Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307

User:112.201.56.181 reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: )

Page

Michael Page (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

112.201.56.181 (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 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922531 by Morohbj (talk)"
   2. 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922455 by Morohbj (talk)"
   3. 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922381 by Morohbj (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905039 by Morohbj (talk)"
   2. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905021 by Morohbj (talk)"
   3. 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703904852 by Morohbj (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The other party in the edit war made a thread on the talk page, IP did not react to it or to my warning and continued reverting instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Yesantiago reported by User:KungAvSand (Result: )

Page

Ponce Health Sciences University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "authorized by chief operation office ann coss"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operations office"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
   2. 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
4. 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"
2. 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University. (TW)"
3. 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has an obvious conflict of interest and keeps on removing the previous (mostly properly sourced) content and replaces it with content obviously taken from some sort of promotional material issued by the university (text mentions "our students" etc.); also destroying the previous format in the process. All attempts at letting Yesantiago know about the problems with these edits seem to have been in vain, and the page currently includes the problematic material again. KungAvSand (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Me and (Result: Warning)

Page

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

User being reported

Neutralhomer (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 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows no articles, just a full page ad."
   2. 23:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows "International Show News", nothing regarding WLVA."
   3. 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
   4. 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
   5. 23:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson"
   6. 23:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
   7. 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing information that was linked to sources that did not show the information on the page. Other sources are correct and that information remains."
2. 16:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "unsourced, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V violations."
3. 16:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "all unsourced, do not readd without sources. thank you."
4. 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by 24.3.21.159 (talk): Information is unsourced, please add third-party reliable sources per WP:RS. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "/* WLVA */ WP:3RR"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User's reverts are just outside the 24-hour 3RR boundary, seemingly as a deliberate attempt to avoid the bright-line 3RR rule. They are insisting on removing information with good sources added by an IP editor and which I went through and meticulously verified myself before re-adding. Attempted to discuss with the editor on their talk page (including an explicit 3RR warning) and on Drmies' talk page, but Neutralhomer continues to insist the sources are invalid. —me_and 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Minor wording clarification —me_and 12:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just added some more discussion on the WLVA talk page in the hope that explaining precisely how Neutralhomer could verify the sources himself might help. —me_and 12:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The edits that begin with "removing" in the edit summary are actual edits, not reverts and thus not covered under 3RR. The last three are reverts and I stand at 3RR and have not made any reverts since the manual warning given at 17:55 on 2/8.

My continued issue with these edits is that the references on the WLVA page do not correspond to articles within the linked reference. As such, the information can not be confirmed and under OR and RS can be removed.

