Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive316

Page: Apache HTTP Server (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Codename Lisa (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]

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

Please block

. The user has been warned but has chosen to remove the warning and continue edit warring.

2601:5C2:100:9A1:D8FA:721C:BB21:1DB5 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

If this were filed by a user in good standing, the report could have some merit. But since you are obviously not a user in good standing, and it is clear that you made two reverts just to bring Codename Lisa to 3RR, I do not think the case has any perspective, except for, possibly, well, blocking the filer.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, this looks like a valid report to me. Codename Lisa has reverted what appears to be 4 different editors, 84.217.184.245, Faramir1138, 67.233.69.221 and 2601:5c2:100:9a1:f543:4b01:b848:9322 (though I concede I can't tell if some of the IPs are the same person), claimed that "Alphabetical sorting is evil; it almost always violates WP:DUE" even though

WP:DUE doesn't actually say that, chastised other editors with claims they "should should read Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing"[7][8] even though CL isn't doing any more talking they are and personally attacked 2601 as a "well-known troll and edit warrior".[9] CL even reverted[10] 2601's sensible edit [11] reordering the list of operating systems supported by Apache to start with Linux rather than Windows. No matter how you slice it, this just isn't what you'd call model behavior. CL is an experienced editor and should know better and behave better. Msnicki (talk

) 07:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

2601:5c2:100:9a1:f543:4b01:b848:9322 is indeed a well-known troll, IP-hopper and edit warrior who

not here to build an encyclopedia. Trying anything civil with him is just a slow torture for the person who does this. Give CL some credit; being hounded for three years is an accomplishment in itself. Fleet Command (talk

) 08:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing if this is true, but let's suppose it is. Even so, edit warring is never the proper response. Msnicki (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Msnicki.

First let me prove it to you that it is true. Excerpt from a the SPI case:

Postscript to the above: I have now found that the 2600:1003:... IP addresses listed above both belong to a range with a very extensive history of vandalism and block-evasion, with many blocks in the past, so I have placed a range block covering both the IP addresses listed here. However, it is a very large range, so I have blocked for only two weeks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 14:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Second, what is the proper response to harassment? Is there any? It is very easy to come to WP:ANEW and judge others and label their actions as "edit warring", but put in their places can you handle the argument any better? (If yes, how?)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

If you think you're being harassed, you should report it at

WP:BLP violations, but "I'm being harassed" is not one of them. Msnicki (talk

) 15:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, "Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users" is an exemption to WP:3RR. But, yes, if I did this to you instead of 2601, any admin must block me on sight. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

You reverted four different editors. Did you think all four were banned users or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users? I understand that you think you have proof that some (all?) of the editors you reverted were banned users or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users, but honestly, you didn't prove it to me. The quote you supplied refers to 2600:1003:... but that's not the IP range of any of the four editors. Maybe they're the same, maybe they're not. I have no way of knowing. Setting aside that none of your edit remarks identify your actions as reverting banned users or sockpuppets of banned or blocked users, if you thought this was a case of block evasion, you should have taken it to

WP:SPI to get these new IPs blocked. Edit warring was not the proper response. Sorry. I like you, I know that you're a valuable contributor and I'm not arguing that you should get a block (unless you really are intransigent in defending the indefensible, suggesting you would do it again). I do think you should acknowledge this was not the proper response and commit to doing better next time. Msnicki (talk

) 16:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I will remember this case and try something else next time... at least in regard to our three friends who got caught in the crossfire. But reverting is a natural thing in Wikipedia. I made some of my best friends here after getting reverted. Let's ignore the 2600:1003:... for a moment. I did two reverts against three editors who made zero protest.

He who is silent is taken to consent. IMHO, the person who performs a counter-revert, i.e. reinstates the disputed revision, has the definite responsibility to engage in talking, i.e. either respond to the talk page or start the thread himself. But... had the counter-reverting editor been a registered user, I'd have called him to discussion myself. Unfortunately, an anonymous editor cannot be effectively communicated with. Let's hope, next time there is a more friendly situation. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk

) 17:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

An admin should consider re-blocking the /36 range per this block log. This time around, a three-month block should be considered. (Last time it was for one month). I'm leaving a ping for

User:JamesBWatson. The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Codename MeatCommand/Archive. The original User:Codename MeatCommand was blocked indef for harassment in 2014. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:If this were filed by a user in good standing... My apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted your remarks, but your statement appears to show a bias against those who choose to edit without an account and that use DHCP. If am mistaken, can you please explain why you think that I am not in good standing?

you made two reverts just to bring Codename Lisa to 3RR... I neither violated

3RR

nor forced CL to do so. CL was reminded of the rules and alternatives, yet chose the revert again.

@EdJohnston:An admin should consider re-blocking the /36 range... I hope this not on my account for two reasons 1) I don't believe that I have exhibited or threatened to exhibit any behavior which requires a block 2) My IP address is not in 2600:1003::0/36 (2600:1003::0:0:0:0 to 2600:1003::ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff)

2601:5C2:100:9A1:6577:5F85:9CD:4A14 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Since I have been pinged, I have looked into this, and the conclusions I have come to are these:

1. Comments above are made above as though it were clear that some or all of the edits that Codename Lisa has been reverted are by someone evading blocks, and specifically that the editor in question is the one who used to be called "Codename MeatCommand" and/or the one who has been blocked in the range 2600:1003:B000:0:0:0:0:0/36. Is there any actual evidence that this is the same person? Nobody has presented any evidence, and just assuming that it is the same person, without evidence, is not helpful. (The recent edits from 67.233.69.221 and from the IP addresses in the range 2601:5C2:100:9A1:0:0:0:0/64 geolocate to Virginia, while a couple of sample IP addresses in the existing blocked range 2600:1003:B000:0:0:0:0:0/36 geolocate to New York. Close enough that it could be the same person, but not so close as to make it probable.)
2. If there is good evidence that Codename Lisa's reverts were reverting an editor evading a block, then that is fine. However, if there is no such evidence, but only an assumption or impression that it may be so, then she was edit-warring, continued to do so despite a warning, and has not given any good reason for doing so. If that is the case, then there is no reason why she should not have been blocked for it. Even in the message beginning "Sure, I will remember this case and try something else next time..." she goes on to say things which amount to something close to "...but I was right all the same", and expresses opinions which are not supported by policy. Since blocks are intended to be preventive, and since she has stated that she will "try something else next time", there is no case for a belated block now, but she should regard herself as warned that after this any edit-warring may lead to an immediate block without further warning. She should bear in mind that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
   talk
   ) 12:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I have two reasons to believe it's the same editor:

1. Combination of IP range, geolocation and ISP

2. Behavior

For #1, I am keeping a list of IPs belonging to this violator. It is once presented (and culled down) in the SPI case linked above. As for #2, the behavior, bear with me: First, this person is clearly what you'd call a Wikipedia veteran; he knows about {{

Ping

}}; he knows about the noticeboards, the 3RR rule, and the procedure. Clearly a veteran. Yet this veteran didn't attempt any form of positive communication (even a rude one), something no one else up until this day has failed to do. Second, I have seen this erroneous use of </br> and inline parenthetical listing before.

As for changing my behavior, that's true. It is my intention never to resort to exemptions of 3RR even while encountering this person. I also plan to be more communicative in my future disputes. Emerging unblocked from an ANEW case isn't enough; I want people to love me. I haven't come to Wikipedia to be an officially supported bully, you know.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I concur, including concurring with your disappointment with CL's remarks about "remembering" this event. CL ping-ponged between a changing set of excuses about being harassed and reverting blocked users, none of it cited at the time in her edit summaries and none of it supported by any evidence. I was disappointed that even as CL claimed to have learned from the event, she continued to claim that her edit warring was okay because they started it (perhaps, but they didn't violate

WP:3RR and did not have a valid reason. Instead, I continued to hear excuses. The mistakes people remember are the ones you refuse to admit. I didn't expect to support a block but given her last response to me, I would. It should go on her record. Msnicki (talk

) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Stale Enough is enough. Wikipedia is not a prosecotur's office.Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Objection! You've made prejudicial and apparently false and unfounded claims above that the IP editor was not in "good standing" and never responded to the editor you maligned. You are simply NOT the right person to close this. Admins are expected to display far better judgment, closing discussion only if they can be neutral. It's obvious you cannot. Msnicki (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

If any administrator believes that Wikipedia is a prosecutor's office, and a better confession should be extorted from CL, they are welcome to unclose the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment – As a third-party observer here, I find it convenient that the DHCP accounts that reported this notice and commented later on only have an edit history that deals with this issue. While the reason for this from a technical perspective is understandable, we have no way to scrutinize the editor(s) in question. I will say it's highly suspicious that when Codename Lisa reverted an edit from a month ago

) 18:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that the IP editor reporting the complaint is "experienced". Notice that the "diffs" supplied at the top aren't diffs at all. They're links to particular revisions. An experienced editor would get this right. Further, even if they are experienced, so what? It's not relevant. We allow anonymous editing and anonymous editors are entitled to the same respect as anyone else and to be judged only on what the contribute, not based on some bias that if you're an IP editor, you're likely up to no good. Specifically in this case, not some other case you might like to connect simply because it also involved an IP editor, this IP editor did nothing wrong. Nothing. And neither did the other 3 editors CL reverted. You're simply throwing bias into this and that is just not helpful. Msnicki (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not bias, nor am I mistreating or disrespecting anonymous editors. I'm simply pointing out "reasonable doubt" that this edit was challenged in a short period of time by three different editors, none of which have a verifiable history of editing this article. Also, in an article that averages 5-10 edits per month, this all happened in a short span of 2 days. For me, that moves this beyond a mere coincidence. The point of my comment was to express an opinion that this activity at the very least is questionable. It is not likely to have drawn the attention of three different editors who felt compelled to agree with a change in a low-traffic article. It's certainly possible, but based on this specific situation, it seems somewhat unlikely. Feel free to disagree, but don't mistake my opinion for bias. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Also as an additional point of clarification, I never referred to the IP editor as "experienced". Like you did in an earlier post, I was referring to Codename Lisa when I used that term. In regard to the IP editor, I was simply noting their level of familiarity with WP policies & guidelines. Why does that matter? If someone is attempting to game the system, such familiarity would allow them to do a better job of it. I'm not throwing that accusation out there, but it's worth noting. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Codename Lisa refers to "Combination of IP range, geolocation and ISP". None of the edits she recently reverted are from any IP range that has been mentioned as having been involved before, as far as I can see, and if they have been involved then she needs to show that they have, not just say "IP range" and expect us to accept that. I have already pointed out above that the IP ranges she reverted recently geolocate to a different place than the earlier range which has been mentioned in this discussion, and although I didn't bother to mention it, I also found that they are from a different ISP. So Lisa, can you elaborate on "Combination of IP range, geolocation and ISP"? Specifically, can you tell us what ISP, what geolocation, what IP range, and preferably also give us some diffs to show both old and new edits in the relevant range? Also, giving specific IP addresses would help. If this involved only IPv4 addresses, it would be easy to check the whole editing history from a range, but as far as I know there is still no IPv6 range contributions tool, so that it is difficult to check editing history from a range unless there is some further information to help narrow it down, such as specific IP addresses, specific pages edited, or talk page posts to the relevant IP addresses. You say you are "keeping a list of IPs belonging to this violator", so it should be easy for you to share that information with us. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
  talk
  ) 19:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

2601::/20 maps to Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. and geolocates to Charlottesville, Virginia. This is the same as 73.40.108.10, 73.152.188.151, and 173.53.127.55. Is that all you want? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

An unblock request and the checkuser clerk notice in talk page suggests 2600:1003:B443:48D7:CDB1:7F70:9A09:2104 is connected with 173.53.127.55 —Codename Lisa (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Plymouth Church (Brooklyn) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:40, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719608517 by Kateypup (talk) no, this does not work)
2. 14:45, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719609098 by Kateypup (talk) Do not revert my edits without giving a reason., Your layout was bad, period)
3. 14:51, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719610190 by Kateypup (talk) Your layout fucks up the article. It looks bad. The image does not fit there. STOP)
4. 14:55, 10 May 2016 (Undid revision 719610810 by Kateypup (talk) Please see WP:BRD If you want to "collaborate" follow what it says, do not revert again)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [13]—User:Kateypup reached out to User:Beyond My Ken on his talk page at 14:48, in between User:Beyond My Ken's second and third reversion to Plymouth Church (Brooklyn). User:Beyond My Ken then reverted the edit a fourth time at 14:55.

