

They have now added [23] a {{

WP:CIR now applies. Andy Dingley (talk

) 12:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Caballero's argument: Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit. Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley.

It seems that Andy Dingley is not assuming good faith in my reverts even when at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article. These were my annotations:

1- In User_talk:Jcflyer58 I left an automated welcoming message that also informed the user about sourcing new additions. It also invited the user to return to the article to include a source in addition to the change (no source was included with the user’s contribution).

2- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: If you bring an argument that's new for the article, explain it in the comments sections, justify it in Talk Page or place a reference. How else would we verify it?”

3- “Reverted good faith edits by Andy Dingley: One more time. Verify, explain, and source. You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.”

The changes inserted were not clear about the source. Perhaps the editors working on the article presumed the evidence and sources, but from a patrolling perspective, these changes were not sourced and worse, they were not explained. These were the comments left for the changes:

1- [24] None

2- [25] "That thing in the "< ref >") tags? It's called a reference." (note: as explained below, there was no reference (< ref >) attached to the new contribution or at the end of the new sentence)

3- [26] "Rv repeated blanking on sourced content."

To the first attempt for input/change without a comment and from a user that had already been warned by a bot, I performed a good faith revert and only asked for a source. There was no source connected with the new addition and, as you saw above, no comment about how this new addition may have linked to whatever sources had been cited already in the paragraph.

To the second attempt for input/change with an unclear comment, I reverted it and, as shown above, explained what was necessary with the addition of new information to the article. I also went to the user’s talk page and explained the reasons for this action.

To the third attempt for input/change with another unclear comment added to an unfair accusation (unfair because blanketing is meant for changes without explanation), I reverted the change and went, for the second time, to the user talk page and re-explained my case. I also went to my user talk page and commented on the issue since the user had tagged me there.

As soon as I noticed that behind the lack of good communication was a group of dedicated editors working on this article, I went back and undid my reverts and placed the citation tag at the end of the new sentence so the contributors would notice where was the issue that provoked the reverts.

As I explained in my annotations, a comment, a Talk Page explanation, or a citation linked directly to the sentence being added should have avoided all of these problems. A critical step was when user: Andy Dingley, instead of merely explaining that this was an addition linked to the sources already cited in the paragraph, chose to write “That thing in the "< ref >" tags? It's called a reference.” Not only is this comment vague, but also contains a subtle insult, which cast doubts about the purpose of the reverts.

• I wish to set a formal complaint about the gratuitous reference to WP:CIR and for the unnecessary reaction to a work that only asked for explanations to changes done to the article. Historiador (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

"at every instance I mentioned that an explanation or a source was needed for additions to the article"

At every instance, even now, you are treating other editors as idiots who don't realise this.

The content is sourced. It always has been. Why are you demanding sources when they're already there? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Contennt needs to be sourced. Why is that so hard for you to comply with? 82.132.225.115 (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention. Your comments on my page, which you posted after I have already reverted your changes for the second time and left a message in your own talk page (things were moving rather quickly), were enough to warn me about the way you were feeling. Taking your grievance to this level is not only a waste of time and an unnecessary investment of energy, but it also leaves adverse tracks of its own, like your gratuitous reference to WP:CIR (when the page clearly warns you against its use for issues of this type) and your accusation of bad faith (on which this entire report is based). I took the decision to leave your input on the page with a tag for citation before learning that you have appealed to this noticeboard. It is still puzzling. Historiador (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The section that was tagged was covered directly in the citation at the end of the paragraph. I duplicated it in place of the cn tag. Why is there no discussion on the article's talk page? Did anyone actually read the source that was provided? My only concern about the content is that the sentence is nearly verbatim from the source. One does not need to cite every sentence in a paragraph, when the section is covered by the source at the end of the paragraph. Scr★pIron^IV 18:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley:, I should mention that I never received notification of your question in User_talk:Jcflyer58, which you posted at 7am on Dec. 3: "Perhaps Caballero1967 would care to explain further?" My entry on that page was automated (as explained in my edit summary comments and above)-- and you never allowed me time to even get to it. Otherwise, I would have answered it. Historiador (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, thanks. My request were an explanation in the summary comments or in Talk page. If none of these, then a source would have hinted to the purpose of the addition. Again, more impotant was a summary/comment/explanation. None of them were provided, but until the end, when all the reverts were already done. Historiador (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Caballero1967: The edit summary that you referenced yourself, while a bit sarcastic, should have been explanation enough. It occurred at the beginning of the edit summaries. You mean, you did not check the reference, and just continued to revert? I would strongly suggest you drop it at this point, and withdraw the complaint. Scr★pIron^IV 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, I suggest you read this entire thread more carefully. I am not the one making an accusation here. I did read the comments, and as I explained above, did not understand it as an explanation for the change (in retrospection, many things look perfectly clear). Not only because it was unclear, but also because there was no reference linked to that specific change and addition: none!. I took the extra step to read the sources linked to other parts of the paragraph and it was still not obvious to me. And since I was guarding the page against vandalism, and my requested had been unheard, I reverted it back, IN GOOD FAITH, and asked for an explanation, again. That's it. Keep in mind, that at every moment, I explained that I was asking for an explanation, a simple comment that would warn me that this was a collaborative project and that these additions were not random. Following WP about acting bold, I, again asked for explanations (or sources), nothing fancy. I am raising a complaint only as a reaction and linked to the accusation of war editing. The case drops, and as a result, the complaint falls with it too. Otherwise, there is a different place to raise a formal complaint. Historiador (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, let me repeat, as to be as clear as possible (even though I have made it a focal point here), Andy Dingley's first comment to my revert, not only was sarcastic (a bit, because the space only allowed for a bit), but hinted to a reference that was none-existant. There was no < r > in the change being added or at the end of the sentence that I could look at. It was a reversion, an undid, a revert done in a hurry, without a proper explanation. And then, the user accused me of war edit, when I only reverted two of the user's edits (both without proper explanations of my own reverts). I searched for explanations, and as soon as I learned what was going on, I fixed the problem. All of this took very little time, but the accuser jumped to this page as soon as possible. In fact, my fixing of the page was done prior or at the same time that the accuser was writing on this page. No assumption fo good faith and lack of good communication. Historiador (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest you merely apologize for misreading, and be done with it. Read the sources before reverting. I'm done here. No need to ping me any more.Scr★pIron^IV 21:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I did not misread. The message was unclear. You misread something when the message is clear. And yet, I did apologize. let me quote, "you appear to say that your gripe with my interventions take you and the other editors working with this article as "idiots." I regret that. That was never my intention." The thread has grown, I understand, but it still important to read all the information before making any comment or passing any judgement. Historiador (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

And as I mentioned above, there was no source to read! No reference linked to the addition. None! And yet, I read further, and the link was not obvious at first. The context, keep in mind, is a persistence of adding information without explanation, and again and again, I asked for an explanation, a comment, something that would make sense.Historiador (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

*Perhaps it is necessary to restate succinctly what I have explained here already in order for this case to get the attention it needs, namely, a result.

Summary: User:Andy Dingley brought my name to this noticeboard under the false accusation of edit warring. Not only did I stay within the parameters of the 3RR rule, but none of my reverts were done in bad faith. Perhaps the entire case is the result of poor communication and of reacting too fast to each other actions (I am also at blame on this last point). User:Andy Dingley explained that my constant request for sources or for explanations made editors feel like idiots. Even when this could have been solved without coming here, twice I apologized for giving that impression while asserting that this was never my intention. Moreover, I did bring the article back to the position it was before I had reverted it. This I did rather fast, as soon as I realized the nature of the problem. In fact, everything took only a few minutes. However, these were unfavorable actions and failures of good practices that should be considered from the user who brought me here:

(the links to the actions referred here are already posted above)

1) It accused me of Edit Warring when there was never more than 3RRs, and not even the spirit of the law was broken: here.

2) It failed to assume good faith

.

3) In both instances, it failed to answer my requests for an explanation:

) (the first user provided no comment).

4) It failed to establish an effective communication with me before coming to this noticeboard-- a clear pre-requirement stated at the top of this page. (The two links above, which claim to be warnings sent to me, are not warnings at all. One lead to the bot's change and the other to my first change. Not only they say nothing about the user's claims, but they were not placed in my talk page nor on the article's talk page).

5) It failed to warn me about the 3RR rule by posting this tag on my talk page: { { subst:uw-3RR } }, a step that should have been taken before approaching this forum.

6) It failed to follow the steps suggested to avoid edit warring as explained here (this is key if the user felt there was an edit warring in the making).

7) It used the

against me in this forum even when at the page's top clearly says: "Be very cautious when referencing this page, as it can be very insulting to other editors." Writers of this page understood how it could be used as a shortcut to gain the upper hand by undermining other editor's standing (even when I was not discussing substance, but procedures).

User:Andy Dingley should have taken in consideration that Edit Warring "is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle...good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism" (quoted from the top of this same page).

Cheers, Historiador (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Within a quarter of an hour you had managed to deliver three reversions to this article and three patronising warnings to two different editors on three different pages; all because you couldn't read a reference that had been there all the time, at the end of a two line paragraph.

You are still [27] making comments "hinted to a reference that was none-existant" – the necessary reference has been there all the time.

You claim (above [28]) that this is not edit-warring because, "Three reverts is the maximum for a day. Thus, there is no war edit." as if you're entitled to three, and other editors can just suck it up because You Know Your Rights and you're damned well going to have your fair share of your edits. Even more bizarrely, "Moreover, they were not reverts to the same editor. One was for Jcflyer58 and two for Andy Dingley. " as if it's better when you're reverting against multiple editors!

I see no benefit to prolonging this verbosity, but nor do you seem to have learned anything from it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@

Talk Page

. You may want to look above again when I mentioned that we both were acting in a hurry. If I would have given a [better] look to your profile, I would have noticed that you were making constructive contributions to the article, and would not have made the last revert (despite your unhelpful comments).

If you would have also read my request for explanation/comments/sources in the manner I intended, you would have noticed that my only function was to protect your work and that of your colleagues. As you appeared to have seen, your article came up as possibly vandalized, perhaps because some contributions were made without a summary. So, I came to it with the intention of making sure that whatever change would go in it would have to follow guidelines and to act (as always) in good faith. The first contribution had no summary/explanation and came from a new user that had already been warned by a bot, so I reverted it with a message that asked the user to return to the article. The second one (yours) had a cryptic and sarcastic message, but no explanation. The third was an accusation, again, no description. In all my reverts, I asked for explanations or sources, and in Good Faith. So you should have known I was not meaning to fight. In my last revert, I even issued you a clear plea for help so you would see that I was only guarding your page: "You know how it works, and you know the time it takes to make sure these rules are followed.” And still, I apologized for giving you the wrong impression.