Also, for further reference for Me_and, I'm a guy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to look into this, but something's come up and I ran out of time. To save the next admin some time, just a note that the series of edits that start with "removing" do count as a revert, because taken as a whole - which we do with consecutive edits - they remove a large majority of the IP editor's text that NH previously just reverted (plus some other stuff). WP:3RR clearly includes the phrase "in whole or in part". No comment on blocks or warnings, haven't had time to look at other people's behavior or the content of edits. But there were definitely 4 reverts in a period of 24 hours + 20 minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Regardless, though, I am going on an extended WikiBreak while I re-examine my participation in this project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • (oops, forgot about this) "Agree to disagree" is not an option. You are wrong, about a very clearly worded policy, and it may get you blocked. "Agree to disagree" is an unwise reaction to finding out you're wrong about something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Floquenbeam: So I should just ignore references that don't match the articles linked? I went through each one of these "Variety" references that Me_and is so desperate to add. This one is an ad, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or WLW. The others are the same. The references given on the WLVA page can not be found on the "Variety" magazine links given. So, should I have left them there or should I have removed them because the references were not correct? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • First, this is not about content, it's about WP:3RR, and your apparent gaming of it (in two ways). Second, I see you've commented on the article talk page, where your confusion about page numbers has been answered, but you don't appear to have read their message. And third, this attitude that User:me_and is "desperate" to add these references, like they're trying to pull something, shows that you do not have the correct attitude to deal with other good faith editors right now. That wikibreak seems like a pretty good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
          • As of this post, no one has replied to my message on the WLVA talk page. I don't really expect one to be honest. I also don't expect this to just be a wikibreak. I'm calling it that to leave the door open, but this is the last straw for me. I'm done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You've been on this project long enough that you ought to know better than to pull this crap. Many users have come and go. If you need a wikibreak, please take one. If you decide to come back and contribute in a positive fashion, you'd be welcomed and have what I assume to be a good history behind you to go with it. But editors who act in a mature fashion don't announce their intentions to leave. There's nothing to be gained by doing it, except if you want to hear the following: You know where the door is; don't let it hit you on the way out. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• On the one hand, I hate to turn a blind eye to gaming the system (breaking a revert into pieces and claiming it isn't a revert, 4th revert a few minutes after the 24 hr clock had "reset"). On the other hand, when NH's 4th revert was undone, he did not attempt to revert again, and claims to be starting a wikibreak; if I were to block NH for 48 hours (because last edit warring block was a while ago), it might interfere with his ability to let go of the place for a while, which would be a good idea. So, no blocking, but a warning that this was absolutely a 3RR violation, and could easily have led to a block if I weren't such a pushover. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, I didn't make the 4th revert "a few after the...clock 'reset'" on purpose, it just happened that way, it wasn't intentional. Again, just for the record. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Per my comment on the article talkpage, the sources do check out fine; I think this is an AGF mistake, and Neutralhomer doesn't understand how to use archive.org (which is, to be fair, ridiculously counterintuitive since the "page numbers" in their scans don't match the page numbers of the original print source). I'd say no harm, no foul, provided NH doesn't revert again. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:14, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[2]
2. 18:23, 09 February 2016: Reverted Nishidani.[3]
3. 19:54, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[4]
4. 20:02, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[5]
5. 23:28, 09 February 2016: Reverted Sepsis II.[6]
6. 00:15, 10 February 2016: Reverted Nableezy.[7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8][9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute and have not edited the page in question; I am just reporting the edit warring. Past experience at Template talk:Infobox ‎has convinced me that any comments by me would not be helpful.

Comments:

Could someone please post a notice to User talk:Sir Joseph? I cannot post to this user's talk page.[10]

Also, this may be under Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. I will leave it up to the discretion of the admin who deal with this report to decide whether DS applies. (Is there a 1RR restriction on the page?[11])--Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

this is just a petty filling by a user who has it in for me and has a history with me. I'd ask him to stop stalking me. There's also no edit warring, I'd ask you to look at the talk page and my talk page. Most of those are not reverts. If he's not involved, he should stay that way. I could boomerang him for his behavior. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile the above claim ("most of those are not reverts") with the fact that all six diffs I posted have edit summaries that start with "Reverted 1 edit by..." or "Reverted to revision X by...". IMO, this sort of WP:IDHT behavior is part of the pattern of disruptive behavior I am seeing in Sir Joseph. As for the stalking claim, WP:WIKIHOUNDING says "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." I have not nor do I intend to edit any articles or talk pages just because Sir Joseph edited them, but I do intend to monitor his behavior at least for a while and to deal with any unambiguous violations of Wikipedia's behavioral policies I see, just as I would with any other editor who I noticed being disruptive. All Sir Joseph has to do is refrain from things like edit warring and he will never hear form me. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Guy, for the record, there is an exception for required notices when banned from a user talk page by that user. As he's obviously seen this thread, I suppose the question is moot. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Clear 3RR violation. I have blocked for 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:140:8200:de:9c92:58a1:e43e:3b98 reported by User:‪107.107.61.211‬ (Result: Semi)

Page: List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:140:8200:de:9c92:58a1:e43e:3b98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Power_Rangers_Dino_Charge_characters&oldid=704054317