Comments:
User has a long-term pattern of 3RR behavior as explained by the lengthy block log for this user. Revision as of 14:51, 10 May 2016 by the user includes profanity in the edit summary.

) 19:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

AldezD, who is in an unrelated dispute with me at Talk:All About Eve, filed this report almost immediately after templating myself and User:Kateypup for edit warring, when no additional edits had been made by either of us after the warning. The purpose of the warning is to stop the edit warring, it is not simply an item necessary to file a report. Further, the fact that AldezD and are are co-disputants on another issue casts this report in a very bad light.

I am, at this moment, if I wasn't distracted by stuff like this, trying to show the other editor in the current case why her edit is damaging the article. There are discussions ongoing on her and my talk pages, and this should be taken into account, as well as AldezD's potential bias in making this report. BMK (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to note that whereas BMK technically overstepped 3RR making four reverts, and you stopped at three reverts, this were you who introduced the edit first. Per

WP:BRD, it was your responsibility to go to the talk page and start a discussion.--Ymblanter (talk

) 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, AldezD is not the other party in this report, the other party is User:Kateypup, but, yes, I agree that it was her responsibility to take it to the talk page. She is, however, a fairly new editor who has concentrated almost entirely on this article, and she;s still learning the ways of the place, so I don't think that should beheld against her. BMK (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, this is indeed Kateypup who is at 3RR, AldezD was not involved at least in the last series of reverts. My apologies, but I think my point is still valid.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken knows far and above what is appropriate behavior. He has been blocked seven times for edit warring. He continues to revert edits in a disruptive manner without first engaging in discussion, requiring the other party to take the first step in mediation (see talk page for BMK linked above as well as Talk:All About Eve#In popular culture section). In a reply above, BMK recognizes that the other party is "a fairly new editor". But instead of reaching out to the editor, BMK returns to the pattern of 3RR and

's edit to his talk page. Whether or not I am the other party in the edit war at ) 19:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

To provide the context, one of the seven blocks was mine.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

My history is not relevant to this report, it would be relevant if an admin decided to block me, to determine the length of the block.

Now, I need an opinion please: the dispute is about the layout of the article. I believe that by creating a gallery of images, I can settle the dispute, and have proposed so to Kateypup on her talk page. I am hesitant to do so without some sort of OK, because, teclnically, it would be another revert, albeit one the intent of which is to find a compromise. Can I go ahead and do this, or must I wait until this report is closed? BMK (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your history is 100% relevant to this report. You have a long-term pattern of 3RR as evidenced by your seven blocks for it, and this is yet another example that you will likely continue this pattern of disruptive behavior when you do not agree with another user's edits unless it is stopped here.

BMK is only now reaching out for

AldezD (talk

) 19:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, AldezD's timeline is incorrect, and his facts are wrong: I posted on Kateypup's talk page asking her to stop, before she posted on mine, and I have not, in fact, requested

WP:3O

.

Oh, just a note about my block log: please note that while AldezD is pleased to repeat that I have seven blocks, a closer look would show

• The latest of those blocks was undone almost immediately by the blocking adminas "too hasty"
• A 24-hour block actually lasted 4+ hours after discussion with the blocking admin
• Another 72-hour block (Ymblanter's in fact) lasted about an hour after discussion between myself, Ymblanter and Drmies.

So things are not nearly as straight-forward as AldezD -- who appears to be acting as the prosecutor for this case, most probably because of the disagreement on Talk:All About Eve I mentioned above -- would like them to appear. BMK (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The time frame in which blocks have been released has no bearing on your evidenced pattern of 3RR and WP:BATTLE behavior. A 24-hour block being released after just four hours following your outreach to an admin still does not negate the fact that you were blocked for edit warring. You have an evidenced long-term pattern of this behavior. Without admin intervention, this pattern of behavior will clearly continue indefinitely.

AldezD (talk

) 20:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please also see

) 20:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you see any blocks for hounding, harrassment, abusive comments etc? No, you don't. Please confine yourself to information pertinent to this report, and stop acting as my self-appointed prosecutor. Absent something substantive, I will not be responding to your posts here, so you have the freedom now to slag me off without contradiction, if you are a person so inclined to do that.

Meanwhile, I continue to try to work the problem out with Kateypup, which I thought was the point of the edit-warring notice, not an excuse for punishment for my supposed bad character. BMK (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note from uninvolved party looking in: previous blocks have no bearing whatsoever on current reports. You cannot be punished for the same "crime" twice in the outside world; Wikipedia is no different and is somewhat inferior to the former. I'm not qualified to comment on the dispute itself as I've not been following it, but to reference somebody's block log at any dispute is in bad taste and reeks of desperation on the filing editor's part. Cassianto^Talk 20:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment—
    AldezD (talk
    ) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I think that this has less to do with the BMK's block log and more to with the fact that
      you don't like it when your edits are contested. Cassianto^Talk
      21:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
      • That does not negate the patterned disruptive behavior of the other user and 3RR actions today.
        AldezD (talk
        ) 21:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I've just looked at the article and I don't see any discussion per
          WP:BRD. Kateypup Was Bold, BMK Reverted, and Kateypup failed to Discuss. Maybe if either Kateypup, or you, come to that, had've adhered to this policy, this whole pantomime wouldn't have started. Cassianto^Talk
          21:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Cassianato: There is discussion on both my and Kateypup's talk page, here and here. Not ideal, of course, the article talk page would be better, but discussion in the wrong place is better than no discussion at all. For the record, I believe I posted to her talk page before she posted to mine, so I did begin the BRD Discussion. I've now posted on her page visual evidence of why I found her layout problematic, and my suggestion for a solution (a gallery), but I have yet to hear back from her. BMK (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I take that last part back, she did respond and we're trying to work things out. BMK (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
              • Understood, BMK, I did pre-warn that I had come in to this quickly as an uninvolved party and not in full view of the facts etc... . It does appear to me then that this is almost certainly Kateypup's doing and that it is she/he at fault here as they have persistently warred without discussion on their part. Like a pointed out earlier, I'm not qualified to munch over the dispute itself, but suffice to say the mentioning of your block log is both irrelevant and uncalled for. I want to reiterate that I'm only concerned with the formation of this report and the references made to your block log, which is unfair. To me, mentioning your block log smacks of desperate puffery in order to get the maximum action out of this situation, something which, I envisage, will end badly for Kateypup. Cassianto^Talk 22:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)inb templ
                • I think in your last sentence you meant to say AldezD, who filed this report and is the one harping on my block log and generally bad character, not Kateypup, who was the other party to the edit warring. Although I agree that she should have started the discussion, I don't advocate that anything should happen to her, as she's only been here since April. She is sometimes prickly (as am I) and somewhat more sure of herself than is supported by her minimal experience here, but she has done prodigious work researching and expanding the article above. Further, since we now seem to be in reach of a consensus between us as to how to handle the images in the article (the locus of the dispute), anything done to her now would be punitive -- and I believe that goes for myself as well.
                  AldezD was not wrong, per se, in templating both of us for edit warring -- although his lack of judgment in doing so while he and I were in the middle of another dispute is considerable -- but filing a report immediately afterwards, when neither party continued to edit war shows perhaps more of an interest in punishment and getting a tactical advantage in the other dispute then it does the true Wikipedia spirit. Had Kateypup or I continued to edit war after the warning -- which we did not -- an editor would have been justified in filing a report, but for an "involved" editor such as AldezD to do so just isn't good judgment, in my opinion. BMK (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

BMK seems to fail to understand that

) 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, it is an essay, but essays are there to guide people into sticking within the boundaries of policies. As BMK points out above, he started the D part of the essay; something which Kateypup was required (and failed) to do. At no point has BMK said contrary to that, so your point is moot. Cassianto^Talk 22:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Essays are just that, essays; You can't violate an essay. No one can said to have been "required (and failed) to" have failed to abide by an essay. By contrast, BMK has violated a bright line, one for which he has been blocked on seven occasions. Well past time for warnings. Alansohn (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Am I speaking double fucking Dutch or something? BMK's block log is irrelevant to this report, so why do you people keep bringing it up? Concentrate on why we are here now and the causes of it (not a result of BMK, but the person who failed his part of the deal to discuss), not what's gone on in the past. Cassianto^Talk 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about Alansohn, he pops up whenever my name comes up in any negative context. I suppose I should have returned the favor in the recent noticeboard threads about him, but that's not the way I go. Anyway, Alansohn will do his best to convince all and sundry about what a really bad dude I am, the worst internal enemy of Wikipedia. The last time he did it, Floquenbeam had this to say: "there's a special place in hell reserved for people who pounce on disputes that they see their 'enemies' having with other people..." Regrettably, this appears not to have discouraged him from continuing the practice, as evidenced here. That's too bad, since he's in most other respects a good editor, and some of our interests overlap. BMK (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

.I have some of those too, unfortunately. Cassianto^Talk 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

BMK, no one has said it yet, but "There's a special place in hell reserved for people who can't learn how to edit without edit warring." You too are capable of decent editing at times, but you fall into edit wars without provocation, counting on being able to bullshit your way out of problems time after time.

WP:3RR says pretty clearly that "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block."' As a seven-time loser, number eight is inevitable and you seem to be rather belligerently tempting the fates. Alansohn (talk

) 02:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"No one has said it yet..." Au contraire, you have said it, in one way or another, over and over again, as if edit warring was the Wikipedia equivalent of murder, or terrorism, or kidnapping, or robbing a bank. Needless to say, it's not. It's certainly a bad habit, but your reaction to it is so out of proportion to its actual seriousness that it's really rather frightening. That you've appointed yourself my personal persecutor raises serious questions about why you would over-react in that way, especially since your animus derives from my taking an opposite position from you on the ANI threads which resulted in your IBan with Magnolia. You clearly have some difficulty in getting past that, but I will remind you that that IBan was not imposed by me, it was imposed by the Wikipedia community, so your palpable dislike for me is out of place, and certainly more detrimental to Wiki-harmony that my occasional failure to control myself and fall into edit warring. I would ask you to take a good hard look at your behavior, and cease your denigration and villification of me, which is not helpful to anyone, and certainly, as pointed out above about AldezD's similar behavior, not relevant to this report.