Perhaps you could give us examples of better ways to approach an editor that is including information in your article without explanation. Unfortunately, the examples of your comments to me are not the best. But most importantly, you did not follow procedure, in the article and neither here.

In trying to make sense of your actions, I am starting to think that you thought I was challenging you in some sort of way, but I was not. It should be clear by now that my interest is not in creating dissension. I think that this would have been avoided if you would have talked to me in my Talk Page, in the article's Talk Page (ScrapIronIV was also surprised that there was no mention of it in the Talk Page) or personal message. Your actions show an eagerness to work in your article without being bothered, and I can understand that. But the way you reacted to my attempts to protect your work failed to follow good practice. Historiador (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC) Minor editing. Historiador (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

No violation – Nobody broke 3RR, and the dispute appears to be a misunderstanding.

) 05:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for the notification and dedication to fairness. I am taking note of your suggestion. Cheers, Historiador (talk) 16:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Dynasty (sports) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 134.201.96.96 (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. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

[33]

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

Comments:

User 134.201.96.96 has removed the San Francisco Giants from the list of sports Dynasties dozens of times (it's the vast majority of what the ip address has done), in fact a revert war about this topic seems to have dominated the page for over a month. Just to be clear, I'm only reporting this, I've never edited the page at all JCO312 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: List of countries by literacy rate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Lokato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38] (as blocked user 166.48.141.173)
4. [39] (by IMusikkForeva; pressumed sockpuppet)
5. diff
6. diff
7. diff
8. diff

Prior to my involvement in the article (1 November 2015), I noticed the edit still popped up:

• [40] (166.48.141.173)
• And sometimes spilling into other articles: [41]

After doing a major update to the article according to CIA World Factbook, Lakota has, for the past month, been removing all sources of data for Bandladesh which put its literacy rate at about 60% (instead insiting that the the government's own source of 70% is the only valid answer). There is discussion at Talk:List of countries by literacy rate#Disputed data for Bangladesh and User talk:Lokato#List of countries by literacy rate. Essentialy I disputed that the CIA was the best source and he that the CRI was the best source, so I decided to request a third opinion. ONUnicorn suggested adding another column to include both of the data and I agreed, although Lokato failed to engage in discussion. Worldbruce has also commented that UNESCO would be a less POV source and to use a third column. As a result, I converted the entire page to UNESCO data (it was mostly the same at CIA, including for Bangladesh) and put two figures for Bangladesh: one from UNESCO and one from CRI. I thought this would end the dispute, but even after this, Lakota has continued to remove the data from UNESCO and insist that CRI's data is the only correct one. I've been unable to get any discussion with the Lokato lately and the edit warring is still continuing. Hopefully posting this topic will make Lokato take the edits more seriously. Jolly Ω Janner 02:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned, per the editor's talk page. Let me know if any further edits at List of countries by literacy rate raise any questions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

213.205.251.91 (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:

Reverts a merger and cleanup, both manually and using the undo function. He acknowledges the TP discussion but does not talk about the edits. Exhibited a similar warring behavior at New Hartley but was not reported as he was considered a onetime IP guy pushing POV. Seems to have developed a habit FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk
   / 00:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) (cur | prev) 18:38, 9 December 2015‎ WritingFromYourPerspective (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,137 bytes) (+181)‎ . . (undo)""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to think hoodlum is a common used refered word when it is not. As i see from the wikipedia catergory as to referring to link words to DAB page is allowed. And in the current moment hoodlum is not a common used word.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WritingFromYourPerspective (talk • contribs)

• Declined — @
  dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk
   / 00:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694505977 by G S Palmer (talk)"
2. 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694505370 by Allthefoxes (talk)"
3. 18:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694504254 by Allthefoxes (talk)"
4. 18:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to claim that a link to hoodlum is necessary, even though the word is a common word and the page is just a disambiguation. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hoodlum is a disambiguation page, but it also contains a one sentence definition of hoodlum and a link to historical records on the origin of the term, the name of a gang of boys in San Francisco in the 1860's, so linking to a stub article on hoodlum would be reasonable. There appears to be the basis for a brief encyclopedic article on "hoodlums" in addition to a disambiguation page. The definition and history could be split from the disambiguation page and made into a referenced stub which was slightly more than a dicdef. I agree that it is a common word and that few native speakers of English would be at a loss as to what it means, so a link to an explanatory article is not essential, but neither is it harmful, like overlinking to more common words would be. Could this be discussed on the talk page of the Gangsta article? Edison (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggested this very thing, referring them to the talk page, to both of the disputants. I also posted on

WP:BRD. Perspective deleted all of that from his talk page, which would be his privilege. OTOH, deleting them suggests he read them. 7&6=thirteen (☎

) 22:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Warned below. The user did stop reverting (for now) after being properly warned on their talk page about 3RR. If they continue, feel free to update this or re-report. --slakr^\ talk / 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Monarchy of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [42] 04:58, 2 December 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43] 03:28, 9 December 2015 (not constitutionally / restore 2nd para; more clearly worded / Brit & French concurrently for a period / rm redundant truism / fix refs / rm duplicate ref)
2. [44] 04:54, 9 December 2015
3. [45] 06:20, 9 December 2015 (→‎Federal residences and royal household: c/e / not all jurisdictions have gov't house / principal residence is the gov't house in a jurisdiction)
4. [46] 16:59, 9 December 2015‎ Miesianiacal (punct / countries are kingdoms, not monarchihes), 17:26, 9 December 2015 (→‎Royal family and house: c/e)
5. [47] 17:36, 9 December 2015 (restore)
6. [48] 21:14, 9 December 2015 (nothing is repeated)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] 22:39, 24 November 2015 (→‎Monarchy of Canada: new section)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] 17:15, 9 December 2015 (→‎Canadian Royal Family or Royal Family: new section), [51] 00:35, 7 December 2015 (→‎Queen's Residence: new section)

Comments:

The two main issues revolve around whether the Queen has official residences in Canada and using the adjective "Canadian" in one of the mentions of the royal family. They have been extensively discussed on the talk page and Miesianiacal has edit-warred over a considerable time, although I do not think he ever exceeded 3rr before. I notified him about exceeding 3rr two weeks ago, and he removed my message with the edit description "Undid revision 692323505 by The Four Deuces (talk) rm passive-aggressive trolling."[52]

While I left a note about edit-warring, I did not use the template because this editor is well aware of the policy. While his current account shows no block history, one of the editor's previous accounts, User:G2bambino, does. Based on this editor's reply to my notice, I do not think any further notice was required.

TFD (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected User's prior history notwithstanding—and it probably should be investigated, seeing as the user appears to at least been blocked once for a 1RR restriction related to Canadian articles—the dispute seems to also coincide with disputes over multiple days (and other editors as well) over the content of the infobox. Please seek
  dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk
   / 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Americans for Legal Immigration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.109.148.22 (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. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]

There's also like a dozen of reverts in the preceding day or two.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:

This is an article on an organization of borderline notability which has been heavily edited by an account with a self-admitted [[WP:COI|conflict of interest] - diff's here "our group". I've posted a notice to the NPOV noticeboard [61] and another user posted a notice to the COI noticeboard [62]. I've also tried to explain Wikipedia policies on NPOV, reliable sources and conflict of interest to the IP. The IP responded with personal attacks and accusations. User:Volunteer Marek 04:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694603784 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
2. 08:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "no you haven't explained your mass deletion. I am undoing your obvious PoV pushing. Discuss on the talk page first"
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) to 08:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694581470 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
   2. 08:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Once again you are making mass deletions without getting agreement from others. EXPLAIN FIRST on the talk page before making edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Deletion of POV and other unsourced controversial. */"

Comments:

Removes content added during a merger(Merger was from Prophet's day through AFD). Add's content which is unsourced and controversial. Add's content which is sourced to highly unreliable sources and controversial. Changes his IP(not the range) almost daily. Has also shown the same behavior on other articles. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the one edit warring. I told you before, discuss your mass edits on the talk page. In one single edit you not only merged content but also sneakily removed lots of existing material without discussing on the talk page and getting agreement from others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.168 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Infact you have reverted 4 times in the last day on the mawlid article and should be blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.168 (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected The only reason I haven't blocked you both is the section on the talk page where you're talking to each other about it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: English Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EnglishPassport (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. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:English Democrats#Errors with this article

Comments:

• Follows edit warring yesterday also by
  Keri (talk
  ) 13:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Please also take into account this egregious personal remark against another editor on that article. LjL (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Additionally, this further edit by the user consistutes a
  WP:ANI report filed). LjL (talk
  ) 15:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ladies and Gentleman, I am not an expert in the world of " Wikipedia", although, I do find it a useful tool. When it comes the the English Democrats Wikipedia, page, there appears to be an element of editors or administrators intent in always doing their best to shop the English Democrats as a Stereotypical English Nationalist party, interms of implying that it is somehow associated with Racism and unpleasant ... this is very disappointing.
  The English Democrats has people who are ex-Conservatives, ex-Labour, ex-Liberal Democrats, ex-Green, ex-Veritas and ex-BNP... yet just like the BBC there appears to be an obcession with implying that the English Democrats is somehow infiltrated or controlled by ex-BNP people - this is simply not the case, mainly because the BNP is a British Party and the English Democrats is a English party. There are far more ex-Conservatives in the English Democrats then there are ex BNP.. Also the English Democrats have and never have had any links with any Far Right eastern European parties. It is sad that there is not someone in wikipedia, willing to stand up for England. EnglishPassport (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
• Already blocked via
  WP:ANI#Legal threat (and COI disclosure after edits). - Barek (talk • contribs
  ) - 17:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Mortal Kombat X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.132.86.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 109.132.95.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 109.132.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "The argument was: unsourced. Which is added now -> Undid revision 694685399 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"
2. 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "You didn't provide any argument. I have added a legitimate source -> Undid revision 694684841 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"
3. 21:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I have added the source, which was the only requirement -> Undid revision 694684154 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"
4. 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "No argument given -> Undid revision 694682542 by 85.210.182.11 (talk)"