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98&oldid=704222758

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see version comments

Comments:
User apparently does not to care about consensus or edit warring. 107.107.61.211 (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the edit that this guy has restored. He is just saying that because I caught him using 5 different logins to keep restoring the silly piece of unsourced trivia.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Three users support the edits - this ONE editor does not and has edit warred to revert them. I don't know what "5 logins" means butI know 3RR and he passed it. 107.107.61.211 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a lie. One person added the edit, I undid it (and did other fixes), and then YOU kept undoing my fixes and restoring the edit. I know you're also 107.107.61.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 107.107.56.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 166.171.186.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 166.171.186.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You're lying that there is a consensus. You keep reverting all the good changes I've tried to make to do what? Get me in trouble? Have a silly sentence that one actor is the oldest actor on the show? What's the point?--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And now he's done it again as 166.172.62.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This has to be vandalism. He's ruining the page just because he can and because he wants me to be in trouble for it.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Note to the reviewer: I am the 107* IPs. I'm not the other ones or the registered user. I don't want t "get you in trouble" I want you to respect the rules and stop edit warring! 107.107.62.149 (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're the 107 IPs and the 116 IPs. Stop lying. I wouldn't be edit warring if you hadn't started edit warring by undoing every change I made to the page. Now it's locked because you kept lying about a consensus existing for your version.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Peacemaker67. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Darek555 reported by User:75.129.197.146 (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page: Permanent death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darek555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: the problematic section's been continuously re-added for like 2 years now... I guess maybe [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: didn't have to, someone else already warned him [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not really my attempt but consensus is clear enough against restoring the section [23]

Comments:

that about sums it up 75.129.197.146 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is untrue, that user periodically remove my entry, generally in this thread is some small group of people who usurp the right to correct definition, They do not want to provide concrete proof I clear requested
  [24]

I'm author of this thred.--Darek555 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Only to comment and not as an assessment towards if this is edit warring: I've seen Darek555's participating in a few article talk pages that I watch and it should be evident that I don't think English is their first language. This may be hampering efforts to work constructively between themself and others. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • he's not discussing anything, he's ranting and refusing to hear about WP:V - his edits also violate clear consensus on the talk page 75.129.197.146 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{admin help|he did it again, can some admin finally take a look at the above report please}} 75.129.197.146 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Darek555 is warned they may be blocked the next time they make a change that doesn't have prior consensus on Talk. I'm also semiprotecting the article for two months. This can be lifted if consensus is reached on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
• Why you revert my enter and why you listing this people ? They dont make proof I requested here :

[25] Where is untru in my redaction ? :

• Path of Exile has Hardcore separated worlds. A character killed in this mode cannot be accessed any more, there is no possibility to resurrect him, player lose everything with this character. This is very hard mode of permadeath where player lose a months of playing even years and every thing he reached , not only couple hours of playing, which can be reaped in next time. In Path of Exile exists special harder option called cutthroat .

Please dont delete this redaction , until some ones answer to my question in talk: I have simple a serious suggestion to you prove me that you are a man and and kill a character in Hardcore League and resurrect him back in Hardcore League, prove my that ! If you are man and not a group of philosophers pests, disputing for ever. If you prove that I will never try add this game as game with permadeath. Simlpe deal !
To this request , no one answer yet.

Additionally i have started a suspicion that some ones have some interest in removing section about Path of Exile.

Please consider this with true attention--

Darek555 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this ship has already sailed. 75.129.197.146 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Albanian Historian reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704292038 by TU-nor (talk) Albanian is as old as Latin and Greek...even older. So it is valid."
2. 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704286553 by 23 editor (talk) No it is not, Dardanet is simply the Albanian version of it. If the Greek version can be used, why not the Albanian? Sources are clear."
3. 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704231130 by 46.16.193.70 (talk) I disagree. "Dard" means "pear" and "ane" means "side hill". Its still used by third party sources so it is valid."
4. 09:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704219510 by TU-nor (talk) Dardan is an Albanian name, Dardania covered most of modern day Kosovo and Macedonia. The word "Dardanet" is used by third party sources. It is legit."
5. 07:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Dardanet is used today by Kosovar Albanians, and is even referenced to. Albanian version valid."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• ARBMAC DS warning

• NOR level 3 warning on Novi Pazar

• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV, anachronistic use of the modern Albanian term to insinuate connection to the ancient tribe. Disruptive editing, edit-warring against multiple editors. Editor warned about ARBMAC DS, 3RR. Dr. K. 21:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Continues POV-pushing, blatant OR and synthesis, copyvios, despite warnings.--Zoupan 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Stop it before everyone gets double detention)

Pages:
Economy of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26] at Economy of Russia. [27] at Vladimir Putin.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Vladimir Putin

Before the page protection

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

Shortly after the page protection

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]

At Economy of Russia

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on Feb 8 and on Feb 10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38][39][40]

Comments: The user appears to be gaming the system by reaching 3RR each and every time but stopping short of violating it. The edit-summaries of the user's reverts are also concerning and filled with misleading statements, misrepresentations, and insults. Some examples include:

1. "??? I'd appreciate it if you actually bothered to read the source" [41]
2. "This is just an attempt to poison the well for POV reasons." [42]
3. "At the very least can you PLLLLLLEEEEEAAAAAZZZZZZEEEE at least not restore the crappy grammar?" [43]
4. "one more time - it's what the source says. And you can't write "see talk" when you haven't said jack on talk (I started a section)." [44]
5. "Textbook POV pushing. And don't even try to pretend this is a BLP issue" [45]
6. "please stop making blind reverts, bad grammar and all." [46]

Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Vladimir Putin article, the text was actually restored by User:Nomoskedasticity [47] based on discussion at WP:BLPN.[48]. Strangely enough EtienneDolet seemed to agree with this change [49] per his comment on Nomoscedasticity's talk page. In that discussion Nomoskedasticity stated that it would be better, per WP:BLPN, to actually remove the paragraph, which is what was actually done. Unfortunately, a user immediately undid that edit, re-starting the edit war that occurred before page protection was implemented. And this was done under shady pretexts as discussion talk page indicates (basically a whole bunch of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). It's also worth noting the comment by User:Maunus made at the BLPN discussion: "An article about Putin that does not explain the political and economic consequences of his policies would be simply a joke. Putin's article has long looked like a joke written by his propagandists, but if remove this the joke is entirely on us". And this is indeed the case, with a couple editors, EtienneDolet among them, removing anything that may even remotely be considered as critical of Putin. Hence, my edits there were made in accordance with the consensus at WP:BLPN.

On the Economy of Russia article the situation is actually a bit more serious, and here EtienneDolet deserves a sturdy WP:BOOMERANG. I made edits to the article on Jan 28. And I have made numerous edits to this article over the years. EtienneDolet only showed up to the article on Feb 5th [50], right after the dispute on Vladimir Putin, in what clearly is a case of WP:STALKing - they've never edited that article before. Their edits were also non-constructive. For example restoring atrocious grammar ("fallen oil prices") [51], which shows that this was just edit-warring for edit-warring sake (revenge edits) involving blind-reverts without even bothering to look into the nature of the edits.

Considering the nature of these reverts by EtienneDolet and his tag-team buddy Athenean, I'd say my edit summaries were justified. Can someone please explain what exactly was wrong with any of them? A user added a spurious tag without bothering to check the source first. EtienneDolet made blind reverts restoring atrocious grammar (after it's been pointed out that the edit involved bad grammar). A user used the edit summary "see talk" without actually bothering to say anything on talk. Etc.

I haven't broken 3RR in any of these cases (those four diffs in the first para are not four reverts as EtienneDolet pretends), I have discussed everything on talk (however frustrating that has been), I've explained my reasons and I am the one who actually went out and found sources (rather than mindlessly removing anything that doesn't suit one's POV). My statements and edits have been supported by others both on the talk page and at BLPN. It is extremely frustrating and tiresome to have to deal with a couple of users who are clearly engaged in WP:ADVOCACY and who are not refusing to discuss the issue in good faith (and one of them more or less even admitted that).

My suggestion is that the article be fully protected and the matter be taken to WP:DRN or mediation because with the way that some of these fellahs are acting I don't see the matter being resolved without outside help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I just want to clear up that I do not necessarily agree with the edits in question by Volunteer Marek or Nomoskedasticity. I just didn't "mind them" as in I was not willing to revert them at that time. I also did not stalk Volunteer Marek. My edits at Economy of Russia were a couple of days before my first edits at Vladimir Putin. Contrary to what Volunteer Marek claims, I indeed said something on the talk. In fact, I opened up a discussion right after my first edits at Economy of Russia. But what's the point of opening a discussion when Volunteer Marek edit-warred over the material and tried to instate a version that only he prefers. I'd also kindly request that Volunteer Marek refrain from calling these edits "blind" over and over again. I think that's one of the main problems here. The fact that he genuinely believes that certain users are somehow blind in their understanding of the content is not helpful, especially when there's ongoing discussions at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The "using "see talk" in edit summary but not actually bothering to say anything on talk" was not directed at you but at another user. In fact, it's surprising that you even brought it up since it wasn't addressed at you.