In short, cut it out, please. BMK (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alansohn: While sticking the knife in an opponent may be fun, please bear in mind that onlookers find the spectacle odious and eventually the habit will result in your fall because it is most unhelpful for the community. Admins here do not need your assistance working out what the related policies say. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• No one comes out smelling like a rose in this.
  AldezD's motivations for filing this report, particularly against BMK but not against Kateypup, are not neutral, but certainly not anything sanctionable. Alansohn's comments are singularly unhelpful. BMK and Kateypup, think of this as a warning. Don't get carried away. Spend more time talking to each other, and better to do it on the article talk page than user talk pages (already noted I know). I'm not going to be watching either of you, but you risk being blocked if someone reports you or another administrator sees this sort of disruptive conduct recommencing. And now you all can bicker about the merits of my decision, although it would be refreshing if you went and did something else.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 12:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Message received, loud and clear. I'm not sure that Kateypup is monitoring this discussion, so I'll relay it to her. BMK (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

North Valley High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Academics */"
2. 16:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Academics */"
3. 16:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Sports */"
4. 16:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Sports */"
5. 16:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Academics */"
6. 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Academics */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (
   TW
   )"

• The IP was already blocked for six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: XavierGreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Fifth revert, a bit outside of 24 hrs

5. [19]

Alright this is starting to get out of hand

Here's another 3RR violation on the same article, committed while this report was open

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

Here is more edit warring by the same user on a related page, although not a 3RR violation

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]

This urgently needs a preventive block before it spirals further out of control.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]. Previous warnings: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

Discussion on talk page [36] and notifications on user's talk page [37] results in just endless "I'm right! I'm right!"

and wikilawyering.

The user has been on Wikipedia some time, they know very well that they shouldn't edit war, they're quite aware of the bright line 3RR rule, they've been blocked for this kind of behavior before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

User Volunteer Marek has repeatedly deleted valid tags I added to the page regarding the quality and relevance of sources added on the article which are the subject of an ongoing discussion. I added the tags to help facilitate the discussion. In good faith, I have asked VolunteerMarek to partake in the discussion on the talk page. But instead, he has engaged in an edit war and has seemingly refused to state in the talk page why the tag I added should not be there. VolunteerMarek several other editors with seemingly pro-Ukrainian viewpoints have attempted to bully me in the past by putting edit war notices on my page whenever I make an edit to a Ukrainian conflict related page. I at every point have attempted to act in good faith and use the dispute resolution process, Talk Page RFC's ect.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

... and also edit warred a lot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Could we also add

WP:DEADHORSE means, nor that multiple other editors are not obliged to prove something not relevant to the argument just because s/he has posed a nonsensical question and has invoked a policy or guideline equally irrelevant to the discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 01:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not the sources listed are relevant to what they are being used to support is not a nonsensical question. User:VolunteerMarek in his edit summaries himself said that two of the sources only implied such a statement. Such sources are irrelevant to proving the matter asserted. The third source in question is from February of 2015, and as such does not reflect the current situation on the ground and also is therefore irrelevant.XavierGreen (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Minsk II protocols/agreement? I have already asked you to bring any references backing up the fact that there has been a change of international attitude to the table, or that Minsk II has been usurped by some other agreement. Where are your RS? It's still in place (per this article and umpteen dozen others. What that means is that the status of the DPR and LPR have not changed and that the

WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that it has changed. It's irrelevant when an international agreement was put in place (last week or 30 years ago): if it still stands, it still stands... End of story. --Iryna Harpy (talk

) 06:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The source you just cited states "the so-called “People’s Republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk have repeatedly stated that they will not accept a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, which is, of course, the ultimate objective of Minsk II." As such, Donetsk and Luhanks still maintain their independence, and the Minsk II agreement as it stands is meaningless. Just because polities sign treaties with each other, does not mean that they are in actuality implemented or have any defacto effect.XavierGreen (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

User:VolunteerMarek has still not discussed any of these matters on the relevant talk pages, in fact some of the issues he has posted about here have already been settled on the DPR talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Neither of these claims is true. You've violated 3RR twice and also started another edit war on another article. No amount of excuses can change that. You've been around for awhile so you know very well that claiming "I'm right, you're wrong!" is no excuse for edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

If you read the talk pages and the edit summaries of the DPR page, you will clearly see that I proposed alternative solutions to some of the disputed elements. In the end I didn't oppose most of them myself, and the other editor who was involved (and actively participated in the discussion unlike you) stated in his edit summary: "I agree with your changes, but they are not enough." In the DPR talk page, you can clearly see that after looking at them a second time that I agreed with him, though on different grounds. Not every edit is an edit war, though you seem to be personally hounding me no matter what I do.XavierGreen (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk

) 19:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Dmitry Polyakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Valery Surkoff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "The rules do not prohibit links"
2. 19:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "The rules do not prohibit references in sections"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC) to 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "These claims are unfounded and belong to the user's(Staszek Lem) personal interests."
   2. 18:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "It has no relation to reality. This is a personal opinion of the user."
4. 18:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719772543 by
   talk
   )"
5. 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719772543 by
   talk
   )"
6. 22:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 719639946 by
   talk
   )"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Help me! */ edit conflict in closing helpme, plus minor formatting in order to make it slightly more readable"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* List of youtube videos of the conductor */ reply"
2. 21:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/*Removal of PROD tag: */ reply"

Comments:

Whether or not this user actually has a COI, they do not seem keen on coming to any form of consensus. Every change, even those backed by policy, are being reverted. Staszek Lem has left them multiple notes regarding talk page usage and removal of tags, and despite a 3RR notice by Liz they are keeping right at it. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Note As the user was not notified of Staszek Lem's nomination at 3RR, I did not realize it had already been filed. Feel free to close whichever one is more appropriate.

• Comment Both Valery Surkoff and Staszek Lem are guilty of edit warring on this article. I posted edit warring notices on each of their talk pages (Staszek Lem removed the one on his talk page). They have both continued to edit the article although the reverts have stopped. There is the beginning of a discussion on the article talk page. I think they both need to step away from this article for a while. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

That's bull. I placed cleanup tags, this page owner promptly removed the without responding to talk page. I have already stepped away from this article after posting notices on a couple of admin boards. I perfectly realize that it impossible to fight a bully one-on-one in wikipedia. Initially I was reinserting tags, because I thought a newbie will come to their senses and respond to notices it talk pages. And there is no "discussion" in article talk page about this particular issue.

talk

) 20:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators!

Let me briefly to comment. User User: Staszek Lem irreconcilable edit the article and not explained which rules I violated. I have read the rules and found none the rules I violated, at the same time the user Statzek Lem is refused from a public discussion. His argument was - Russian people spread Pirate Video. I think it's just inadmissible arguments. Now there are complaints to administrators - it looks like a war against the person. I ask you to sort things out objectively in this issue. I create this article with only good intentions about Dmitry Polyakov - he realy worthy and renowned young musician. I added enough information and will add more - give me the time. Eventually I received unjustified criticism and irreconcilable edit and even delete the page. I think this behavior is contrary to the essence of Wikipedia. Do not take away my right to edit this article. Because no one will defend this article and the right to be this musician in Wikipedia. You just kill the article - it will just be vandalism. valery surkoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Surkoff (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You will be gladly given an opportunity to edit the article once you start paying attention what people are actually advising you. You are ignoring all advises starting from the very first one given in the very fist post on your talk page: how to correctly sign your posts. The sooner you stop attacking other editors and start asking questions the sooner you will write an article about "really worthy and renowned young musician". And yes, Russian people do spread pirate video on youtube, and you have to provide some minimal evidence that you are not one of them. I did find it myself, by the way, i.e., we are not your enemies here. And I wrote about this in the talk page and got no 'thank you'. I am sorry that Putin's Russia is full of anti-American paranoia.

talk

) 23:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

A new SPA user instantly reverts cleanup tags placed onto the article and does not respond to warnings in their talk page, simply reverting them.

Diffs of the user's removal of the cleanup tag:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]

And the user continues reverting other tags.

) 19:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Administrators!

Let me briefly to comment. User User: Staszek Lem irreconcilable edit the article and not explained which rules I violated. I have read the rules and found none the rules I violated, at the same time the user Statzek Lem is refused from a public discussion. His argument was - Russian people spread Pirate Video. I think it's just inadmissible arguments. Now there are complaints to administrators - it looks like a war against the person. I ask you to sort things out objectively in this issue. I create this article with only good intentions about Dmitry Polyakov - he realy worthy and renowned young musician. I added enough information and will add more - give me the time. Eventually I received unjustified criticism and irreconcilable edit and even delete the page. I think this behavior is contrary to the essence of Wikipedia. valery surkoff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Surkoff (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Over the Hedge (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

24.251.87.63 (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 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Possible sequel */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC) to 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
   3. 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
   4. 01:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"
   5. 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Release */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

these support about the Garry Shandling death from the flash back in 2006 became a actor voice with Verne the turtle with adding from the unsourced. Oripaypaykim (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – One week. What are people disputing about here? It would be beneficial for the parties to try to explain themselves on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Chile at the 2016 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Raymarcbadz (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 04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC) to 04:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 03:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Lightweight double sculls doesn't have a quarterfinal phase."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Chile 2016 Olympics */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has been warned multiple times abut going against MOS (ie separating the men and women athletes, when they should be on one table) here and here

I am sick of this user behaving like he owns all of these pages and the editing must be done according to his standards. CAN ACTION PLEASE BE TAKEN AGAINST HIM. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO THAT AGAINST ME? I'M NOT ABUSING MY EDITS OKAY! WHY DO YOU KEEP ACCUSING ME ON EVERYTHING ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M EDITING? CAN YOU PLEASE STOP ACCUSING ME ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF THE PAGES? IT'S ALREADY CONSIDERED BULLYING AND ASSUMPTION AGAINST GOOD FAITH. I'M CORRECTING AND MADE SOME OF THE CHANGES, and then suddenly, YOU KEPT ON REVERTING WITHOUT CAREFULLY LOOKING AT OTHER UPDATES. Lightweight double sculls doesn't indeed have a QUARTERFINAL PHASE for both men and women, only single sculls do. But looking at the men's lightweight double sculls that you reverted, it contains a quarterfinal phase, while the women doesn't. WHAT SEEMS TO BE YOUR PROBLEM? Stop telling me that it's against MOS (blah blah) as your main reason. It's irritating and stressful to hear that. I don't even understand why do you have to file a complaint against me on edit warring. This is for the nth time. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. Stop squabbling the pair of you. And frankly in this case it doesn't look like a 3RR violation anyway given that the edits are correcting an error - Basement12 (T.C)

07:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, Basement12. I'm already fed up of his accusations against me contributing to the WikiProject Olympics. Looks like he might want to remove me from the user list of the project. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The more I look at this I see

15:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12, another issue on me about my edit for Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics. He thinks that I don't speak English and have ownership issues. Also, he will keep on giving me the same reason about this. It makes me irritating and stressful. I don't even know how many NOC pages did he target on his watch list. First, he started the edit war with me on Canada, San Marino, Chile, and now Spain. I have too many concerns already about the styling. And the width of tables for events. They're even longer than the name of athletes and the results which will be posted during the Games. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Could someone take a closer look at these two editors? The war between them continues on multiple articles for example Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics recently. Qed237 (talk) 09:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, across most of the articles, Qed237. I just don't even understand why Sportsfan 1234 continues to come out very aggressively in a "I am always right" way to my edits without resolving the issues and simply respect other people's matters on our discussion. Truthfully, I am tired of edit warring and it enrages me a lot because of too many disagreements.