Diffs from 109.132.95.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [68]
2. [69]

Diffs from 109.132.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

1. [74]
2. [75]

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

1. [76]
2. [77]

109.132.73.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [78]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [79]

Comments:

Editor is IP hopping, and has reverted multiple editors, and crossed 3RR on at least two IP's today. No response to talk page comments or user pages. Scr★pIron^IV 21:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Also has ignored many different warnings on his talk page Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and page semi-protected. Katie^talk 23:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Mortal Kombat X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694693812 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)Revert Vandalism."
2. 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694692972 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)This is the same one you keep providing, we already told you it is not acceptable. Revert Vandalism."
3. 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694692199 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)Reverted vandalism, no reliable source provided."
4. 22:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694691489 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)You were already told, blogs cannot be used."
5. 21:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694685647 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)No, that was clearly not the argument. You're clearly deliberately ignoring what ScrapIron told you."
6. 21:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694685097 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)ScrapIron provided a very valid argument. You're just deliberately ignoring it."
7. 21:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694684643 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)Reverted. We have explained to you why you cannot add it. Don't ignore it."
8. 21:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694683748 by 109.132.86.117 (talk)An argument has already been provided for you. Ignoring it won't help your cause. Reverted."
9. 21:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694681108 by 109.132.95.223 (talk)And continues to edit war, congrats. The answer is obvious."
10. 20:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694676669 by 109.132.73.96 (talk)And removed."
11. 20:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694676361 by 109.132.73.96 (talk)No source given. You need to add sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 22:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 22:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has removed his report twice. Eteethan(talk) 22:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Because you're not even trying to do your job properly. 85.210.182.11 (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Admins don't look kindly on the practice of removing reports. Please don't do it. GAB^Hello! 22:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - in my opinion, both editors involved should be blocked given the sheer amount of reverts, but I find (repeated) removal of reports against oneself particularly execrable. LjL (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Great idea, let the vandal off scot-free and instead punish the person who's trying to help against him. Is it too much to ask for someone who can actually do their job properly around here? 85.210.182.11 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and page semi-protected. Katie^talk 23:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Laff (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694698716 by Electricburst1996 (talk) unexplained reversion"
2. 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694698286 by
   WP:OSE, "policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability
   , which requires inline citations for any material challenged ""
3. 23:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694694553 by Electricburst1996 (talk) does not matter how many"
4. 22:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Programming */ unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Another violation of the 3-revert rule. User has exhibited a long-term pattern of edit warring on articles. User has already been blocked four times for edit warring, and it doesn't seem like he had learned from any of those blocks. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Katie^talk 00:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Deepak Chopra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lauren55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "I edited words that did not express truth or relevance. I edited negative criticism that belongs on a critics page. This is a page of facts and I am attempting to honour the integrity of Wikipedia."
2. 22:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "I removed a misleading peicee of information that did not give us any insight to the subject. The page is about a Dr and not a place to write slanderous rubbish. That should be left for a gossip magazine. The information lacked integrity and quite simp..."
3. 07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I improved the page by removing a negative critique about his work. There are no positive critiques and it is not a place to write a critique. I improved the page by removing the argument. This is a well respected Dr and I do not believe denigrating hi..."
4. 10:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) "I have stated previously. Thanks."
5. 10:36 10 December 2015 (UTC) "See before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [80]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Newbie SPA who needs educating enough to discuss, rather than edit war. She is inserting a non NPOV. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin, added {{Alert}} to Lauren55 --slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Yugoslav Partisans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:26, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "revert addition of unrelated and unclear statement about a different resistance movement."
2. 13:16, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "Weird sentence (are all resistance movements mundane, communist or non-autonomic by default?), and does not belong in the lede of an entirely different resistance movement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:17, 11 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Explained the need for consensus before removal of sourced text content Dan Koehl (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No, he didn't explain anything. He left a template on my talk page that does not apply (because I did leave an explanation), and does not contain a warning (or indeed mention) about edit warring or 3RR, and does not contain anything related to consensus.

Instead of discussing the merits, we now find ourselves here.-62.155.205.3 (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported:

• 82.19.126.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.128.123.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.161.48.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.180.20.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.195.18.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]
5. [86]
6. [87]
7. [88]
8. [89]
9. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

single purpose editor using multiple IPs, this has been going on a while, tendentious effort to downplay use of "far-right" descriptor in reference to Front National. Ignores all sources. Also misattributing and removing citations, while failing to provide

13:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. The talk page should be used to reach consensus on what terminology is best for this political party. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'm the IP user in question here. I haven't made any attempt to downplay the use of 'far-right' at all. I accept this should be in the article. The issue at hand is that the user 'Semitransgenic' continues to revert mine (and other people's edits long before me), that the exclusive use of 'far right' is contentious - using her own logic/methodology of citing sources, and using common sense. I have made repeated attempts to field for some feedback on this from the user but she hasn't given any. In addition, she has now blanked her Talk page which previously showed nothing but a history of petty edit wars and bans from Wikipedia. It's unfortunate you chose to lock it without looking at the user's Talk page or your editing history first, but I suppose you're quite busy. 86.161.48.241 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 190.215.31.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

So 3RR is not broken yet, but this kind of disruption is continuing by this same user on other articles: [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Comments:

Happy Christmas, guys! 174.23.100.137 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported:

• Semitransgenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104]

Comments:
Semitransgenic reverts any changes that make any mention of 'right wing' and prefers the term 'far-right' exclusively, which is dubious and part of an ongoing discussion, that has indeed been flagged with dubious-inline to field discussions. Note that the 'right to far-right' claim that Semitransgenic keeps reverting, has has been in place for some time.

Also, Semitransgenic has managed to obtain a month long semi-protected lock status on this article here, but the primary IP user that was reported to obtain this lock, is bogus:

• 82.19.126.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This above IP user has never been involved in editing this article. It's a different user altogether with a history of defacing articles, but not this one, so the semi-perm lock may be dubiously obtained. Might I point out that Semitransgenic themselves has a colourful history of edit wars and blocks on Wikipedia, and blanked their Talk page before filing a report here. Phatwa (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• before acting on this please note this report. Multiple scholarly/news sources were presented, nothing other than personal opinion was offered in response. Semitransgenic _talk. 16:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 1 week – If warring continues after protection expires, blocks may be necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Do not revert constructive edits with refs without an edit summary. Undid revision 694808961 by Doc9871 (talk)"
2. 18:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: do not revert well-referenced texts with blank edit summariesUndid revision 694808651 by Doc9871 (talk)"
3. 18:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Do not revert text with references with edit summaries that are empty or obviously false. Undid revision 694808318 by Doc9871 (talk)"
4. 18:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: No personal attacks Undid revision 694807733 by Doc9871 (talk)"
5. 18:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Take it to the talk page, Doc. This is cited. Our readers have a right to knowUndid revision 694806856 by Doc9871 (talk)"
6. 17:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Per consensus in talk page, I have added the reference to trump qua ethnic cleansing"
7. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694742290 by
      talk
      )"
   2. 06:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "This is sourced. You cannot revert me and say "citation needed" when you see very well I added the citation. Undid revision 694740976 by
      talk
      )"
8. Consecutive edits made from 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Fraudulent edit summary on the previous revert. I did add the citation. Undid revision 694741582 by
      talk
      )"
   2. 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694741836 by
      talk
      )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Out of control edit-warring by this user adding controversial BLP information. Dr. K. 18:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) He is also making legal threats. Dr. K. 18:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely over 3RR, but so is Doc9871, for that matter. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sock of a blocked user, so 3RR was not violated by me. Doc talk 18:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• You are distorting the situation. Doc8971 illegally reverted my edits without an edit summary. As for the earlier one on Checkingfax, that was only one reversion, but I had to revert 6 of his intermediate edits to restore my edit.i reverted Checkingfax because he supplied a wrong edit summary saying "citation needed." Not noticing the citation, I assume. I made a mistake in trying to revert the edit the first time, and you will see Checkingfax tells me to just re-submit it again, which I did. As for Doc89, If I am accused of edit warring, why not Doc? Firstly, All I did was revert his edit, which violated rules by not supplying an edit summary, and engaged in personal attack. He isn't allowed to just delete my good-faith referenced additions without supplying a reason, and so I was fully in my rights to revert his game-playing. Everything I added was sourced, and he just kept personally attacking and blanking my edits without explanation. Also, this was discussed on the talk page. And the information I was replacing was unsourced, so if you restore that version of the article, it is YOU who will be violating BLP. It is not a violation of BLP to report what news outlets have said about a political candidate. Please. NobleHumanBeing (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NLT, per this edit. Regardless of the ability of the person to do so, the person is clearly trying to use the threat of legal action (as unlikely as may be) to force others to do what he wants. Clearly a violation of

WP:NLT. --Jayron32

18:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]
5. [110] (the same edit mentioned below by Dan Eisenberg)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments:
(Yes, I know that the initial edit that added this material and the fourth reversion were done by unregistered or logged out editors but I'm completely confident in labeling them sockpuppets given the complete overlap in the edits of those accounts and the editor in question. ElKevbo (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC))

I'm also an editor involved in this and note that there is an additional diff since this has been posted: [113]. I also note that this Bianbum has wasted other editors time on similar edits from the same linked in source in the past. I hope you can help us out with this one.-Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help here. It appears that another sockpuppet of this user is user:79.33.94.69 who has continued to edit on the page in question. -Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've now semiprotected Turnitin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Don't Hug Me I'm Scared (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) ""
2. [114]
3. [115]
4. [116]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [117]

Comments:

Clearly same user as User_talk:88.24.197.227. User has reverted my edit four times, and after messaging the user there's no interest in talking the edit out or seeking a consensus about the edit. NottNott talk|contrib 17:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I did forget to send the user a warning however. NottNott talk|contrib 17:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Siege of Fort Erie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amerijuanican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119] - insertion of irrelevant non-sequitur into lead
2. [120] - some trite additions to the info. box (totting up casualties to arrive at a total) but also
   WP:SNEAKY
   insertion of the same irrelevancies into the lead
3. [121] - copypasted sentences from body of article, with cites, into lead to claim sources for edit to support
   WP:EDITWAR in War of 1812
4. [122] - with claim that the editor's repeated edits have consensus, constituting a
   personal attack
   in reason for edit

Page: Capture of HMS Penguin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amerijuanican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124] - large amount of unsourced purple prose, all in the lead
2. [125] -
   original research
   and very unclear wording
3. [126] - revert, with addition of waffle
4. [127]
5. [128] - original research and waffle
6. [129] - ditto
7. [130] - meaningless waffle
8. [131] - more waffle
9. [132] - unsourced original research in lead again

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

Page: War of 1812 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amerijuanican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134] - added large number of claims to lead, mostly not discussed in the main body of the article
2. [135] - straightforward revert
3. [136] - unsourced claims, in lead again
4. [137] - innocuous, though some unnecessary verbiage
5. [138] - original research change to cited casualty figures (a sourced figure plus or minus an unsourced figure is unsourced)
6. [139] - unsourced claims in lead
7. [140] - reinserted same unsourced material
8. [141] - straightforward revert
9. [142] - pretty straightforward revert
10. [143] - copypasted sentences from lead of article on Siege of Fort Erie (which User:Amerijuanican added) in attempt to claim sourcing

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

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

Comments:

, discussion or warnings are pointless.