What you DID do however was make reverts which restored crappy grammar. And this was *after* it was pointed out that you were reverting grammar fixes. This very strongly suggests that you reverted NOT because of what the edit was, but because of who made the edit. In other words, blind reverting. You can object to such a characterization but it sure looks like it. The sensible thing to do in this situation would be to admit "yeah, I got caught up in reverting and reverted grammar corrections, which I shouldn't have" and at that point we could just drop the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I should also point out that on Economy of Russia, my edit (which EtienneDolet above lists as "reverts") actually *incorporated* their objections. Here I remove wording ED objects to (making this a partial self-revert, not a revert). And in this "revert" [52] while I do restore sourced content which was arbitrarily removed (more WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) I also changed the text in a way that ED wanted (from "There were fears of the Russian economy going into recession" to "The Russian economy risked going into recession"). Oh yeah, true, I also corrected the "fallen prices" again. It's extremely bad faithed to accuse someone of edit warring when they're actually mostly agreeing with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If you feel like its "crappy grammar", then fix it. I haven't even said what part of the grammar you found so "crappy". Fallen instead of falling? Ok. But to keep calling everyone's concerns as blind is not productive towards any discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh freakin' a, that's the whole point - I DID TRY TO FIX IT. You reverted it! Without checking that the grammar was being fixed. Yes! "fallen prices" is bad grammar. It means that some price tripped and fell over. It should be "falling prices". I am NOT calling "everyone's concerns" blind! (and who is this "everyone"? Stop making stuff up - and see comments at BLPN about the nature of Putin's article for what "everyone" actually thinks) I am calling YOU reverting my edits without bothering to check what they were blind. That right there - reverting others without even reading their edits - that right there is what "is not productive towards any discussion". That's why I do think that in this instance a WP:BOOMERANG is called for. Maybe next time before maliciously reverting others you'll actually check what their edits consist of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

This revert of yours, doesn't fix grammar. It just reverts the lead to an older version you prefer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It does correct bad grammar. And this revert of yours restores it. I mean, the least ... THE least... you could have done is to change "fallen prices" to something that actually makes sense. But you didn't, because you didn't even bother looking at the edit. Which is why it was a "blind" revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

For starts, it would be encouraging if you actually stated what part of the content you found grammatically incorrect. I see no explanation from you from the edit-summaries, nor the talk page. It appears that you are using bad grammar as an excuse to restore the content only you prefer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(Bangs head against the wall). I *did* state which part of the content was incorrect. Twice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Textbook gaming of 3RR. User is extremely aggressive and hostile in talkpage interactions, making it difficult to work with him [53] [54] [55]. Edit-warring before Vladimir Putin was page protected is bad enough, but he continued even after the page was protected. While page protection might solve the problem at Vladimir Putin (at least temporarily), it won't solve the problem of VM edit-warring at multiple articles. The bad-faith accusations of stalking are malarkey, I actually edited Economy of Russia before [56] any dispute erupted at Vladimir Putin [57]. On the contrary, it's VM that followed me to Economy of Russia. So as far as the WP:STALK accusations, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And it's also a red-herring designed to distract from VM's edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Athenean - the page was protected over this material: [58] removed by User:Nomoskedasticity. YOU are the one who reignited that particular edit war after the expiration of the protection [59], after User:My very best wishes made an edit as suggested at BLPN. ON TOP of that, you are the one who asked about this issue at BLPN, declared victory as soon as the first comment was made, and then backtracked when the discussion started not going your way [60].

And to make matters worse you have refused to discuss the issue in good faith or compromise on wording. Here you engage in bad faith discussion ("That's right, didn't think so"). In this discussion you repeatedly engage in obnoxious taunting of the "I dare you to revert me" sort. And then you finish of by more or less saying that you're not interested in coming to a compromise (presumably because you think you can get your way simply by edit warring and tag-teaming) You even refuse to answer a simple question and instead resort to personal attacks. Seriously, I'm tired right now and I got real work to do, but there isn't a single edit that you've made on these two articles in the past 72 hours that wasn't in some way disruptive - either edit-warring, making obnoxious comments, taunting others, or purposefully derailing discussion.