Add one more thing. Shooting at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Qualification. I just don't understand why Canada appears on the row Athletes qualifying in other events, and not other NOCs, which sounded unfair though. Of course, we will include most of the shooters in that row, but I just simply hide them until all 390 athletes have already been named, and then unhide them for sure (isn't Sportsfan 1234 patient with these details; time is of essence). Here's the priority level. It starts with qualifying period and selection of athletes, and then Tripartite Commission names the shooters, before ISSF distributes unused places to shooters from unqualified nations. Once the list has completed, we can add the rest of the selected shooters in the row Athletes qualifying in other events. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This applies to BOTH editors. Both editors are edit warring over several articles, and even though they are communicating at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics it does not mean that they can revert eachother until consensus has been found. If you look at article history at Spain at the 2016 Summer Olympics you see the "+174" and "-174" since 10 May and that they edited this 9 times each (diffs from one of the editors on that article include [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]). Also both editors have been warned here and here for edit warring and has removed other warnings at their talkpages. Time for action. Qed237 (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
There is quite a lively discussion going on, which I started on the talk page. I believe we must solve the issue whether it is neutral, due, and policy-abiding to include primary sourced for controversial statements. There have also risen concerns about misrepresenting sources [57]

22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So, no real excuse for edit warring then? Ratel (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

there should always be [58]WP:CONSENSUS , CFCF was editing in the best interest of the article (I would have done the same)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

So you'd break the rules too, huh? Figures. Ratel (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts[59] he did not have more than 3!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You're leaving off a sentence, " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." --Lo te xendo (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (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
   / 03:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have provided a long list of his edits that revert other editors actions in whole or in part. If you look at the page history it's a lot more than 4! Ratel (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

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

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

Comments:
The user

) 07:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Warned Gave a level 4 warning to the user. Added the page to my watchlist -- will block the user if s/he re-adds the content without sources. utcursch | talk 16:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• User:Sureshpandey just reverted again and added same content without any sources/citation even after the block warning by Admin --[68] ---Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  Update: Blocked – for a period of 1 week. utcursch | talk 11:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@utcursch, yes sir, thanks.. but I Am sure that @ User:Sureshpandey will now push his version by ip edits now.. and i dunno what to do then :-( .. I Am discussing these issues with him for over 1-2 months now but he obviously ignores the talk pages advises of all Pant family articles --> Govind Ballabh Pant, K. C. Pant and Ila Pant and his ip edits recklessly revert to sureshpandey versions.... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep a watch on the pages. You can request page protection at

WP:RfPP, and report the IPs at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. utcursch | talk

13:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Philip J Fry

(Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "I already moved Agnesi, Duval, and Dominguez to main cast, Wohlmuth to recurring according to Telmundo. Added new cast members in new section for now"
2. 05:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "I already moved Agnesi, Duval, and Dominguez to main cast, Wohlmuth to recurring according to Telmundo. Added new cast members in new section for now"
3. 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "I am going by what Telemundo said and I would keep this version for now since they pretty much confirmed everything. When show starts you can re-arrange based upon title sequence"
4. 03:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC) "Telmundo officially confirmed statuses, new cast members for season 3 including Miranda replacing Soto and Goyri as new antagonist."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user remains in that all issues should be resolved through wars editions, previously've left him messages on his talk page, which has completely ignored. The day arrives today making major changes in an article claiming that according to the information was confirmed by Telemundo, which is totally false, because not yet confirmed the opening theme of the series. And organizes the cast according as he says, ignored what clearly says stylebook and instructions. I have said this several times, but do not want to understand.

05:38, 13 May 2016 (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. SQL^{Query me!}
  06:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear Admins!

I want to get your opinion on the following question: Two users (User:Staszek Lem and User:Primefac) actively edit pages Dmitry Polyakov. I had to cancel editing them because they were unfounded (it's my opinion), after 4 times I was blocked. After that, I saw a message in a conversation, look here [[69]] this indicating their conspiracy. What do you think about it? I want to know your opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valery Surkoff (talk • contribs) 06:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC) --Valery Surkoff (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. SQL^{Query me!}
  06:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• I can't find the message that you think indicates their conspiracy, Valery Surkoff. It's difficult when you link to a whole page. If you meant this post, your conspiracy theory has no merit, in fact it's absurd. (See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to link to a specific edit that you want people to look at.) Bishonen | talk 10:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC).

P.S., incidentally, it's not correct that you were blocked after reverting 4 times. You were blocked after reverting 7 times. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC).

• 2001:16a2:225:6000:14ea:e32c:309e:31c4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2001:16a2:42b:9900:7536:4273:1f26:38d0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2602:252:d26:d7f0:dfe:f35e:79cc:b5ce (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This ip address is reverting all the pages again and again. He seems to be a sockpuppet of account Fareed30 (talk · contribs) as he also use to keep on reverting again and again. He has been editing pages like Anil Kapoor, Fawad Khan, Saif Ali Khan and many more. Issue is that he keeps on ignoring the comments which are left in the edit section. Can you please have look into this matter. Thankyou

Links to his edits are [[70]] [[71]] [[72]] etcSaladin1987 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Several articles semiprotected. Of the three IPs you listed, the last is from a different continent and seems unrelated. A connection to User:Fareed30 remains to be shown, but this IP editor from Saudi Arabia does seem to assert Pashtun connections for lots of people. No rangeblock seems possible. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */"
2. 03:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings */Just keep it..it won't kill you I swear"
3. 04:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings */I have to do this at least as a fan of both of the main cast 😠"
4. 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings */Why is it annoying you?
5. 04:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */However you will loose nothing if we didn't delete it...
6. 13:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Cast */We must keep it...for me when I see a drama that is far and i see the page of this drama is already done I want to watch cuz people look that they already excited about this drama...I'm a big big fan of the main cast ❤

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 03:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "please stop"
3. 09:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Ratings table */ new section"

Comments:

There has been a slow motion edit war over the inclusion of an empty ratings table for a TV series that doesn't start until August. This IP has also also vandalized another user's page: [73]. Random86 (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks on my user page AkoAyMayLobo (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AkoAyMayLobo&diff=prev&oldid=719874973
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AkoAyMayLobo&diff=prev&oldid=719874885
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AkoAyMayLobo&diff=prev&oldid=719875013

• Already blocked --slakr^\ talk / 03:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]

Diff of warning: [78]

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

Comments: Editor is continually reverting edits without any reasoning supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Initial edits made by the user in March were deleted for copyright infringement by an admin. Editor then paraphrased and re-added them, some under the guise of correcting the page but the majority is poorly structured, repetitive, and in some cases promotional and not newsworthy (

). There are also errors in the reference section. Editor claims to be working with an admin on the content, though no evidence exists to suggest that. Edits are continuously reverted with no grounds for doing so and with no effort to actually improve the page.

Quorum816 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Not true and misleading. I attempted to work with Quorum several times but he refused to even listen to any of my arguments and took ownership of the page. He is guilty of edit warring as well. GreenChairBMX (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Warned both editors --slakr^\ talk / 03:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Tom Steyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Quorum816 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86], [87], [88], [89]

Comments: I am also reporting the user who reported me. It is unfair that he has accused me of such without examining his own behavior. I offered several compromises to this user and attempted to work with them. Their claims that some of the content is undue and not news firstly, is not accurate, and secondly, does not justify their massive overhaul of the page. It is reliably source and relevant. Even still, what is more concerning is that I offered several times to compromise on the content to no avail. I was, and am still, willing to trim down parts of the page if this user gives up their battleground mentality to wipe all of the content. Their edits are not improvements to the page and I have offered them an olive branch that was rejected. I hope that reviewing administrators do not unjustly single me out when I had hoped this could be resolved with more civility. GreenChairBMX (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Warned both editors; @
  third opinion from an uninvolved editor. --slakr^\ talk
   / 03:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Rising Sun Flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.54.100.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:58, 12 May 2016 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎See also) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
2. 14:07, 12 May 2016‎ 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
3. 22:08, 12 May 2016‎ 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎See also) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
4. 04:13, 13 May 2016‎ 110.54.100.63 (talk)‎ . . (10,339 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎See also) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:28, 12 May 2016‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,796 bytes) (+1,786)‎ . . (→‎May 2016: 3RR warning)

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

Comments:

I requested page protection yesterday, however no action yet.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) --slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: Original version, before discussion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]
5. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Mine
2. Toohool

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:
Dirroli has been edit warring over the proper use of primary sources an the article

) reverted Dirroli's changes and began a discussion on the talk page. However, Dirroli undid the reversion and only replied with a series of less than appropriate comments and insults. Each time that the disputed citations were restored, Dirroli deleted them. Attempts to reach out to him on his talk page were greeted with a page blanking and snide comments or counter claims that the other editors were the ones doing the warring in the edit histories.

This is not Dirroli's first time edit warring as he has been previously blocked for such actions on other pages. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And he just did it again... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 03:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the page protection, but could you please look into the editor. He has been ramping up the rhetoric against other editors in a manner that is inappropriate with edit summaries that are not very civil or assuming good faith. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Page:

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

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 23:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 3 Revert 3 23:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 4 Revert 4 23:09, 12 May 2016‎ (UTC)

• Edit 5 Revert 5 23:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 6 Revert 6 09:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 7 Revert 7 09:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 8 Revert 8 09:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 9 Revert 9 09:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Comments:
It should be said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing (on maps) in favor of a specific group (

) 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ракал must be not just blocked but also need ban him of edit all articles about Syrian Civil War.SvEcHpInXID (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• WP:GS/SCW --slakr^\ talk
   / 04:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]
4. [102]
5. [103]
6. several more...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

[104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[105]

Comments:

Editor persistently adds several genres to the band's infobox that are sourced from online blog posts and other self-published sources. Totally disregards any attempts by me to explain how and why they don't belong on Wikipedia.Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• We discussed on the article's talk page, that the sources do pertain to the subject of the article. It's just a debate as to whether or not they are suitable for wikipedia. I have heard from many that music editorials and databases like allmusic are suitable sources. Then it turns out that wasn't the issue in the first place. It seems the issue is that the above user who made this notice on me, seems to think the genres are dismissive, when I obviously sourced every single one that is mentioned. So yes I did revert the article to my changes, because I'm not here to please him. Boaxy (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another revert.

Your genres were dismissed because they don't even appear in most of the sources you gave, and even for the ones that do, are still self-published.

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources. The only exception was an AllMusic review that states "Pizzicato Five once again transformed, this time into a sleek house music machine" for a single album.--Ilovetopaint (talk

) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Boaxy's continued
  block
  if this conduct is not refrained from immediately. A Topic Ban post has been added to the primary noticeboard here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Would_a_Topic_Ban_be_necessary? --Loyalmoonie (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)Chris

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — longer term; already has had to be topic banned on something else and blocked in violation of it, too, so this user should know better than to repeatedly revert. --slakr^\ talk / 03:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

He still doesn't get it

After finding out that he was blocked, Boaxy immediately resorts to personal attacking myself while he is off Wikipedia (specifically, on Reddit); crying homophobia, bullying, etc. when this has nothing to do with all that. He should know why his conduct is unacceptable.