HLGallon (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katie^talk 02:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Larnaca International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.109.250.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I used the user's talk page but he deleted the section I had created after replying. Here it is, a couple days ago: [150]

Comments:
The user has deleted the Citation Needed tags I had added, along with other valid changes I had made, in the past too. A quick look on the article's edit history will provide a good insight on what has been going on.

) 04:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: He just deleted the subst:an3-notice I had added: [151]

talk

) 05:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyers31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]
5. [157]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elon_Musk#Canadian_citizen

Comments:

In his four-month career here, user has already been indeffed once for nationality edit-warring. He was unblocked after five weeks on the condition that he not nationality war on film articles. This new edit-warring seems to be a continuation of his nationality warring, transferred from film articles to BLPs. He has had every policy explained to him several times. Softlavender (talk) 07:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, since this is merely a re-acceleration of his U.S. nationality-warring, I'm taking the liberty of pinging the original blocker and unblocker, EdJohnston and MSGJ. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The last AN3 (which led to the indef) was at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive291#User:Beyers31 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Indef). There was also a lengthy discussion at User talk:Beyers31 which admins might look at, regarding the unblock. I would favor restoring the indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely. Bishonen | talk 15:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Bohol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unbuttered Parsnip (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. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3

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

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

Comments:
I had done revisions to improve some elements in the Bohol page, having edit summaries in each edit. However, User:Unbuttered Parsnip reverted my edits three times with different reasons (as seen in the page History) that leaves me puzzled. My understanding is that if a page could be improved, why should it not? It appears the experienced and veteran user is "playing with the rules" to prevent my revision from being saved on the page. Sanglahi86 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protected. No 3rr violation; work it out on the talk page. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: maybe full protection for 4 days is slightly overkill for a dispute between just two editors. FWIW, I think Unbuttered Parsnip could have been slightly more amicable and justified their reverts, just like the filing editor had tried to justify their obviously good-faith edits with summaries. LjL (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but as both users are autoconfirmed and I'm not inclined to block either user the option left in my toolkit to prevent further edit warring was to fully protect the article. It doesn't necessarily have to be protected the full four days, so long as they come to a consensus on the talk page (or at least an agreement to not make any further reverts until they come to a consensus) I'd be more than happy to unprotect early. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
    • I was thinking that warning both users that they should take it to the talk page without making any further reverts (lest they actually be blocked) would have achieved the same goal without somewhat blocking the page for other editors. But I suppose it's not a very high-traffic page. LjL (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694998580 by Stefanomione (talk) no, ISIL did not instigate the attack"
2. 23:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694982252 by Stefanomione (talk) who says?"
3. 08:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694885827 by Bodhi Peace (talk) widely sourced"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) to 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 00:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 694803295 by Aarp65 (talk) no consensus to add, see talk page"
   2. 00:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Syed Rizwan Farook */ this is an article about a shooting, not an extended family biography"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [159]
• [160]

Comments:

• User has received multiple warnings about the 1RR in effect, and deliberately refuses to follow it. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Response:

I am a very experienced editor in good standing with over 80,000 edits spanning nine years. My edits to

) 09:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Warned Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung กุดผึ้ง: Re your message at User talk:WWGB#Edit warring (diff), the 5 December 2015 revision of that page shows a very clear notification, and the edit warring report at 6 December 2015 provides the associated case. It is not reasonable to leave WWGB with the impression that being ultra polite is the only requirement when editing a highly contentious article subject to 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Another thing that I don't consider reasonable is applying

WP:1RR sanctions to edits that are neither necessarily related to one another nor to the contentious subject of the sanctions (ISIL). This may follow the letter of these "broadly construed" sanctions but I can't see how it matches the spirit that they should embody. One thing is edit warring over one specific ISIL-related aspect of an article, another is making multiple separate edits related to various details, but to the 1RR reporters, that's not a difference that seems to matter. But what chance do I have for this point of view to prevail, when the latest commentator in my motion about the sanctions even suggests that the one allowed revert is a "freebie", implying that virtually any edit that removes any content would need to be discussed on the talk page before being enacted? LjL (talk

) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WWGB has long been editing to prevent any mention of Muslim, Islamic Terrorism, and ISIL in the article. WWGB refuses to acknowledge that 1RR applies, even though a benefit of 1RR is it controls these POV pushing editors. Given the previous edit warring over the insertion of the 1RR template a warning now based on an assumed lack of knowledge is obviously flawed and I've raised it with the involved Admin. [165]. I'm happy to acknowledge the Admin was missing key info, but if no block is executed I intend to raise the Admin's judgement at an appropriate forum. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that User:Legacypac, an ally of User:Viriditas, works with him to complain about other editors [166]. Legacypac is fast and loose with the truth in claiming that I have "long been editing to prevent any mention of Muslim, Islamic Terrorism, and ISIL in the article". My edits show the opposite to be true ([167] and [168]). I varied one category from "ISIL terrorist incident" to "ISL-inspired terrorist incident" ([169]). The accusation that I am a "POV pushing editor" is ridiculous. WWGB (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please avoid making baseless accusations against other editors sans evidence. Your allegation is countered by evidence showing the opposite of what you claim.[170] Furthermore, you were asked to stop disrupting the 2015 San Bernardino shooting topic area, where you have engaged in move warring, edit warring, and talk page warring, as well as uncivil behavior against editors who warned you (you yourself told me to "fuck off" twice, hardly collegial behavior). The evidence strongly shows this. Lastly, you made numerous comments prior to this report, indicating you were aware of the 1RR sanction in effect, and you actively tried to fight it. This is documented in the above evidence section and singular diffs are available and have been provided in related discussions.[171] The evidence in this report shows you were aware of the 1RR sanction and actively disregarded it in favor of edit warring. There is simply no ambiguity or doubt on this question given the evidence. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement made with Diff 88 is untrue. We actually filed seperate 3RR reports at the same time about the same editor on the same article (we were both filling them out unaware of the other filling out a report). Naturally we rolled them together once we figured out how. Legacypac (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• This request was closed by Kudpung yesterday with a result of Warned. Legacypac reverted the close asserting that Kudpung overlooked relevant information. Without meaning to be too much of a stickler for formal procedures, for a user to unilaterally revert an admin's resolution of a report on this board seems out of process. In any event, another 24 hours have gone by and no one is asserting any further problems, so the report is also now stale. Therefore, I am re-closing as Warned. I counsel WWGB to take the warning as well as User:Johnuniq's comments above into account in his future editing. Pinging User:Viriditas as well for his information. This thread is closed, but if there are any further alleged violations, a new report may be opened with a cross-reference to here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It was not closed by User:Kudpung who clearly did NOT read the report with diffs. It was closed by User:EdJohnston who assumed Kudpung dealt with the report. Kudpung was alerted but has said nothing here. I suspect the next report will be filled against Kudpung. He seems more interested in attacming the report filer then even reading the report and diffs for his response was astonishingly incorrect. Legacypac (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

At this point, one of two things will happen. Either WWGB will not commit another violation, in which case the warning will have served its purpose, or he will commit another violation, in which case it will be dealt with. It makes more sense to me at this point to focus on constructive editing going forward rather than whether a 3RR report was closed to your satisfaction yesterday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad's opinion. If someone is truly engaged in long-term edit warring then it's likely that a new report about the same editor will be filed soon, containing additional reverts. That will provide an opportunity for an admin to review all of the evidence, including whatever was provided here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Mujeer Du'a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Saff V. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695027404 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
2. 07:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695025660 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 07:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 07:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Blindly adds information that is from highly unreliable sources/ is not even in the sources mentioned. Removed tags from the article as well. Seems to lack competency in English as well so adds complete gibberish to the article as well. Displays incompetency as he is unable to understand what exactly a "self published" book is. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I undid deleted text that deleted without any reason and I undid it and put a new section in the talk page. But FreeatlastChitchat undid when the discussion was open in the talk page. Also, I undid the text 2 times and I think that FreeatlastChitchat like edit war because he or she delete the text without reasons.Saff V. (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

He/she has done three reverts. You have done two. Neither of you have broken the three-revert rule.

Please could you widen the discussion at Talk:Mujeer Du'a#Mass deletion so that other people can understand your points of disagreement. It would help a lot if you made a list of the sources, and then explain one-source-at-a-time what your objection to that source is. If you are saying that the publisher makes the source unreliable, then please share with us your reasoning; for example if the publisher offers to publish books in return for money from the author, say so, and give links to a page where the publisher is offering these services.

@

battleground mode

and simply cannot understand that what he/she has written is difficult to understand.