Again, I can only refer to User:Maunus comment at the BLPN discussion: "An article about Putin that does not explain the political and economic consequences of his policies would be simply a joke. Putin's article has long looked like a joke written by his propagandists, but if remove this the joke is entirely on us". And you manage over-the-top POV pushing with a WP:OWN WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which makes it impossible to collaborate on this article (or related ones) with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am the user who is accused by User:Volunteer Marek in the above comment section of adding a spurious tag and using the edit summary "see talk" without actually bothering to say anything on talk. I dislike the fact that my edits are being discussed by Volunteer Marek on this noticeboard without being informed by him.

I indeed added the <<dubious>>-template after one sentence in the article on Vladimir Putin. I did, however, first leave a comment on the talk page explaining my reasons to do so. This diff of the talk page shows that Volunteer Mark isn’t telling the truth here. I already pointed this out to Volunteer Mark, so it’s appaling that he repeats his false accusations here.

I did discuss the dubious claim with Volunteer Mark on the article’s talk page, but Volunteer Mark chose to repeatedly remove the template message (see diffs 78 and 79 provided by User:Étienne Dolet and here again). It’s inappropriate to remove a template when discussion is going on and before other users can give their opinion.

I believe Volunteer Mark should try harder to reach consensus with other editors before making changes to the article on Vladimir Putin. That will probably be a lot easier if he abandons his harsh and hostile language. — 37 ^(talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You put your comment in a completely different section, into the middle of an unrelated discussion. That and your user name shows up as 37 on talk page rather than "Tridek Sep" which is how it appears in page history (I hate it when people do that and this is one of the reasons why). So I didn't see your comment. Additionally you also marked your non-minor edits as "minor" as well, which added to the confusion.

If I repeated my mistake here, it's because I forgot that this number "37" was the same as you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. You wrote on this noticeboard that I put a tag in an article without commenting on the article’s talk page. Now you change the story and claim you could not find my comment because it was in a ‘completely different section’ or because of my user name. Even before you wrote on this noticeboard, I pointed you to my comment and mentioned why it is located in exactly the right section.

In your latest comment on this noticeboard you just go on accusing me of tag-teaming with other editors. Looking at your block log, it seems this has been your routine for quite some time now.

And no, I don’t think I can win by edit-warring based on sheer numbers and chutzpah, as you so eloquently put it. The opposite is true; I don't want to work on the article of Vladimir Putin any longer. Good luck trying to find consensus with the other editors involved. — 37 ^(talk) 01:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottomline: there was no 3RR infraction here. The edits I made, were also made by other users: [61], [62], [63]. They also had support at BLPN [64] [65] [66] [67]. Which makes it sadly ironic that Athenean is edit warring over this as he was the one who asked (incorrectly) for input there. Yes, Athenean, Tridek Sep and EtienneDolet oppose these changes and they are tag-teaming here (quite effectively I might add). They are also either outright refusing to discuss/compromise on the issue (again, even to implement suggestions made at BLPN) or appear to be purposefully obstinate and engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games as the talk page makes clear. My impression is that they seem to think that they can "win" (WP:BATTLEGROUND) this dispute by edit-warring based on sheer numbers and chutzpah. This is why above I suggest dispute resolution or mediation because I don't see how this issue can be resolved if editors don't respect sources or basic Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line: There is no need to break 3RR to be guilty of edit-warring. Gaming 3RR as you did, it edit-warring, plain and simple. There is nothing you can say that will change that. All I see here are wild accusations of bad faith in an attempt to justify your edit-warring. The thing is, such accusations do not excuse your edit-warring. When multiple users revert you, it's tag-teaming, but when people that share your POV revert on your behalf, that's not tag-teaming. And then you talk about chutzpah. Athenean (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You know what's "gaming"? Taunting other editors, daring them to revert you, like you did here here (yea, that's a reeeeallllyyy constructive comment - and funnily enough you make it right before turning around and accusing others of "bad faith") or here. And then more or less telling them that you are not going to compromise, like you did here or here. And you know what else is "gaming" Wikipedia rules? Sitting there and flatly denying that a source says something that a source says AFTER it's been quoted to you. Twice. Like you did here, here, here and here. Did I mention that this is after the relevant passages were quoted to you twice? You're like a guy who just threw a rock through a window and when somebody says "hey why did you throw a rock through that window" you say with a straight face "no I didn't". And when they tell you "yes you did I just saw you" you reply with "no I didn't". And when they say, look I even caught it on my cell phone, here's the video, your reply is "no I didn't". Look those people over there, they saw you do it too. No I didn't. Etc. Here is a source. No it isn't. Here's what it says. No it isn't. Let me quote you the specific passage. No it isn't. Ok, here's couple other sources. No it isn't. That's basically your way of "discussing" content. That ain't WP:GAMEing?