Here's the post he made (though I apologize if it gets deleted because I reported it): https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/4jabgu/f_wikipedia_for_real/ --Loyalmoonie (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Chris

For the personal attack made in Boaxy's unblock request, I have increased the block to 1 week, and would consider a lengthy escalation should such attacks continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Jupiter Ace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factor-h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109] (deleted again, even after discussion was requested)

Newish user using 4RR to strong-arm a deletion.

The content is unquestioned, but is being repeatedly blanked as "Appendix information (not spec) removed from specs." and "an environmental characteristic". I don't know what either of these mean, the editor's English language skills (they're Portugese?) make it difficult to communicate with them.

The point to this content is that these early home computers didn't use the same character sets, they rolled their own - only a small part was ASCII. For the Ace, a notable choice was made to follow the ZX Spectrum's lead. This is worth recording.

Some discussion was requested at Talk:Jupiter_Ace#Deletion_of_character_set_description and Talk:Jupiter_Ace#Overflowing_with_undue_mentions, but they just went and deleted it again anyway.

Their other edits (across very few articles) seem to be equally contentious with other editors. See Talk:ZX81 & Talk:Tape drive. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Factor-h is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Jupiter Ace without having obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Timothy Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AcidRock67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]
5. [115]
6. [116]
7. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:This user edit warred extensively at Timothy Leary as an IP, 76.188.160.128. The article was semi-protected to stop him doing this, but the user started an account, is now able to by-pass semi-protection, and has continued the same behavior. Above, I have included edits that the user made both as an IP and edits he made with his new account. Note that the user has reverted multiple other users (myself, Skyerise, and IP 87.115.63.172) and that no one has agreed with or supported his edits. I attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, but the editor responded to this attempt with juvenile "bring-it-on"-type statements. I commented, "If you do not stop restoring that passage despite the lack of agreement from other editors, I will be forced to seek some kind of sanctions against you." The user's response was, "Go for it." So, here we are.

(NB, the warning for edit warring above is not the only one; the user was warned as an IP too, see here).

) 23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you look closely at Timothy Leary: Revision history you'll find that i'm no more guilty of edit warring than FKC, who has stopped at nothing to dispute any contributions i've made to the article. FKC has previously edit warred to remove cited information claiming that Leary was a philosopher and is now making these accusations against me simply for restoring uncited text that was deleted without there ever being a consensus to do so in the first place. --AcidRock67 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No. We are dealing here with a specific issue - your edit warring to restore uncited text - not everything that either of us has ever done at the article. During the course of this dispute, you have reverted against multiple users; I have not. The article was semi-protected specifically to stop your edit warring, not to stop mine. I stopped reverting; you didn't. I attempted to resolve the dispute on the talk page, you responded with a series of ridiculous or provocative comments. Three users disagreeing with you is good enough reason why you should not be restoring uncited content. The other issues you mention have nothing to do with this one.

talk

) 00:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You did not use the talk page to try and resolve the dispute, you only used it to complain about my restoration of deleted content and threaten me with a block. And as far as I can recall you reverted multiple users when you were edit warring to remove cited information from the article despite the fact that nobody at the time agreed with you. You are hardly in any position to accuse me of edit warring when you are guilty of the same behavior yourself. --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out to you on the talk page that you were reverting multiple users, and that this is not acceptable behavior. That is attempting to resolve the dispute. You, as noted, responded to me with a series of nonsensical comments (for example, "I'm not willing to cooperate with you", indicating a lack of interest in discussing the content dispute properly). I did not "threaten" you with anything. Not being an admin, I of course cannot block you. You simply do not seem to realize that we are not here to discuss everything that ever happened at the article; we are here to discuss your behavior during a recent dispute, and the unacceptable things you have done during the course of that dispute. Complaining that I might have done bad things at some point in the past is not going to help you.

talk

) 01:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If only you tried practicing anything you preach, you wikipedian bureaucrat. --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And there we go again: rather than say anything relevant that deals with the issue at hand, you respond with a pointless, uncivil comment and a personal insult. As I've said, you've shown a lack of interest in resolving disputes properly.

talk

) 01:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, I am done arguing with you. --AcidRock67 (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidently you have violated

talk

) 02:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

And now you've reverted C.Fred too, see here. Bad move.

talk

) 02:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say in wikipedia's rules and guidelines that if any information is uncited it needs to be removed from the article? --AcidRock67 (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevant issue we are here to discuss is your edit warring, which seems to express your view that you can continue reverting no matter how many other users disagree with you - and you have just proved my point with that poorly judged revert of C.Fred.

talk

) 02:38, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a policy that states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining wikipedia, ignore it." Unfortunately that policy could be interpreted over a million different ways. --AcidRock67 (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 03:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring using multiple accounts. Bishonen | talk 03:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Having slept on it, I've changed the block length to 24 hours from now (=28 hours in all). Bishonen | talk 06:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720333600 by LM2000 (talk) Please stop violating wikipedia policy by removing properly sourced material."
2. 05:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720327387 by LM2000 (talk) rvv"
3. 02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720306497 by ShadowDragon343 (talk) NBC News source. Please do not remove sourced material in violation of policy."
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC) to 22:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720142304 by
      WP:V
      sourced material by Jkerrigan8"
   2. 22:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Commentators, writers and columnists */ Not sourced to
      WP:V
      source (link is deadlink appearing fake)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [120]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#David_Duke

Comments:

Also, spurious accusations of vandalism against other editors. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making this VQukr, I was typing one up. This user has been at this awhile:

May 6-9:

1. [121]
2. [122]
3. [123]
4. [124]

and simultaneously edit warred over similar material:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

User repeatedly dismisses reverts as having been done by vandals, harassers, or Republicans in edit summaries.LM2000 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh good heavens. LM2000 has made ridiculous removals of well-sourced content, has made false claims in edit summaries saying "per talk page" that aren't supported by the talk page, and now I guess LM2000 had to get someone to help him out filing this false and ridiculous "notice" after his refusal to bother with coming to the talk page despite being pinged on it. There's nothing to this "notice", it's clearly been filed in bad faith. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

You'll note that despite falsely claiming an "attempt to resolve" on article talk page, neither VQuakr (who I've avoided for pulling this kind of stunt in the past, and who seems to have some sort of vendetta against me) and LM2000 have bothered to actually participate there. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I actually started the discussion that Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz has linked to.LM2000 (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Update: LM2000 has FINALLY started participating (if it can be called that) only after being called out for not participating, here. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Update 2: I've removed another bit of IP misbehavior (diff) for being unsourced. Maybe LM2000 or VQuakr want to complain about that too? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Update 3: After sleeping on it, I'm creating an

WP:RFC (talkpage link to RFC section) to gather further input on the matter. If only the two tendentious editors had bothered to engage on the talk page, rather than creating things like this in a bid to intimidate so as to get their way... Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk

) 15:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Varicocele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joltzipper (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. 7 April diff
2. 14 May diff
3. 15 May diff
4. 15 May diff
5. 15 May diff
6. 15 May diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

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

Comments:

User is a

) 22:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes there have been ongoing issues with this editor. Prior concerns can be seen here [129] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: User-multi error: "SummerPhDv2.0" is not a valid project or language code (help).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BonBon_(song)&diff=720378057&oldid=720235297

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheap_Thrills_(song)&diff=720081059&oldid=720080718

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Romantics_(song)&diff=720082641&oldid=720079406

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Romantics_(song)&diff=720078850&oldid=720065888

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]
5. [135] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandarin050 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136] [137] [138]

Comments:

what i'm saying is that i have resources for my edits, I try to improve articles but at the same time I face prejudice, nonsense removal of my contributions without any logical reason, i face that only from this very user!

and you can clearly see he is controversial and has been accused with such things from a long time.Mandarin050 (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SalemHanna#16_May_2016. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• No violation The reverts are not on the same page. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have blocked Mandarin050 as a  Confirmed sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Hall of Game Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StealthForce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

StealthForce deleted the 'Awards disestablished in 2014' category from this article again; this is the same user that has been involved in constant edit wars over this article in the past (which you can see in the Hall of Game Awards article history log). I also feel he should be banned because of this matter. Can you please reinstate that particular category for the aforementioned article, as well? Thank you. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I am unable to link to the history log showing all the extensive disruptive edits StealthForce has made (he has made a lot of edits), but you view it in the article's history second, as I mentioned. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation here. StealthForce has made only one edit in 2016 at Hall of Game Awards. Did you intend to mention a different article? EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No, but given how these awards have not taken place in 2014, and I have to constantly re-add the 'Awards disestablished in 2014' category to said article, and he (likely) may end up repeating this (removing it from that category, and the constant edit warring from last year as well over a non-existent 2015 edition, and he also says on his talk page that they did happen, when they really didn't), this is why I ask this. I would also like to have said category reinstated to the article, as well, if that is at all possible. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the user didn't do anything Wrong. Also, give Stealthforce a Break, the user is new to wikipedia. Also, he only edited the page ONCE in the last few days, only 1 time and that's it. The user should't be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A (talk) 04:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not trying to start a fight here. But you sir are in the wrong here. Why did you even start editing page anyway? BTW nobody goes on that page anymore, it's old. Also, besides edit warning, atleast make the result 24hrs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, let me answer your question. The awards were last held in 2014, no announcement has made since about them, and they should be left alone with the 'Awards disestablished in 2014 category in it. So, there. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well he didn't do anything Wrong. Also, the awards did air last year, it just wasn't televised, and it was a small event last year. And the website still works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A (talk) 04:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I NOT A SOCKPUPPET! I don't even know the guy. I'm Just Looking Out for a fellow user and being a good Samaritan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, Admins, this guy is getting a little worked up over nothing. It's just a silly edit, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I am NOT getting worked over nothing. It's just a minor edit, and you and StealthForce are delusional. You know what, you BOTH aren't worth dealing with anymore. Good day, and have a nice life. 2601:601:4002:E260:2C5A:78C1:501E:4DDF (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, you are being worked up. It's just a small edit man, Like Come On, just leave it alone. He didn't do anything Wrong and just leave the user alone. And good night good sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:4501:A323:9911:756:AB12:CA3A (talk) 05:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I just came back home from a Hard Day at Work and No One told me about this. Also, I don't see anything I did Wrong and the guy is just worked up Over Nothing.

No, I was NOT getting worked up over nothing. I was trying to point out the falsities of the edits you and StealthForce have made; the Hall of Game Awards ended in 2014 and Outlander, NOT The Walking Dead won the best Sci-Fi Show award at the 42nd People's Choice Awards. 2601:601:4002:E260:C55:D9A3:284B:996C (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Swing axle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.69.195.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Slow-running 14RR for the last month or two. See article history

Will anyone who still retains the will to live please apply an appropriate cluebat. In either direction. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected three months. This is a war between IPs, but nobody has been presenting their case on the talk page. They just keep on reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: 2016 French Open (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tennistz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]
4. [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• First warning: [144] - User then blanked the general warning discussion
• Second warning: [145]

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

Comments:

Editor has disrupting Agnieszka Radwańska's points distributed from the recent Madrid Open comes from an official WTA site as the major Grand Slam tennis competition starts a week from now. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment The articles in question give no sourcing for the seeding. You say the French Open bases it's seeds on player ranking. Where is that source? Also, if it's based on the ranking from the prior week, those sources have not been officially released yet. That happens sometime on May 16. It's tough to base disruptive editing with no sources to go on. How would a non-involved, non-tennis administrator know who is correct. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Mainly based on today's WTA ranking. 333-blue 23:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello; I've just been notified about this recently after I was the victim being reported, and I want to make sure that this is prevented before a user is blocked.