@FreeatlastChitchat: By the way, have you checked that the sources contain the information that they are provided as citations for? Past experience with Saff V. shows that to be necessary.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk
   / 01:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: As'ad AbuKhalil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695129006&oldid=695128960

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695129006&oldid=695128960
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695128837&oldid=695128823

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=As%27ad_AbuKhalil&type=revision&diff=695127676&oldid=695127613

1. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
User Huldra claims I "misquote" author, but it is copied directly from his own page. Then gets in to an editing war. Totally inappropriateTerrible towel7 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

According to

WP:ARBPIA3 new accounts aren't allowed to edit such articles and can be reverted without limits: "IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters." The new account is almost certainly a sockpuppet of a banned user. Terrible, incompetent block of Huldra. Such a surprise!Dan Murphy (talk

) 00:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• @
  there is a specific 3RR exception about this. You have tainted a 10-year clean block log for reverting a clearly single-purpose account that was doing this sort of thing... LjL (talk
  ) 00:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Huldra has been unblocked by Ks0stm. See discussion on Huldra's talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Note updated header to Nominating editor blocked; block on huldra clearly done in error. --slakr^\ talk / 01:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Kelli Ward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 100.14.57.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [172]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments: User has been constantly monitoring the article for any changes whatsoever, while I agreed with them on some points, and agreed to leave some content in the article that I originally thought should not be there, they seem to be hellbent on giving undue weight to controversies that simply portray the article subject negatively. Recently, I have attempted to simply remove the unnecessary breaking up into sections of various controversies, all of which consist of little more than two or three sentences, and therefore do not need to be broken up into sections. Doing so I believe gives undue weight to controversy, rather than having a neutral point of view. The user seems to have a lot of

) 08:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You never even try to discuss. Anytime I give a detailed edit summary and open up the discussion on the article's talk page, you simply revert me without even trying to discuss. Also, please note the 3RR rule means I reverted you four times in 24 hours which I have not. I only change when you don't respond to my request to comment. Why not try just discussing with me so we can reach a compromise? 100.14.57.197 (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected and {{
  dispute resolution --slakr^\ talk
   / 01:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ilocano language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikitrueplus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/Mavsfernandez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Ilocano language

1. As Mavsfernandez
2. As Wikitrueplus
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5
6. Revert 6
7. Revert 7

Pangasinan language

1. As Mavsfernandez
2. Revert 2
3. As Wikitrueplus
4. Revert 4, reverting this
5. Revert 5, reverting this

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

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

Comments:
Wikitrueplus appears to have abandoned their old account, Mavsfernandez. Listing them both here since they've both engage in edit warring. Not yet really edit warring, but this user has been engaging some of the same activity on Pangasinan language. This user has been POV pushing to promote the Pangasinan language/people. This can be seen in the diffs supplied for the article Ilocano language in which they keep re-adding "which is unfair" to the article. He/she has been using false edit summaries in a number of articles with Ilocano language being the most to stand out. He/she claims to be reverting vandalism (see diffs above) but the edits are not vandalism.

When warned by another user, he/she changed the message. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Unarchiving since this wasn't addressed. Edit warring by this user continues. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 16:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bishonen | talk 16:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the speedy response. Elockid^{Happy holidays!} 16:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your edit summary here popped up on my watchlist, Elockid, so I wanted to be prompt. It's just discouraging when good reports fall between the cracks. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC).

Page: Century break (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Motoe123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [185]

Comments:
While Motoe123 hasn't technically violated 3RR his edits are extremely disruptive, bordering on vandalism since he is corrupting a huge amount of sourced data. He is persisting in changing all the data in the chart to match that published at a fan blog at [186] in directe contravention of

) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment No action has been taken on this case so may I ask how I am supposed to proceed? The data has been altered so that it no longer matches the reports from the World Snooker Association and publishers such as the BBC, but rather a fansite, which explicitly cannot be used as a source per policy. I cannot revert it without violating the three-revert rule. Will an admin please clarify what I am supposed to do in such a situation? If there is no support for the integrity of the sources then there isn't really much point adding the information in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. The next time User:Motoe123 modifies a snooker-related article whose talk page he has never used, he is risking a block. Adding badly-sourced material to articles is not acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Page

Hello (Adele song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
2. 12:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
3. 12:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
4. 12:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Chucky1978miller (talk) to last version by IndianBio"
5. 12:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
6. 13:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Chucky1978miller (talk) to last version by Onel5969"
7. 13:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
8. 13:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Chucky1978miller (talk) to last version by IndianBio"
9. 13:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Certifications and sales */ Revert, can't you see the source that its 4x platinum! RIAA does not care for actual sales, its digital salreference aming equivalent sales"
10. 13:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
    TW
    )"
11. 13:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
    TW
    )"
12. 13:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Chucky1978miller (talk) to last version by IndianBio"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:3RR Notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"

Comments:

• I blocked Chucky1978miller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a single purpose account, for 24 hours for disruptive editing on the same page. I'll leave it up to another administrator to decide whether any further action is needed here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • And the user continuously went against the source and disrupted. I oppose the Edit warring report completely and I maintain that such deliberate factual error addition cannot be accepted. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    • This was a content and reference dispute. You violated the
      good faith). You're both as bad as the other, and so I believe if one is being blocked, so should the other. -- samtar ^whisper
      17:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Actually it is. Continuously introducing deliberate factual errors even after being explained, is borderline vandalism. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

(

as you were not reverting obvious vandalism:

Reverting obvious vandalism - edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.

Nor did you explain your exemption

If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption.

-- samtar ^whisper 18:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

On hindsight though I can see how it would seem continuous EW without the other party offering any reasoning for error introduction. Well I see the error of my editing now and I do apologize, I should have asked/reported the user and stopped at that and let administrators take over the report. So again, much aplogies and I will see to it that in next such scenario I would explain the editor and then leave it if reaches 3RR. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand, there are better ways to deal with situations like this It's discouraging when great editors such as yourself get pulled into such silly edit wars -- samtar ^whisper 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Declined As IndianBio (talk · contribs) has pledged to follow best practices for dealing with disruptive editors in the future, I'm closing this with no further action taken. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Singleissuevoter reported by User:Ladislav Mecir (Result: Declined)

Page:

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)
User being reported: Singleissuevoter (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. [187] reverts [188]
2. [189] reverts [190]
3. [191] reverts [192]
4. [193] deleted this paragraph:

Whereas a conventional ledger records the transfers of actual bills or promissory notes that exist apart from it, the block chain is the only place that bitcoins can be said to exist in the form of unspent outputs of transactions.

, which is a revert of some previous edit(s), but, unfortunately, the history for these edits seems to be lost.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments:

WP:SPA. Ladislav Mecir (talk

) 09:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Declined The first line of Wikipedia:Edit warring says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." In this case they made 22 edits in a row but nobody has challenged them. I see that they made 1 edit then went to the talk page and while the name may suggest it, there is no way to tell that an account created today is an SPA. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Julbok reported by User:Amortias (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

Julbok (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 02:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) to 02:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 02:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "I made this edit before and can find no reason it was deleted. This 2 sentence paragraph adds a more scholarly source. The information in it is accurate scientifically and historically. Please do not delete it because it is accurate. Thank you."
   2. 02:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695050299 by Thomas.W (talk) edit not "promotion" but legitimate scholarly response. Edit ABOVE is promotion. RuneStone journal published by AFA,"
   3. 02:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Neopaganism */ accidentally unrevised twice momentarily. Did not realize first went through due to cut out of system. I am immediately deleting double caused. Apologies."
2. 12:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Neopaganism */ made scholarly comment in regard to alternative scientific view of Madrenact date to one in edit above citing astronomical reckoning article."
3. 12:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695525255 by Maunus (talk) This is highly relevant & scholarly far more so than the AFA contribution above whose writer has no relevant credentials at all.Stop Vandalizing please.Thank U"
4. 12:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695632407 by Thomas.W (talk) U have no valid reason for so doing,as U are well aware.U and UR sock puppet need to cease engaging in personal bias and vandalism.It has no place here."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned on talk page by Thomas.W but unabel to pull diff through Twinkle Amortias (T)(C) 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding repeated agenda- based deletion-vandalism of my two sentence, well cited and researched comment on Yule reckoning. I believe this to be either the work of the AFA, JIDF, or sockpuppets acting out of racial hated and a wish to promote a Jewish controlled Heathen group that hates Europeans. It is very clear that this assault on my minor scholarly edit, which has a reliable and relevant source cited, is not a good faith deletion by them, but part of an anti-European hate agenda. This sort of behavior,by Amortias, Maunus, and Thomas.W, who may even be the same person as in a sock puppet, has no place in a scholarly encyclopedia which is meant to represent opposing points of view. I believe this user (or users) to be targeting the two sentence scholarly edit I made because he (or they) are members of a rival Heathen group to the one whose work I cited. My citation was clearly of higher scholarly value than the AFA edit with a non existing citations above it, but that is a Jewish controlled organizations and they wish to vandalize the entry of anyone who even refers to any Heathen European organization which has opposing views from theirs or which is actually run by Europeans. Many others have experienced similar abuse from these obvious agitators. I refer to their behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Thank you and best regards, Julbok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julbok (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment
  Keri (talk
  ) 14:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: Indef by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries in 2008 and 2000

MavsFan28 is deleting people from the infobox(Alan Keyes in 2000 and paul in 2008). I undo the changes but he dont listen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_200083.86.208.191 (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Time to stop editing and start talking. You do not have consensus for your position yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

He deletes them before there was any discussion, we should add paul and Keyes again and discuss then83.86.208.191 (talk) 11:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Why do you need the article edited to your version to discuss it? MavsFan28 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

5% is the standard used throughout all election pages. MavsFan28 does not respect that standard and so causes inconsistencies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Iokseng reported by User:Tzhao1023 (Result: Declined)

Page: [[196]] 
User being reported: Iokseng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%92%99%E8%B5%9B%E7%BD%97%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6&diff=38378124&oldid=38370315 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%92%99%E8%B5%9B%E7%BD%97%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6&diff=38413434&oldid=38342035
2. [diff]https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E8%92%99%E8%B5%9B%E7%BD%97%E5%A4%A7%E5%AD%A6&oldid=38342035
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iokseng

Comments:
This user is misinformed regarding the university's page. I am a school official from the university and I even used the school's email to sign up for this wikipedia account. This user insists on changing the name of the page to what he thinks is correct. The name he proposed is a name that was made up by phonetics and is NOT the official name of the university.