We can keep going. Let's see... what else is "gaming". How about dismissing (and insulting) a source, simply because of the ethnicity (which is problematic for reasons that go beyond Wikipedia policy)? Like you did here. Or how about dismissing an obviously reliable source as "Russophobic" because it doesn't fit in with your POV, like you did here. Or dismissing reliable sources as "Western propaganda outlets", like you did here which again sort of betrays your POV and WP:FRINGE approach. Or insulting other editors because they wish to use reliable sources like here while at the same time saying "no need to get personal" (!). And this just goes on and on and on and on...

Oh, and how many reverts did YOU make on the article? Oh, that's right. Four. Not three, four. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4. Now, that's in a little (not much) bit more than 24 hrs. But hey, "There is no need to break 3RR to be guilty of edit-warring". And you're showing up here to lecture me about "edit warring"?

I actually sort of feel nauseous after collecting all these diffs and putting them all together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And one more time. I did not break 3RR. The edit I made had support at WP:BLPN. They were also made by other users. The inability of others to work towards a compromise provoked this edit war. This article and its disputes is need of some serious dispute resolution and mediation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

TL:DR. I'm sure you think everything you do is justified in your head. But that doesn't mean you didn't edit-war, and it doesn't justify your edit-warring. Neither will accusing others of what you are guilty yourself, nor will filibustering. Athenean (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of diffs as evidence - you can dismiss these as "TL:DR" (which is another way of saying "I ain't got no coherent response"), but they're there. Since you're trying to deny it, let me point one of the issues out again: how many reverts did YOU make on the article? Oh, that's right. Four. Not three, four. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4. *I* didn't break 3RR. *You* came very close to breaking it. I'm sure this is "justified in your head".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying to cloud the waters and divert attention from your edit-warring? This [68] is not a revert. I know you are way too experienced to not know what a revert is, and that you know how to count, so I can only assume you are doing this intentionally. Lying and trying to deceive anyone reading this thread will not save you. And neither will accusing others of what you are guilty. The sensible thing to do at this point would be to own up to what you did and pledge not to do it again. Athenean (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's a revert. You're removing text added to the article by someone else. In particular you were reverting this edit by User:Galassi, which makes it, what? Fifth? Sixth? Different person you were edit warring against? You were saying something about "lying and trying to deceive"? You edit warred. You reverted more than I did, and now you're being called out on it. I'd really really really appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks and false accusations. You've had your fun, you got it off your chest, you made plenty of insults and taunts - as can be seen from the refs above. So please stop it. Enough. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I meant this 3 and this 4. Where you came up with "Fifth? Sixth?" and " You reverted more than I did", I'll never know. I'm counting seven reverts of your in the diffs above, including, three after the page was protected. Add to that another three at Economy of Russia. Again, attempting to deceive won't save you, all it does is ruin your credibility. You may want to stop digging at this point. Athenean (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No violation As the admin who full-protected Vladimir Putin the other day in an attempt to put a lid on this nonsense, I can't help thinking you are just desperate to stick Volunteer Marek's head on a plate and throw mud pies at him. I can full-protect these articles again, but I don't think there's enough evidence of rapid back-and-forth this morning to justify it. That said, VM, it would help to put the torches and pitchforks down and edit another article for a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Spirit Ethanol reported by User:Neve-selbert (Result: No action)

Page: List of state leaders in 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spirit Ethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:48, 8 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:26, 11 February 2016
2. 09:39, 11 February 2016
3. 11:44, 11 February 2016
4. 12:44, 11 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:39, 11 February 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:05, 11 February 2016

Comments:
Continually PoV-pushing on the sovereign status of Palestine—without consulting the talk page first for making such drastic changes, hence breaching WP:STATUSQUO.--Neve–selbert 13:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No edit warring going on. I created an RfC to resolve dispute here. After creation of RfC user posted this and this to my talk page and filed this report. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Have added edit warring on the talk page of the accused user in question.--Neve–selbert 13:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:1RR per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've struck my block and unblocked the two users. This is my fault. Even though the two were battling about Israel-Palestine, the article is not subject to ARBPIA. I have apologized to the two editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the status-quo version should be restored. If the Rfc results in a consensus for change, then the new version can be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Idielive reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Not really edit warring, but warned about disruptive editing)