On

and I are reverting this user's edits by warning him through the page history, which the user is definitely watching but is not changing behavior. Looks like we were careful not to violate 3RR along with another user too (FYI). I've now added a message on his wall about this message to make sure that this message is legitimate. I hope I haven't missed anything else - my first time doing this.

Here is the link to the history page with the clear explanation.

I don't want any blocks to this user if he understands the protocol and procedures, but I do want him to understand the rules. I almost learned from the hard way. Maybe he can do the same? Either way, happy editing!

3primetime3 (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning me, I'd have to say a block, in my opinion, wouldn't be out of order; he's consistently arguing and challenging us to the point where he most likely is vandalising deliberately. It's not my place to decide, though. It's been going on for 10+ reversions (with a quick glance).

Zia224 (talk

) 04:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@

Zia224: @Widr: I added that the IP was blocked for 31 hours. It looks like you blocked the IP without checking this XD. Thanks for your help guys. Stay awesome, and happy editing! :D 3primetime3 (talk

) 04:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "really? What part? The part where he almost killed two women, the bit where he was charged with erratically driving an unregistered car, the many dangerous driving offenses, or the list of companies? Did you determine this by content or text size?"
2. 06:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "And yet again, I've asked what BLP violations you are referring to. The list of companies, the incident where the women were run over, the conviction and section 10 for driving an unregistered without his license on him - none of these are BLPs."
3. 04:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "You would have to first establish that I have violated BLP policy"
4. 02:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "And yet the lost of companies isn't a BLP issue, and all material has been sourced correctly"
5. 23:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "this isn't ridiculous - I registered my disgust at the removal of this material on the talk page, if you were to respond that would be good. Putting it back. You've removed plenty of material that nobody could consider trivial in any way."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Five reverts in less than twelve hours at

) 09:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

well, you do keep removing info like him nearly killing two women, his huge number of traffic offenses, the companies which you originally told me that no newspaper compiled a list on but actually I had cited a list of companies compiled by The Australian. You've also told me I can't use an ASIC document to confirm company ownership, but when I pointed out this is permissible... Crickets. Given I've been asking you to clarify where the issues are and I asked a lot of questions (because you removed a lot of material - and called me obsessive to boot) it's fairly amazing you haven't actually answered them. Have a look at the talk page, I've been asking where the issues are and I genuinely am confused now what the objections are. - 1.129.97.101 (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely This is an alternate account of User:Letsbefiends, who I've blocked for an indefinite period for this reckless conduct. I've blocked the IP for a week. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Page:

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

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

Comments:

Appears to be a student but has no contribs that link them to any course. I welcomed them and left them advice on their talk page, as well as in edit notes, and on the article Talk page. Unresponsive and edit-warring. In their last dif they added an image file that is COPYVIO that I have speedied on the commons here. ack. 11:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Swing Dance Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Special Recognition Award recipients */"
2. 18:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Special Recognition Award recipients */"
3. 04:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Special Recognition Award recipients */"
4. 21:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Special Recognition Award recipients */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The requirements for sourcing have been discussed with this user both at User talk:LeonRaper and Draft talk:Leon Raper. Jbh^Talk 19:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit of 21:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC) is not a revert, it is adding entirely new content. The other 3 are reverts. As of now he has not broken 3RR even though he is edit warring. -- GB fan 19:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Ahh... my error. I thought he had added the material once earlier on the 13th but I see it was just a dummy edit. Jbh^Talk 19:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think they should be indefinitely blocked as

self-promote. Joseph2302 (talk

) 21:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree with any of what has been posted above. However, I just want to add that I think Raper is a new, elderly (80+ by his own account) editor who seems to be trying to use Wikipedia as a way to

WP:LASTCHANCE. Raper has often asked to be put in contact with someone who is in charge so maybe he will be more attentive to someone he feels is an authority figure such as an administrator. If he continues with the edit warring, etc. after being officially warned, then blocking may necessary. -- Marchjuly (talk

) 02:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

LeonRaper 12:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I am very sorry I have obviously offended anyone at Wikipedia. However this has been a very difficult process when I am contacted by 29 different people at Wikipedia. I must really apologize to Marchjuly, Theroadislong, Jbhunley, Randykitty and others who have really tried to help me.

My real frustration right now is my not being able to provide a citation for my award from the World Swing Dance Hall of Fame. I am going to take my Special Recognition Award to a printer today to get a copy to hopefully add to my web page. How would you feel if you got an award from someone and they refused to let the public know about it.

I have worked all my dance life trying to help dancers. My http://www.DanceDictionary.com has helped dancers all over the world.

I haven't made a dime from my dance web sites. I did make a small amount of money from teaching dance just like all other dance instructors have.

I lost $5,000 trying to keep my "Jitterbug Club" going in California in the 1970's. I have also spent a great deal of money developing and supporting many other dance related items. I love dance and do everything I can to help dancers.

Sorry

LeonRaper 12:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

LeonRaper 12:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Will you tell your Wikipedia people to stop making negative statements about me. The following are just a few:

Joseph2302: "Stop posting on talkpages that you have been banned from my users." I don't have a clue what he is talking about

Joseph2302: "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising. Wikipedia is not..."

Thomas W: "You're not trying to prepare "a page about dance", you're trying to create an article that is obviously about yourself, i.e. an autobiography, and..."

Please, this Wikipedia harassment has got to stop

Thanks for your help

LeonRaper 12:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeonRaper (talk • contribs)

You aren't going to like my answer but here it goes. You have posted to editor's talk pages after they have asked you to stop. If someone asks you to not post to their page, don't. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself or to right the wrongs that have been done to you. Stop trying to promote yourself. The page you are creating is not about dance, it is about you. That is an autobiography. There is no harassment, those are warning for you to stop the behavior's that are undesirable here. -- GB fan 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 14:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 14:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "dont change"
5. 14:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 14:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 13:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   Twinkle
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was blocked a few hours ago by User:Widr. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

User:176.41.78.40‎ reported by User:Akocsg

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

This IP user shows no will to constructive cooperation and interest in adding sourced information at all, but is invoved in constant vandalizm, edit warring and deleting of content in the

) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Akocsg: I reported him above. Also, you might want to check out my talk page: he's posted several comments there. Peter Sam Fan 15:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @Peter SamFan: Yes I know, thanks for your support. Could you also help out here:[146] a bit? That page should be semi-protected. Akocsg (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Duplicate report. Merged with report above.--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Premier League Golden Boot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]
4. [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [154]

Comments:

PeeJay2K3 has been reverting announcements of this year's award winner, even where it includes references to reliable sources, claiming that someone else could win the award (i.e., If someone scores over a dozen goals in an association football match tonight. In case you're unfamiliar with the sport, this would probably require every player on both teams collaborating to make just this happen). I informed him of

) 20:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

None of the "announcements" of Harry Kane as the 2015-16 Premier League Golden Boot winner have actually come from the Premier League itself. They all purport to know that's where the Golden Boot will go, but even the league itself hasn't announced the winner. Obviously it's extremely unlikely that anyone will overtake him, but the possibility remains, no matter how remote, and any source that claims certainty over Kane's victory is premature at best. Obviously there are no sources to back up my position since it's very difficult to prove a negative, but that doesn't make my position any less correct. –

Jay

20:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• PeeJay: BDD and the IP editor(s) you've been reverting are right on this; multiple reliable sources are reporting he won this, and the odds of him not winning this are astronomically small (his winning is not 99.9% certain, as you said somewhere, but 99.999999999...% certain). I know you're active at
  WP:FOOTY so I know you know how impossible that would be. So their edit is right based on policy, and right based on rationality. I won't block for now over something this trivial, but (a) anyone is free to restore Kane to that page, and (b) you'll be blocked for edit warring if you revert such a restoration. --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 20:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of the matter,

Jay

21:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The end of the match moots this particular case, but so you're clear about this if it comes up in the future: it wasn't an idle threat; I would have blocked you if you'd continued to edit war, and since a block for edit warring after being given an edit warring notice - without the courtesy of yet another warning - would have been completely within policy, it's important that you understand that you were wrong about this. You can be sure you'll get no such courtesy from me again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@

Jay

21:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Old houses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Please stop bullying. You will be reported. From Wikipedia's own explanation on editing- "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.""
2. 21:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "Editing and deleting due to a lack of reliable source is allowable."
3. Consecutive edits made from 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC) to 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "No source for date or provenance of building timbers."
   2. 02:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720574697 by N0TABENE (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 03:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
3. 03:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on
   TW
   )"
4. 03:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Deletion of content"

Comments:

Editor has repeated deleted content without discussion, consensus or edit summaries, and launched personal attacks when he was requested to provide citations, edit summaries, to use Talk page to discuss instead of unilaterally deleting content. Has been repeated warned, with WP guideline refs, and merely deletes warnings. Has reverted deletions on List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts and List of the oldest buildings in the United States, and deleted content on my User page when I warned him about personal attacks against editors. When WP guidelines are given, he attacked me in a summary and my Userpage as a "wikibully", then placed on his userpage, "Wikipedia bullies are pathetic, merely cherry-picking rules to fit their warped, screen-induced insanity." Attempts to discuss changes have been ignored and deletion of both content and references have continued since he began editing. NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 05:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• No violation I'm seeing two reverts within the past 24 hours. This third one is 24 hours and 20 minutes before his last revert and consecutive edits are generally regarded as part of the same revert.

I'm also seeing that both of you are taking things way too damn personally. Yes, he should not be calling anyone a wikibully and should not hypocritically follow it by posting further insults about a name he just called someone, and I'll leave a note about that. Old Houses has not made any edits to anyone's user page, and the only time he removed content from your user talk page was him editing his own comments as he is entitled to do. He is also entitled to remove warnings from his user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunni_Islam&oldid=720720108

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunni_Islam&oldid=720736605
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunni_Islam&oldid=720737419
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sunni_Islam&oldid=720738775

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%B7%D9%81%D9%89_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%8A%D9%84&oldid=720808464

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunni_Islam&oldid=720807192

Comments:
Greetings Admins, 3 different users have now reverted this user's deletions of sourced content on May 17, 2016. cӨde1+6^TP 02:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello :-). I Added important info and a reliable source, and I removed (one) person's opinion on Sunni Islam where he tries to judge weather Sunni Islam represents the original Islam or not! Because one person's or even few persons opinion is not a reliable sources at all in Wikipedia on such a huge issue and global religion. Encyclopedias such as Wikipedia are neutral and do not promote one's or even few people opinion on a religion. I also removed one person's false claim who maybe said (The sequence of events of the 20th century has led to resentment in some quarters of the Sunni community due to the loss of pre-eminence in several previously Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant, Mesopotamia, the Balkans and the Caucasus). I didn't remove just because I couldn't find the original source to read claimed quotation and because it is an opinion of one person only, I removed it also because it is completely false info. Sunni-dominated regions such as the Levant.. etc are still Sunni-dominated regions.^[1] Best wishes for you. مصطفى النيل (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2016 (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. I will, at least, add the article to my watchlist. Ian.thomson (talk
  ) 09:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]
3. [158] – "You are an idiot, Mac Dreamstate! I was shocked that your common sense is so hollow. STOP PRETENDING LIKE A GENIUS! You're a incurable cancer in Wikipedia community manipulating other user's works. Don't be rude, respect your fellow users project. shshh.."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160] (The user's talk page rather than article talk page; there is a consensus already which covers all corresponding articles.)