• Declined We have no jurisdiction over zh.wikipedia.org here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Dimadick reported by User:66.87.114.164 (Result: Both blocked )

Page: Category:Malcolm X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimadick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Dimadick#Category:Malcolm X

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Category talk:Malcolm X#Categorization of this category and User talk:Dimadick#Category:Malcolm X

Comments:

I especially appreciate Dimadick's personal attacks and their inability to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines such as

WP:EPONCAT and WP:Vandalism. 66.87.114.164 (talk

) 12:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours It is clear both users are edit warring here. Because the OP is using a dynamic range, I had to enact a /23 range block.Jayron32 13:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Just an observer here @Jayron32: but I'm not sure it's so clear. I notice this same anon IP (or variation therein) has also been reverted by administrator Grutness, right here, and has also been warned by administrator Grutness, right here. I didn't check on personal attacks, but as far as reverting it seems Dimadick may just be following up on precedent set by the administration. My 2 cents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

  Regardless, both users had been edit warring, as neither appeared to want to back down. --Jayron32 02:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

  Hey, I'm certainly no pal of Dimadick, but if I noted that an administrator such as @Grutness: had reverted an IP and then warned that IP, I might likely do the same thing to help protect an article, looking at it as vandalism or mischief. I would be quite upset myself if I got blocked for it. Anyway, the Malcome X subject matter is not my specialty so I'll leave this to others. Thanks for listening to my pov. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, @
  WP:EPONCAT), showing that what he/she was doing was correct. Perhaps I should have removed my comments from the IP talk page, but I assumed the anon would do that him/herself. In this instance, it appears that Dimadick - in unnecessarily attempting to continue my erroneous edits - broke the 3RR rule, but the anon did not. I don't think the anon should be blocked for this. Dimadick should probably get a slap for breaking 3RR and presumably not reading the guideline in question when pointed to it by the anon, though i feel a bit bad about saying that since he/she was unwittingly fighting "my corner" - a corner I'd vacated. Grutness...wha?
  10:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jayron32:, @Fyunck(click)::The block is off for both editors, and things have heated up again almost immediately. I've temporarily edit-protected the category and added my 2¢ worth on the talk page, but - having been an initial editor in this mess - I may be too close to it to do more. FWIW, it looks to me like Dimadick is the more at fault of the two - he is ignoring a guideline on categories of this sort and has now twice broken 3RR. The anon is not totally blameless, though, having broken 3RR once. They've now resorted to name-calling, though the anon at least has had the good sense to suggest WP:DR. Grutness...wha? 10:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick has not edited the category since the block expired. I think protection is the best solution because the anon is IP hopping. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to wikilawyer, but I did not break 3RR at all (it takes four reverts to violate the rule and I never made more than three in any 24-hour period) and Dimadick broke it just once. 66.87.114.242 (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Uhhh. My apologies. I misread today's date! I've unprotected. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:77.105.63.244 reported by User:Eteethan (Result: semi-protected)

Page

Ivan Gundulić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695542946 by Crovata (talk) see be.wikipedia, es.wikipedia, it.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia and stop your hypocrisy. You edit war yourself"
2. 20:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695542060 by Crovata (talk) - as you already put it: stop editwarring and go to the talk page. And by the way, consensus is against you."
3. 20:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695541068 by Crovata (talk) May I say just one thing? The advice you gave applies to you."
4. 20:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695537501 by Crovata (talk) - actually talk page doesn't help your position at all. Many of the editors from the talk page would call your kind of editing as nationalistic POV pushing."
5. 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695536530 by Crovata (talk) stop editwarring and get rid of your nationalistic POV, you're getting boring. And about the talk page: yes, it goes for you as well"
6. 19:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695535079 by Crovata (talk) you accusing others' of editwarring cannot hide the fact that you editwarred yourself, this is what we call hypocrisy either on Wikipedia or outside of it"
7. 19:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695534097 by Crovata (talk) those wikipedias recognize his language as Serbo-Croatian or they recognize him as a Serb also besides a Croat"
8. 19:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "you broke 3RR with [edit] also it seems that it.wikipedia also refutes your POV, as does be.wikipedia"
9. 19:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695530654 by Crovata (talk) - problem in en.wikipedia found and solving, going on to solving es.wikipedia"
10. 19:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695528511 by Crovata (talk) - your "whole world" seems to exclude over half a billion Hispanophone and Russphone people (es.wikipedia and ru.wikipedia)"
11. Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC) to 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    1. 18:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695525355 by Crovata (talk) "the whole world"
    2. 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) ""the whole world" minus es.wikipedia"
    3. 18:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695527238 by 77.105.63.244 (talk) - minus ru.wikipedia also"
12. 12:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "this is Croatian revisionism as Serbian Sikipedia refutes your pov"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note Although this report is right after a warning this user shows a clear understanding of 3RR in edit summaries. Eteethan(talk)🎄 21:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• The case of Ivan Gundulić, like of
  Shtokavian dialect, which is the basis form of Serbo-Croatian ie. both modern Croatian and Serbian languages. Controversally, he was included by SANU among The 100 most prominent Serbs (1993), without any evidence for such a claim. Looking at argument see serbian wikipedia, there you will find controversal statement like "Descendants of Gundulić are expelled from Dubrovnik as Serb Catholics in the early 20th century", without any source, because it's simple fabrication and revisionism of history. While other IP's moved the "Croatian Baroque poet" to "Serbo-Croatian Baroque poet" in linguistical sense, I traced it back not to Croatia, but Croats article, as he's considered nationally a Croatian poet. The es.wikipedia had wikidata problem (by ethnicity considered a Serb), ru.wikipedia has a intermediate stand between general and Serbian, be.wikipedia since 2013 labels him as Croatian poet (only in category are also included two Serbian categories), while it.wikipedia notes him as one of the most known Croatian poets. As we see, the arguments have flaws, and were already discussed in 2014 by several editors, with loose consensus. Due to excessive reverts both editors could be blocked, but opposite reasons could be helpful to restart the discussion in the talk page and reach a more clear consensus on specific content. --Crovata (talk
  ) 22:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected, as it appears this is a recurrent
  WP:DE-type problem on the page. --slakr^\ talk
   / 05:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• I've blocked both editors as well. I don't want this to seem as though I am overruling your decision, but I decided that your taking action in one regard does not prevent me taking additional actions. I feel that not blocking would be remiss in this case. Crovata in particular has a long history of edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

  @

  WP:ACDS area (Balkans); I updated the talk page, and I thought I left an {{Alert}}, but I guess I got distracted. I thought about blocking both, too, but this looks like a sock-y/meat-y kind of thing. But yeah, it does look like he's got a history of edit warring, so if this continues, a sanction might be needed. --slakr^\ talk

   / 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:24.211.113.154 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

List of Care Bear characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

24.211.113.154 (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 17:29, 18 december 2015 (UTC) to 17:31, 18 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:29, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Friend Bear */"
   2. 17:31, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Birthday Bear */"
   3. 17:31, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Good Luck Bear */"
2. 17:28, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Funshine Bear */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:22, 18 december 2015 (UTC) to 17:27, 18 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:22, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Secret Bear */"
   2. 17:24, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Secret Bear */"
   3. 17:25, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Daydream Bear */"
   4. 17:26, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Champ Bear */"
   5. 17:27, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Good Luck Bear */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:58, 17 december 2015 (UTC) to 20:35, 17 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:58, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Best Friend Bear */"
   2. 16:59, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Do Your Best Bear */"
   3. 17:00, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Always There Bear */"
   4. 17:04, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Amigo Bear */"
   5. 17:09, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Bashful Heart Bear */"
   6. 17:09, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Bashful Heart Bear */"
   7. 17:10, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Do Your Best Bear */"
   8. 17:12, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Smart Heart Bear */"
   9. 17:13, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Thanks-a-Lot Bear */"
   10. 17:16, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Hopeful Heart Bear */"
   11. 20:35, 17 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Good Luck Bear */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:29, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Bad AIV report on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:29, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 695796105 by Dan Koehl (talk)"
3. 17:30, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Let me know if he continues on another IP and I'll protect the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. Dan Koehl (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:86.52.135.95 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Semi)

Page

Copenhagen Business School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

86.52.135.95 (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 20:40, 18 december 2015 (UTC) to 20:41, 18 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:40, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Rankings */ correction"
   2. 20:40, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Rankings */ correction"
   3. 20:41, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Exchange programmes */ correction"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:37, 18 december 2015 (UTC) to 20:37, 18 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:37, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Rankings */ the links they provide doesn't work."
   2. 20:37, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Exchange programmes */ the link is invalid"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:01, 18 december 2015 (UTC) to 20:02, 18 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:01, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Rankings */ rankings are incorrect i work at the school"
   2. 20:02, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Exchange programmes */ these partner ships are incorrect i work at the school"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 18 december 2015 (UTC) to 19:59, 18 december 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:58, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Rankings */ correted mistakes"
   2. 19:59, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "/* Exchange programmes */ corrected mistake"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:00, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"
2. 20:23, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
3. 20:39, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment I've warned this used twice. And reverted twice thrice. This is a moving target, as vandal continues to vandalize as we speak. I have requested semi protection for the page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Lucifer666art reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: User:Lucifer666art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucifer666art (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [202]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [203]
2. [204]
3. [205]
4. [206]

Also on Lucifer:

1. [207]
2. [208]
3. [209]
4. [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

Comments:
An editor whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been to spam their personal website has been removing the {{db-notwebhost}} template from their user page, despite the template saying quite clearly "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." They have read the template, as they originally contested the deletion instead of simply trying to remove the notice, so they are aware that they are not the one that is to remove it. They have also been edit-warring on Lucifer with the intention of spamming their website. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user as a spam/advertising-only account. SuperMarioMan ( Talk ) 21:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:64.105.98.115 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Decline)

Page

User talk:64.105.98.115 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:19, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "no"
2. 22:14, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "go away"
3. 22:06, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "nonsense"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:05, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"
2. 22:12, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 64.105.98.115 (talk) to last version by Dan Koehl"
3. 22:12, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
4. 22:15, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 64.105.98.115 (talk) to last version by Dan Koehl"
5. 22:16, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:05, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"
2. 22:12, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 64.105.98.115 (talk) to last version by Dan Koehl"
3. 22:12, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
4. 22:15, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 64.105.98.115 (talk) to last version by Dan Koehl"
5. 22:16, 18 december 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Comments:

First vandalized Reuben sandwich, and then removing warnings from user talk page. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do block the reporter for edit warring on my talk page. It is true that I removed material from Reuben sandwich, the rest of this exists only in User:Dan Koehl's head. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Per our user page guidelines unregistered users are allowed to remove messages from their own user talk page. Also, the IP's removals of content from Reuben sandwich seem helpful. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

User:92slim reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: both blocked)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