Comments:

User:Pacphobia claims that a

.

I have attempted discussion to highlight the aforementioned rationale at User:Pacphobia's talk page without success, as they choose only to communicate via edit summaries. Addressing a consensus/unanimously-agreed formatting issue at the article talk page itself would be redundant in this situation, as the format has already been established at WikiProject Boxing. As of their most recent revert (of which there have been three so far, in less than 24 hours), they have now resorted to insults, shifting this from a content issue to a conduct one. If they wish to challenge the existing consensus at WikiProject Boxing, they are very much welcome to do so, but I refuse to collaborate with anyone who needs to insult others to get their way. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So following his warning, do I wait some length of time before I re-revert, or must he show up here first? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – User:Pacphobia blocked 24 hours. For personal attacks such as 'incurable cancer in Wikipedia community' and edit warring. User:Pacphobia has 37 edits but has never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: International Securities Identification Number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Standardandpoors (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13 may
2. 14 may
3. 18 may
4. 18 may

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: to Standardandpoors, 2601:602:9702:4FC:A93C:C93D:F3A:AF29, 166.176.185.92 and 166.176.184.89.

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

Comments:

I initially (and subsequently) only removed a space incorrectly placed in a three-quote, which resulted in bad formatting. For that, I have been accused of spamming and threatened of suspension in the reverts' comments. The problem appears in the "BAE Systems section" here. Four different accounts have reverted me, all have only this edit (except 166.176.184.89 has 3 other ones). There are also users Standandpoors (not the same as above!) and Bobkerry in the recent history, both with only one edit.

This misplaced space dates back to this edit in october 2014.

Oh, and by the way, after my notification of R3R, Standardandpoors replied with this: "Dont be an idiot, we can easily get you booted."

All of this for a space. Weird.

Kiwipidae (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Standardandpoors indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. It's also a username violation, and the user appears to be a troll. That should do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Kiwipidae (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Battle of Ia Drang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dino nam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "OR tagged"
2. 09:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720652950 by
   WP:AN/I
   "
3. 01:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "disruptive editing; sourced materials deleted without explanation."
4. 15:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC) "sourced materials restored"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continual edit war against consensus;

14:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I understand that it's edit warring, but it would be fairer if you report user:Tnguyen4321 as well. A "war" of course cannot be waged by a single side. Dino nam (talk

) 01:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gkable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163] (IP editor, but obviously Gkable)
3. [164]
4. [165]
5. [166]
6. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169]

Comments:

User is party to court case which is subject of article. His user page and user talk page contain rants about me, not to mention his rants on my talk page. Every time I try to have a constructive conversation about the page, he says that I am a vandal and that I think that he is biased. He has done this to other users too. Orthogonal1 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be having a productive conversation now, so I'm going to ask for this request to be put on hold. Thanks for understanding. Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Antacid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nakita Blanco291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Very similar to the case above about Ryleedellabosca. This user too is including links in refs to University of Notre Dame in Australia, is working on a health article, is adding badly sourced or unsourced content, and is not talking. have posted a notice to the Education program incident board here Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. Sorry, as much as I'd like to help, I'm only seeing two reverts, since this doesn't seem to have been bringing back older article material. I'll add it to my watchlist, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes not over 3RR but definitely edit warring. Not protesting, just noting that. I appreciate you putting this on your watchlist. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Games Junn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:20, May 19, 2016 diff
2. 12:27, May 19, 2016 diff
3. 13:53, May 19, 2016 diff
4. 15:42, May 19, 2016‎ diff

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. diff1
2. diff2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice#Revisiting the lead (I linked to the entire discussion to show the order of events as opposed to a single diff)

Comments:

As a disclaimer, an SPI report involving this editor has been initiated. A previous SPI resulted in a block, and I'm mentioning it here as the behavior between the accounts are similar (though the outcome has not yet been determined in the latest report). Here, the main concern is the 3RR violation in the midst of an active discussion on the article talk page that the editor was clearly aware of. I've tried to explain in several ways that when there is an active dispute, it is best to sort it out on the article's talk page or seek an alternative form of dispute resolution. However, despite the pleas by myself and another editor (Bignole), the user continued to ram their preferred version into the article. The previous version before the reverting took place was discussed and agreed upon earlier (article talk page discussion linked above). --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I decided to go along with the emerging consensus on the relatively minor edit I was pursuing. Follow my edit history for guidance. Gone60 is having a knee jerk reaction over what amounts to little more than the splitting of hairs over a few words. I corrected those edits to reflect the evolving consensus on the talk page. Much ado about nothing in my opinion.Could've been resolved with a friendly conversation.Games Junn (talk) 23:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a two-way street. Constant reversion can be taken offensively, even if that wasn't your intention. Instead of taking the chance, this should have resorted to discussion only, especially since it involved more than two editors. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked as a  Confirmed sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720830731 by
   stop here
   . I'll be explicit in the talk pages. It would be nice if you guys would bother to read before reverting."
2. 06:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720830334 by
   talk
   ) The edits are not crap. They are verified with the original source."
3. 05:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 720828437 by Lipsquid (talk) Bullshit. Each edit is justified."
4. 05:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Religious arguments */ Wikilink John Polkinghorne."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Gaming us by reverting and stopping- but only by having the last word. Should've stopped when advised by three other editors.

06:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The three editors are

collaborating by teaming up. That is truly gaming the system. They do not bother to actually read the content, to research the history of the article, or to check the source. And they are quite nasty, originally calling the edits "Nonsense" and it gets worse. 71.184.228.118 (talk

) 06:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying Meatpuppets are collaborating against you is a pretty serious charge. What evidence do you have for this collusion? I know neither of the other two editors. Lipsquid (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as is calling people bullies and clueless [170], [171] is unnecessary.

^{Imperatrix Mundi}

06:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. He was just at the edge of a block for either edit warring and incivility, and I've decided that that adds up. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, calling another editor's researched, verified, and referenced edits (which were only rolling back deletion of long-standing material in the article), calling those edits "Nonsense" with no other explanation for the revert, that's quite civil, ain't it? Don't pretend to be impartial Ian. I did not harass anyone. Stopped before 3RR. Explained my edits in the talk page of the article. Did all the correct things. You were the violator of Wikipedia standards in that action. And your response to this will tell whether or not you want to reinforce that violation or not. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Calling edits nonsense is commenting on content, not on contributors. Calling people "bullies" is commenting on contributors, not on content. This is harassment and if you can't understand that you should not be editing here. As I said, you were at the edge of a 3rr block (and the fact that you knew where the leash line is indicates that you are gaming the system) and you were undeniably attacking other users.

WP:ANI and watch that discussion get closed pretty quickly. Ian.thomson (talk

) 01:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

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

)

[172]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [176]

Comments:

Although this does not cross the bright line, I come here because I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this.

) 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts over a week ago with not even a simple statement on why the material as sourced belongs in an encyclopedia article. The editors have already been pointed to

talk

) 15:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Robert.Harker has graciously added the list of manufacturers back into the article, along with copious new sources. Hopefully that should put this issue to bed and convince Ronz to leave the article alone. Any further reverts by Ronz in this case should result in an immediate block, in my opinion. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ronz does not have a good track record of respecting consensus (or lack thereof) so I'm not confident we've seen the end of this. ~Kvng (talk

) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for yet more evidence this is harassment. --

talk

) 16:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. This dispute does not belong in this forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: 184.0.134.37 (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. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Comments:
Person appears to be from the Haliwa group and using wikipedia to remove any negative media coverage, attemtping to demand their group is 100% recognized when the group has never been recognized by the federal government, "haliwa" is not the name of any "historical" tribe name, This person is removing references to actual apporved media sites coverage, the person has started to spam the same Haliwa sentence on other wikipedia pages as well. This person has even attempted to remove items from the talk page where this subject has already been discussed.

• Note Only two of the diffs you give are reverts of
  semiprotect the article, your IP won't be able to edit it either.) Bishonen | talk
  19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]
5. [188]
6. [189]
7. [190]
8. [191]
9. [192]
10. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments:

The user has initially deleted a large section of the article about the US-Iran negotiations in 2003. This section has numerous credible links. The user has repeatedly reverted attempts to reinsert the section. The user has made various false claims in support of the reverts, from claiming that the section is a "hoax" (several major sources say it happened, so the notion that it's a "hoax is at best, extremely controversial, and not an established fact), to claiming my edit contained the term "neocons" (it contained the term "neoconservative", a formal term in political science to describe a member of the neoconservative political movement), to claiming to another user that there is a "consensus" for the section being removed, which the user's repeated reverts show is not the case.

SupaEdita (talk) 05:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting blocked editors does not count toward

WP:3RR. I'm not seeing more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. If you want a broader definition of edit warring, you've edit warred at least as much, and if an administrator takes any action, you're going to get blocked, too. Actually, looking over the article history, I see that you've been reverted by multiple users and that the talk page is against your edits. I could actually block just you for edit warring and call it a day. @SupaEdita: are you really sure you want admin action here? Ian.thomson (talk

) 07:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I already received a 60 hour ban. The user in question has engaged in a lot more reverting than I. Moreover, all of this started when they deleted a highly sourced 2,000 word section, calling it a "hoax", and thereafter using various contrived justifications, like claiming there was "consensus" for the removal, to continue reverting attempts to reinsert the section. SupaEdita (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no justification for total blankings as performed by TheTimesAreAChanging here, so at least a warning is in order here. Dorpater (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Of the two editors at

Talk:People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran#Dispute

who are not here, one says that if the information "is to be included the current phrasing seems incorrect," while the other, upon hearing TTAC's explanation, said "I think you are welcome to modify or remove this text, especially since there was no any reasonable objections on this page from another "side" of the dispute. No objections from me."

TTAC is not the only person reverting SupaEdita. The 60 hour block SupaEdita received last month for this same behavior rather indicates that this is a retaliatory report by a

WP:SPA @SupaEdita

: blocks aren't a one-time deal. Counting the reverts, we have:

• TTAC's reverts in the article this year include: 0 (reverting a banned user doesn't count), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (reverting an IP hopper who was behaving like someone evading their block), 7 (as with 6), 8 (as with 6 and 7), 9, 10. Ignoring the ones where TTAC reverts the IP hopper who really does look like someone evading their block and was only active while you were blocked, TTAC has 7 reverts, and all against you.
• SupaEdita's reverts in the same time span include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (reverting someone else to restore the disputed section), 7 (as with 6), 8 (as with 6 and 7), 9, 10, 11 That's 11 reverts, against multiple editors with a talk page consensus. I'm not even including edits by an IP hopper who acted like someone evading their block and who was only active while SupaEdita was blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

1. You're supposed to assume good faith. The edits by the various IPs were not by me, "evading [my] ban". 2. I've already received a 60 hour ban for my reverts. Claiming my past behaviour was worse does not get TTAC off the hook. It only suggests that >= 60 hour ban would be excessive, or disproportionate to what I received. 3. "against multiple editors with a talk page consensus. " There is no "talk page consensus" that the section should be removed. A handful of users have participated, and I'm one of those users, and I strongly oppose the removal. By all means, look at the arguments and evidence presented, and provide some input. If more users review the dispute, and agree that the section warrants removal, despite the numerous credible sources validating its account, then I would have no objection to its removal, but so far that hasn't happened SupaEdita (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

) 23:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The other IP addresses acted after my ban was lifted too. If we're going to assume bad faith based on reasonable cause, then look at the two users eliminating the section about Iran - US negotiations. One of them, TTAC, has reverted one of my edits based on the contrived justification that I used the term "neocons". Not only did I not use the term - I used the term "neoconservatives" which is a formal term for a member of a political movement - the very fact that they are trying to censor mention of neoconservatism suggests a political motive behind the edits. The very first deletion, which started the dispute, was by TTAC, and they justified it with the claim of an Iranian offer was a "hoax" - despite several highly credible source attesting to it happening, and with no explanation provided in the Talk section to substantiate the "hoax" charge. Despite being pressed by me and another editor (who admittedly later changed their mind) in the Talk section, TTAC continued reverting attempts to reinsert the section. TTAC has been acting in bad faith.

"Three users on the talk page agree that the material you are restoring is not appropriate. You are the only one disagreeing, which does not invalidate a consensus -- it only means you are ignoring the consensus. " When three users agree, and one disagrees, calling it "consensus" is odd. There is consensus among the three that agree, which by definition, will always be true, but that in no way suggests an overall consensus. I am therefore not "ignoring" any discussion-wide consensus. Moreover, a recent revert to restore the deleted section by another established user means now there is more than one registered user opposing the deletion. There is no consensus for the deletion SupaEdita (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That editor has not posted on the talk page, and does not even appear to have looked at it. It's still three against one on the talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

By all means, look at the arguments and evidence presented, and provide some input. If more users review the dispute, and agree that the section warrants removal, despite the numerous credible sources validating its account, then I would have no objection to its removal, but three vs one in the Talk page is not, in my mind, a clear consensus for one position. Moroever, I've made significant edits to the original content to address the concerns that TTAC has expressed about the veracity of the claim. I've incorporated the skeptics' point of view, including by, among other things, adding the qualifier "alleged" in front of "negotiations between Tehran and Washington" in the title of the section. It's unreasonable to simply delete my contributions without discussion in the Talk section, and with contrived justifications like me using the word "neoconservative". SupaEdita (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Discovery Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Programming */ User:Electricburst1996, User:AdamDeanHall, I need you to leave "Beast Wars: Transformers" and "Beast Machines: Transformers" ALONE so I can watch it on TV, YOU UNDERSTAND ME?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has had their edits reverted multiple times on different accounts/IPs. 172.164.28.99, 172.164.0.109 & 172.164.28.99 Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This appears to be

McGeddon (talk

) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston, since the mentioned IPs are obviously used by one person, I've blocked the small range 172.164.0.0/19 for 1 month week, too. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC).

Page: G. Gordon Liddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 43.242.104.43 (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. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've asked this editor to take it to the talk page, but they refuse to do so. Page has a history of folks attempting to add this to the lead, and being reverted, and never discussing.

Comments:

• Page protected by someone else --slakr^\ talk / 05:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

Rosena Allin-Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "The most reliable source is her application to be a councillor. Undid revision 721358670 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
2. 08:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Allin-Khan's Postcode SW12 9QR: The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows shows she did not live in Tooting but Battersea."
3. 08:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Allin-Khan's Postcode SW12 9QR: The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows shows she did not live in Tooting but Battersea."
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) to 08:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows"
   2. 08:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Allin-Khan's Postcode SW12 9QR: The notice of polls issued by the Electoral Commission in 2014 when Allin-Khan applied to run for councillor shows shows she did not live in Tooting but Battersea."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (
   TW
   )"
2. 08:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Rosena Allin-Khan */ new section"
3. 08:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user seems determined to set

) 09:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Makolli86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 14:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 12:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 15:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
3. 15:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC) "/* May 2016 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor keeps on editing despite being told to stop. Other editors have responded to his messages at the article talkpage. I am sorry it had to go this far, but since the editor keeps editing I see no other option. Qed237 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I have verified that many Serbian editors are writing in favour for their own country when Kosovo and Kosovars are discussed. This is in contrast to Wikipedias philosophy, rules and standpoints and this violation should be taken seriously. Makolli86 (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing as much as edit-warring. Warning left on user's talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: List of Kamen Rider Blade characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [201]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:42, 18 May 2016‎
2. 21:24, 18 May 2016
3. 22:32, 18 May 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: first, second

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to resolve on user's page (see "first"), also on the article page.

Comments:
User repeated the same behavior on several articles, simultaneously:

1. List of Kamen Rider Kiva characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs
   )
2. List of Kamen Rider W characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
3. List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
4. List of Kamen Rider Blade characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user also has a habit of reverting with Twinkle without an edit summary or talk page discussion. Most recently an administrator protected one of these articles. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

This is two-sided. Both editors have run right up to the limit of 3RR on several articles, as is obvious from the page histories. I locked one of the articles here:

acronym soup and get to the meat of the issues :-) - David Gerard (talk

) 23:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Only one editor is reverting without consensus and without edit-summaries. I assumed the guidelines discouraging those were meaningful. I'm attempting to restore the articles to the state they were in before the edit-warring began. Could you remove protection (or restore the article yourself) until consensus is established? The discussion (which I participated in) has begun on an article talk page (here) - but edit-warring your preferred changes then starting talk page discussion only when forced (as the editor here did) should be discouraged. As it is, your actions give the editor no disincentive to repeat the bad behavior. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Both of you were editing less than ideally, as is immediately obvious from the article edit histories. If having the article quiet for the rest of the day gets you talking about content, that will be a good result for everyone - David Gerard (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I've been informed that you have a longstanding relationship with the banned user whose edits were restored in this edit-war. If that's incorrect I apologize. Without suggesting it affected your admin actions I'd appreciate it if another admin would review the behavior of the editors involved. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall interacting with either of you before this, and I'll note the protection is currently two days past. I expect anyone looking at the edit histories would see what I saw (two editors who were running right up to 3RR on multiple articles and needed to cool it), but if anyone else cares to opine that'd be fine by me. It's two days after the protection expired - what result are you actually, realistically, seeking here? - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

user revert the edits of last accout user claimed that they were not credible I lookover those sources and deemed them so and asked him if he wants to change please discuss in talk page per

he refused to comply and now just because I agreed with the user I am accused of sock I have had this account for a little while and I am new he has reverted a few times now dispite I asked to for wp:brd

Previous version reverted to: [202]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [203]
2. [204]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [as I said above I asked him/her to discuss per

and he/she did not even attempt

Comments:

• Your edits pretty clearly failed
  WP:MEDRS, which is a very stringent sourcing guideline with strong consensus behind it being as stringent as it is. The problematic sourcing and the sourcing guidelines have been recently discussed by Jytdog on Talk:Menopause - you would have been expected to heed the discussion already there, not demand a fresh discussion. I don't see anything from you in that talk page section, you should definitely go there first before here - David Gerard (talk
  ) 23:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
• The filer is a  Confirmed sock puppet and has been indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Page:

) and other pages, see below
User being reported: )

.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) Ferakp made at least 3 reverts in less than 24 hours

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]

• Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp made at least 4 reverts in less than 24 hours

1. [208]
2. [209]
3. [210]
4. [211]

• Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Ferakp violated the 1RR rule several times, for example 14/15 May

1. [212]
2. [213]
3. [214]
4. [215]

and 7/8 May

1. [216]
2. [217]

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ferakp#Edit_warring
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ferakp&action=history (check talkpage history, in which warnings are regularly deleted.)

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tell_Abyad#Demographics
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurds_in_Syria#Deleted_statement_related_to_the_Assyrians.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rojava#This_article_is_under_attack_of_Arab_nationalists

Comments:

• This user has been reported and he is suspected of disruptive editing and cherry picking[218]. About those changes, there was discussion and prevented users from editing without using the talk page. I have used talk pages, you can read my changes from those talk pages. Also, in many cases consensus was reached. I haven't been warned for those changes.
  talk
  ) 19:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe @Attar-Aram syria:@LouisAragon:@GGT:@Shmayo: @عمرو بن كلثوم: can comment too. --176.127.213.144 (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:49, 12 May 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:52, 19 May 2016
2. 17:28, 20 May 2016
3. 17:47, 20 May 2016
4. 20:41, 20 May 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:19, 20 May 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:CobraNet#Cleanup_templates

Comments:
Here's my perspective on what happened: Ronz plastered a bunch of cleanup templates on the top of a relatively mature article (which has been a GA in the past). I reverted the cleanup templates and started a discussion on the talk page (Talk:CobraNet#Cleanup templates) to get more information about why Ronz thinks the cleanup templates are necessary, and to gain a consensus on whether they are appropriate. Instead of participating meaningfully in this discussion, Ronz continued to make desperate attempts to add more cleanup tags, both to the top of the article as well within the article. I reverted each of these attempts, with a clear edit summary asking Ronz to participate in the talk page discussion before making any more unilateral edits to add cleanup templates to the article. Had I not reverted these edits, there would have been as many as 10 cleanup templates on the article. It was only after 3 editors (me, Kvng, and Johnuniq) agreed that the cleanup templates were inappropriate that Ronz stopped trying to add them to the article and started participating in the talk page discussion instead. This is just the latest in a string of disruptive edits that Ronz has attempted on this article. I would not be surprised if this attempt to report me for edit warring backfired on Ronz. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 05:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Page: Dominion Enterprises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Landmark Media Enterprises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norfolk Truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [219]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [220]
2. [221]
3. [222]
4. [223]
5. [224]
6. [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [227]

Comments:
Single-purpose account devoted to The Truth about an ongoing lawsuit over pension fund cuts. Same pattern in both articles. Acroterion (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Page

User talk:Toddst1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Who R U? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC) to 06:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 06:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC) "/* May 2016 */ new section"
   2. 06:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 06:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 06:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) "I wasn't done."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC) on User talk:Who R U? "WP:MOS"

• I've blocked User:Who R U? for edit warring here at AN3, which has nothing to do with the complaint of this report, I just needed to get him to stop reversing the names in the report. He is new, seems a bit clueless, but I will leave the merits of the report to different eyes. Obviously, you should feel free to extend my block if the evidence here warrants it, no need to ask me about it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

And he apparently moments later created User:Wanna Hertz Donut? to continue his rampage. Not cool. Tvoz/talk 07:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

From the start, I had the feeling the guy was WP:CIR. I've blocked that sock and the original account, indef. Likely, WP:RFAA will be needed for future articles, I already protected one, the others were PC or protected. This can be closed as the original warring is kind of moot at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for socking and competence issues. Favonian (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)