92slim (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 09:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) to 09:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 09:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "I agreed on keeping the authors, not inserting misleading content. See TP."
   2. 09:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "sunni view"
2. 08:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Freeat, it's your 10th revert. So please, stop being utterly disruptive."
3. 08:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "rv unsourced claims"
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) to 08:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Sunnis practice Nikah Misyar, and "most Sunni scholars" is false. Also, using an Israeli anti-terrorist as a source for Islamic law isn't good."
   2. 07:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "reality"
   3. 08:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "fixing pov as per usual"
5. 07:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "rv political vandalism - see tp"
6. 07:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "rv unsourced claims"
7. Consecutive edits made from 07:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC) to 07:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Mut'ah as a form of prostitution */ fixed"
   2. 07:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Mut'ah as a form of prostitution */ fixed #2"
   3. 07:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Mut'ah as a form of prostitution */ fixed #3"
   4. 07:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Mut'ah as a form of prostitution */"
   5. 07:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Nikah Mut'ah as a form of prostitution */"
   6. 07:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "add properly sourced info, fix lede per timeline"
   7. 07:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "rm false info"
8. 06:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "because it's already in the prostitution section so the lede looks horrible now"
9. Consecutive edits made from 06:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) to 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "dont quote one author as if it is a fact"
   2. 06:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "unsourced tag"
   3. 06:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "not necessary in the lede"
10. 06:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "it is still unsourced from the article"
11. 06:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "unsourced OR claim"
12. 05:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "unsourced"
13. 05:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "See talk page"
14. 03:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "rm info unrelated to actual Islamic law, fix pov"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 08:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
3. 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
2. 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
3. 05:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
4. 05:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
5. 06:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
6. 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
7. 06:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* "Prostitution" section */"
8. 06:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Third Opinion */"
9. 07:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Third Opinion */"
10. 07:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Third Opinion */"
11. 08:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Third Opinion */"
12. 08:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Third Opinion */"
13. 08:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
    TW
    )"
14. 08:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "/* Third Opinion */"

Comments:

The editor in question has taken up a crusade for deleting any mention of prostitution in the article. He repeatedly deletes reliably sourced information to replace it with unsourced

WP:OR. He also deletes comments from the TP when he wants to. He finally agreed to keep the text when a request for a third opinion produced two uninvolved editors who agreed that the editor in question was wrong but has since reneged on his agreement and has reverted for the upteenth time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk

) 09:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't think so. You keep pushing POV. "Most Sunni scholars" is not backed by sources. I ONLY agreed in the TP (per consensus,

thats what the discussion was about) to keep the two books from Andreeva and Parshall, not to keep your unconstructive edits. Anyway, you don't seem to understand you have been reverting as much,; I can add your diffs if you like. Because AFAIK you are the one adding OR. I didn't add any OR whatsoever; please show an example. PD: The removal of comments from TP was A MISTAKE, sorry; so much for being unhelpful. --92slim (talk

) 09:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Examples of clear adding of
  WP:OR by Freeat: [213] "most sunni" in source is "sunni". [214]
  "the iranian middle class" not present anywhere else.
• Examples of clear removal of established sources by Freeat: [215] Freeat removed this: "At the end of the contract, the marriage ends and the wife must undergo
  pregnant
  during the contract.", which was properly sourced by the Oxford Islam Dictionary and the Islam Dictionary.
• Examples of disruptive behaviour: [216] (no comment) [217] (claims lede can be unsourced, then sources it later).
• Examples of canvassing: [218] coupled with threats.

As for the claim of me deleting the word "prostitution", that's just laughable. I clearly didn't; just made the section under the header "Criticism" as per the Nikah Misyar article. About the claim that I was "removing reliably sourced information", like let's say supposedly here, it's not actually reliably sourced information. I said before, "Most Sunni Muslims" doesn't appear anywhere whatsoever, it's Freeat's own OR. Also, the practice of

WP:OR

; I think Freeat might have political motivations here. I made it clear that both Sunnis and Shia practice similar types of temporary marriage.

• I could go on. --92slim (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Everyone one the talk page agrees with my version(Can I even call it "my version"? It should be "The version of consensus") of the text. Only slim disagrees and then edit wars to keep it in place. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Lastly, contrary to what Freeat says, it is very clear that consensus wasn't reached for this edit (Most Sunni scholars along with some Shia scholars and some Western scholars consider it to be a form of religiously sanctioned prostitution) but just reached for keeping two sentences by Parshall and Andreeva, so Freeat has been effectively disrupting the consensus process (with the canvassing and the random adding of false information not in the sources, as I explained before). Btw, I am not the one who started edit warring, so spare the rest. --92slim (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note: I don't think I made the 3RR violation: we can clearly see that it's the first edit here and the first revert here, second revert here, third revert [219]. Not that it matters, but I clearly didn't revert Freeat's clear OR first there either, so that claim is false. I made a revert after that once, but that's after Freeat's clear violation of 3RR was done. --92slim (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Freeat continuing the edit war with further unconstructive edits motivated by Freeat's POV. See

Nikah Misyar; sources are there. --92slim (talk

) 10:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 06:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User talk:67.0.63.191 and also User:Lawismarkellot (appears to be the same user) reported by User:QuintusPetillius (Result: 31h)

Page: Clan Eliott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.0.63.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lawismarkellot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [221]
2. [222]
3. [223]
4. [224]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Comments:Ok, so another user and I appear to have consensus on the article's talk page of how the article should be. However, the user I am reporting who edits under both the User:Lawismarkellot and the User talk:67.0.63.191 (both making exactly the same edits for the last week or so), refuses to take the matter to the talk page and ignores my requests to do so. The issues I have are that the user is adding masses to the article which which is drawing conclusions from primary sources, and combining secondary sources to prove an otherwise unpublished point of view which is original research and not permitted on Wikipedia as per: Wikipedia:No original research. I also don't agree with the content being put into the article but the said user refuses to acknowledge any request for discussion - which I have started on the talk page. Another editor: User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh agrees exactly with me on how the article should be and has reverted the same edits by User:Lawismarkellot and the User talk:67.0.63.191. So it would appear that me and User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh have consensus as per Wikipedia:Consensus. This edit war has gone on for far to long and I have only reverted to the original version of the article to before User:Lawismarkellot and the User talk:67.0.63.191 who are almost certainly the same person came along. Any help much appreciated.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — It's fairly obvious based on behavioural evidence that they're the same person. --slakr^\ talk / 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Andreonethousand reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Boy (2015 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreonethousand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [226] (May)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [227] (June)
2. [228] (August)
3. [229] (November)
4. [230] (November)
5. [231] (November)
6. [232] (November)
7. [233] (November)
8. [234] (November)
9. [235] (December)
10. [236] (December)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238]

Comments:
SPA account keeps adding promotional soundbites to the reception section and re-organizing it so the most positive reviews come first. I have no investment in the article and came to it following an informal RFC request at the Film project. I agree with the sentiments expressed on the talk page that the more "measured" reviews should come first since the reviews were mixed overall; placing all the positive ones at the front of the section creates a more favorable impression of the film than perhaps the critics had. There has been no 3RR violation by the SPA but it is clear from the talk page discussion he does not have a consensus to restructure the section. I don't feel this is somebody who is committed to making neutral and positive contributions to Wikipedia; another editor suggests that Andreonethousand has some real-world connection to the production and I am inclined to agree. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Betty, this is incorrect. The person who created this page intentionally put all negative reviews up top. I have placed two mixed reviews up top in hopes of finding a middle ground. You'll notice that the first two quotes have both a positive and negative aspects. My hope is that we can just leave this as is and continue to not engage in editing wars. I do not have a real-world connection to this film. I just want to see it accurately represented. Thank you. - Andreonethousand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreonethousand (talk • contribs) 20:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – Long-term warring to put the film in a positive light. User was given a chance to avoid a block (via his talk page) but did not accept the offer. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Mikeymikemikey reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Protected)

Page

Roy L. Dennis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) to 03:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
   1. 03:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision: There has been no vandalism nor the print of controversial content. The rewrite was attempt to improve citations and clear up factual errors, however user Winkelvi is being rather obtuse and will not allow editing of this article."
   2. 03:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 18:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "My edits are discussed in the talk page. As the current version is quite bad and I have gone ahead the changed it, I'm not trying to vandalise it."
3. 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Added some more, all content I have given is cited."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) "resp"

Comments:

New editor has been asked to discuss at article talk page and wait for discussion to commence before doing anything further with the revisions he made and reverted back in twice. Poor grammar, some questionable sources, and spelling errors as well as the large scale of the changes were the reasoning behind wanting talk page discussion first. He ignored the warnings and went ahead and reverted again twice. Hoping for someone to revert back to last stable version and protect the page until content dispute is resolved. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what to say, this has been a episode of childish bureaucracy from someone with a clear superiority complex. I, the 'new editor', saw that the page was being left unchanged for years because of the lack of initiative. Two main sources I used were from newspapers, a digital conversion for an archive, one of which was already being used but was cited improperly. Two others were minor edits and I will accept their retraction without contest if so objected, however only one of these maybe considered 'questionable', the other is again from a newspaper interview with the director in 1985 about the film, Mask. And the findagrave.com citation was not mine but was used previously, I merely gave this citation to a sentence that a previous editor had clearly used as a reference, as it was just, basically, verbatim.

What's more is the "edit warring" came out by accident. Winkelvi reverted this whilst I thought about adding more, which I did, and appeared to them as an undo of their revert, so they in turn reverted it again. I read their comments and I acknowledged their request for a talk page post but I also changed the page again, reason being because of the lack of activity on the talk page and prolonged errors, (which had been noted on the talk page but nothing was done for years). This I did try to explain, though maybe I needed to go into further detail, as they appeared to be unconvinced, and again they reverted the changes. They also decided to post warnings to ban me on my page. I was shocked and felt very alienated. It was not like this was a controversial article. So I left the talk page post for a few hours after messaging request from the user to engage with the article if they objected. They did not, so I changed it once more, but then Winkelvi went full out wikipedia war on me.--Mikeymikemikey (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 3 days – Both parties have been edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Nyuszika7H

(Result: Semi)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:85.229.164.17&diff=693429878&oldid=691677156

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violetta_%28telenovela%29&oldid=693885886#Serious_problems_with_the_nicknames_in_the_cast_section

Comments:

Continuing to add unnecessary nicknames despite numerous warnings.

talk

) 10:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected 3 months. This particular IP has edited the article 20 times but has never used the talk page. The IP has been warned by ClueBot. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

User:EricEnfermero

(Result: Already blocked)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

First time wikipedia editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696019744 by
   talk
   )"
2. 09:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696019476 by
   talk
   )"
3. 09:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696019436 by Viennese Waltz (talk)"
4. 09:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696019351 by Viennese Waltz (talk)"
5. 09:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696019206 by Viennese Waltz (talk)"
6. 09:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696019057 by Viennese Waltz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Was just blocked. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Already blocked. Favonian (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Zezen reported by User:66.87.114.184 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [250]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [251]
2. [252]
3. [253]
4. [254]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Racial segregation#Racial segregation in Liberia until 20th century

Comments:
There was no recent discussion on the article's Talk page, and there is no consensus for the changes Zezen is making. 66.87.114.184 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• The user has explicitly failed to gain consensus for this proposal after being slowly and tediously walked through the process. Zezen's new addition makes claims that are provably not present in the sources (based on what, from the user's other contributions, I would assume is some kind of "nonwhite people segregate just as much as white people!!!1!one!!" agenda). Additionally, the addition still contains copyvio from the one single borderline reliable source that actually makes relevant claims. The other reliable sources cited do not make these claims - Zezen's response earlier was "well, the books talk about segregation enforced by white people in Kenya and the US, and they also mention Liberia unrelatedly and separately, so why should it be a problem that they don't say what I'm claiming they say?" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Rebuttal:

This admittedly contentious article has been repeatedly vandalized by IP-hopping

WP:Personal

of IPs who reverted it back then.

For over a month I and other editors had sought consensus for e.g. its

WP:ANI a month ago, I had asked WP:Teahouse for advice which admin tool to use

.

Please thus review our edits there and on the Talk Page and see that we operate according to

WP:5P trying to protect the article against assumed vandalism. If so, a semi-protection or another active measures tool is needed again.Zezen (talk

) 15:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I recommend that you read WP:Vandalism and learn how to discern what is and what is not vandalism. My edits may annoy you, but they are not vandalism.

I also recommend that you read

WP:ONUS. You have to build consensus for including the material, and there is no such consensus. 66.87.115.167 (talk

) 15:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion about the article's content is moving to this admin forum instead of being played out on the Talk page. Let me concentrate on high-level admin issues instead.

My consensus-building proposal(s) have not been replied to for up to 20 days. For other admins' sake and risking self-quote accusation, this is what I wrote myself there about

WP:VER etc., on the talk page itself

:

Let me remind the 'named serial reverters of this section about this quote from

WP:VER

:

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

To wit, the content is verifiable (or else its sources can be challenged here), I have sought consensus hereinabove, and the Wikipedians disagreeing with me should argue for its omitting here. As you can see it has not been even disputed as nobody gave Wikipedia-worthy arguments without resorting to

WP:Personal

for 20 days.

Again, there has been no reply, only reverts, mostly by hopping IPs.

So if one does not engage in seeking consensus at all, by not engaging, only aiming at tripping the RRRs rule, it is

WP:5P

. By now it is fourth attempt on misusing Wikipedia TLAs (WP:OR, WP:Copyvio, WP:VER, WP:Onus) to obstruct any changes, despite other editors' opinions visible e.g. on History page.

Because all the parties are subjective here, myself included, I leave it to the impartial admins to look at the Talk Page, related ANIs, etc. to decide what has been really happening here. Zezen (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Zezen (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Following extended discussion at
  formal mediation to work out differences. Also, User:Zezen may need to be cautioned that Wikipedia policy does require engaging with unregistered editors, even if a registered editor doesn't like unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk
  ) 20:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, the article's talk page became active, thanks to constructive named account Wikipedians, and we are reaching consensus by some forensics to deflect copyvio challenges. A modest request to an admin who may wish to block me here: please check the article's history first and the WP policies TLA dynamics there, as I posited above. Zezen (talk) 05:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

More dissembling from an

IPs are people too. Thank you. 66.87.115.75 (talk

) 06:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Please note that apart from bringing up vexatious incident reports like this one, having boycotted the articles' talk page, this perennial Nextel aircard IP hopper who tries to offend other named users by
  WP:Personal: "Are you drunk, or just stupid?", "bullshit from Zezen"
  to discourage long-term Wikipedians from contributing at all and sully up their Talk pages.

A range block will not help, alas. Zezen (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Result: 48 hours for long term edit warring at Racial segregation. The user has added similar material (about segregation in Liberia) to the article eight times since 28 November. He has also been acting as judge and jury in his own case when claims of copyright violation are raised. There are ways to properly get consensus for content additions, and ways to get review of copyright problems. The article was placed under full protection for three days on 28 November by User:Slakr but this didn't stop the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Warned)

Page: 2015 San Bernardino attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [256]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [257]
2. [258]
3. [259]

Warning and invitation to self-revert [260]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [261]

Comments:

WP:GS/ISIL. - Cwobeel (talk)

21:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already replied in the other forums this was shopped too. Cwobeel fails to note that none of them are reverts and purposely skips over consecutive edits. e.g. his second "example" should be [262] which is clearly not a revert. Two intermediate edits by the same editor count as a single edit and that was an improvement, not a revert. Not a single diff points to a previous edition that is identical. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

regardless, I'm done for the day. --DHeyward (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No comment on whether DHeyward violated 1RR (nor do I know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), but just a note to indicate that Cwobeel isn't forum shopping. He was advised by me that the text of the general sanction notice on the article's talk page called for 1RR violations to be reported here, and not on AN/I, so he closed the report there and filed this one. BMK (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What are the GS/ISIL sancions? --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

See here, and the header of Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack‎. BMK (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@

WP:GS/ISIL. LjL (talk

) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

What are the GS/ISIL sancions? I noted these on your talk page, before I posted here, but you choose to ignore warnings. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reverts linked to are clear enough. In an attempt to display what I think is a clearer violation of the 1RR policy: Cwobeel's edit, DHeyward's revert. Liz's edit (removes and replaces with different text), DHeyward's revert (reinstates the text Liz removed without edit). These reverts are within an hour of each other. And seeing as I mentioned one of Liz's edits, I really should ping her. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about anything else here, but I do know that DHeyward had not been issued a proper sanctions notification, as none was logged at
  WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. I have just issued such a notification, and would suggest that this be closed. RGloucester — ☎
  23:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be the bureaucrat's approach. Didn't went that well e.g. in the 1930/40's.--TMCk (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• I am fine with that finding, but hope he now understands that he indeed violated 1RR. From his comment above, it does not seem to be the case. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

See also [263], [264] DHeyward was fully aware of the restrictions. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, so:

• Paragraph A is created by several people adding text, moving it to other sections, and modifying it over the course of several days.
• DHeyward removes paragraph A (there's a reasonable question of whether this is a revert; there's no clear previous version without this paragraph. Let's call this "revert-like but not a revert".)
• Cwobeel replaces paragraph A (a revert, their first)
• DHeyward, in consecutive edits, removes paragraph A and adds paragraph B (it's well established that consecutive edits are generally considered one edit as far as reverting is concerned. But here's the rub; is this a "revert"? Was Paragraph A replaced with Paragraph B, or was Paragraph A removed, and then Paragraph B added? They aren't really saying the same thing, so I'd argue this is "so much like a revert that it is a revert)
• Liz replaces paragraph B with A (a revert, her first)
• DHeyward re-adds paragraph B below paragraph A (This surely counts as a "revert" of Liz's removal)

So by my count, DHeyward has 3 reverts if you're being too harsh, 1 revert if you're being too kind, and somewhere in between if you're being reasonable. Normally, my response would be: well, it's admittedly fuzzy, so we should warn him to be more careful. But here's my problem: Above, DHeyward claims not to know about

WP:GS/ISIL. But Cwobeel shows that DHeyward knew 1RR applied to the article a week ago. Why would DHeyward just accept that 1RR applied without knowing why? The answer is, he knew why, and is being disingenuous about being aware of the sanctions. In my opinion, this kind of gamesmanship on a contentious article warrants a block. I have a sinking feeling that if DHeyward weren't an admin, this would not be controversial, but since he is, it would be. Oops. It appears I'm an idiot. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 02:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Due to the fuzziness of the revert counting, and the potential controversy that I will not be around to address later tonight, I'd like another admin's opinion. But the "wasn't aware of sanctions" defense should definitely be off the table. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Floquenbeam DHeyward is not, at this time, an admin. [265] BMK (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought he was an admin too, but I don't see his name on the list of former administrators [266], I can't find an RfA for him [267], and his logs show him performing no blocks [268] deletions [269], or protections [270], so I guess we were both wrong, and DHeyward has never been an admin? BMK (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The user rights log shows he was never an admin. I don't know why I thought that, but I was so sure I didn't check. Maybe his username sounds like an admin's? I was really pretty sure. Sorry for the red herring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Liz has not edited the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_San_Bernardino_attack&diff=prev&oldid=695685256 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=693647425&diff=prev Only edits are meat puppet reverts of Dheyward w/ nearly same edit summation. Do those reverts even count or is it just harassing an editor she disagrees with? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.96.114 (talk • contribs)

I've left a note on her talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Since this is the second time I've seen this page being dealt with here in the past few weeks—with similar circumstances—I've added {{Editnotice SCW 1RR}} accordingly. Hopefully this will help address "I didn't know" issues more proactively. Haven't looked to see what's going on otherwise, however; maybe will later tonight. --slakr^\ talk / 01:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Won't solve the problem but it will help, I imagine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. Are Liz and Cwobeel really edit warring to include outdated information just to spite Dheyward? The NYT piece is more recent than the BBC one. It's worrisome when our website is behind the curve on news of recent issues.--MONGO 04:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Ugh. I am not edit warring. I made a single revert, keeping information that was accurate. This is my edit: [271]. Last time I checked, this board is not for litigating content disputes. The content dispute is being conducted in talk page at Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack#New info from the FBI about motives. You are welcome to join us there. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• You must not live in a greenhouse I guess.--MONGO 05:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Closing; this is too stale to issue a block now, and others were games-playing too. User:DHeyward is warned this this is considered a breach of 1RR, and something similar in the future will likely result in a block, particularly if more games are played about what you do and don't know about the general sanctions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)