Page

Biblical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "minor changes"
2. 19:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "I have taken out the lies and added in the TRUTH"
3. 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Add content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Biblical cosmology. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Their 4th revert claims to be a minor change but was actually a major content change of sourced material. Obviously a pov editor, using sources such as gizmodo.com, etc. I did try to explain this on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• These aren't really reverts - it's new material each time (with maybe a slight overlap). But it is disruptive editing, and I've left a warning on their talk page. let me know if they continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)

Page

Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Immediately Requests Full Page Protection to seal their preferred position. [69]
2. 20:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 704358183 by Parsley Man (talk): Not an accurate descreption. Official investigation not Egypt-only and still ongoing. (TW)"
3. 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704166769 by Lipsquid (talk) Don't put an article in a state that is clearly disputed on the talk page. It was in this state for weeks until you barged in." (breaches 1RR in under an hour)
4. 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "The only thing the official investigators have revealed so far is that no evidence of an act of terror could be found."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Metrojet Flight 9268. (TW)"
2. [70] multiple posts to user talk

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Why does this still say cause uncertain? */ see Lipsquid\s point"

Comments:

User willfully breached 1RR on a SCW-ISIL DS article ignoring the big warning on the talk page, and 2 big warnings when you go to edit the article. This put them on top of a content dispute, where they continue to remove well sourced content. See talk page and additional warnings here [71] It appears they will continue to remove any attempt at inserting accurate info (including a compromise) about the cause of this terrorist attack. Now he filed for full page protection to protect his position which is edit warring in another way. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor It would appear that with this edit, this edit, this edit, this edit reverting those edits in order to take it back to neutral, this revert, this reverting back to neutral again (and encouraging discussion at the talk page) and then this from an involved editor on the side of the filer of this AN3, there might be some concerted, politically-motivated agenda-pushing going on. Could be a reason for WP:BOOMERANG as well as total page protection until the dispute is resolved via discussion on the article talk page. It would also seem that the filer has also gone beyond 1RR, but I could be wrong about that. There's so much reverting going on that it's hard to keep up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This user has been very recently warned to stay far far away from me and not cast false asperations [72]. Since they are now on a 1RR restriction for making this board their regular home, I'm very surprised to see them posting on the 3RR board making more false allegations against me. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of giving a complete overview, Legacypac has also broken the rule I have apparently broken.

Diffs for Legacypac's reverts:

1. 20:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "revert removal of facts and sources"
2. 5:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "more nuanced, with some refs"
3. 23:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "See talk. see the article. Everyone is saying bomb. even the locals have made arrests."

I will contest that I willingly broke the rule. I didn't become aware of the 1RR enforcement on that article until Lipsquid mentioned it on the article's talk page. I didn't take the time to read the edit notice during my reverts. The only reason for my reverts and my recent request for protection was to attempt to restore the stable, consensus-supported version of the article that had existed for about two months. As evident from the talk page discussion there is no consensus for their proposed changes at the moment and as a result their continuing editing despite and contrary to the discussion is getting disruptive. I opted to requested page protection as this would force us to focus our efforts on discussing this matter on the talk page, while keeping the article stable, over turning all of us in for edit-warring as this could led to up to four editors being blocked, which wouldn't help anyone.

This report seems therefore to be a retaliation from an editors who doesn't like things not going their way, even though I admittedly broke the policy. I would like to add that my edits have nothing to do with ISIL or any conflicts in the arabic world, for which the 1RR rule is in place on this article, but solely with an aircraft accident investigation and ensuring that an article on this reports on this matter in an accurate manner. Tvx1 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your choice of wording above is quite intriguing, not to mention misleading to the casual passerby, LP. Contrary to your misleading comments above, there has been no official, admin-directed warning to stay away from you, nor has there been any official, admin-directed warning in regard to "casting aspersions" on you. Everything you label as warnings came from you, no one else. Nothing I've written here is anything but the simple truth of diffs and my uninvolved observations. After what I've seen here from other editors involved, as well as what's on the article talk page, it seems I'm not the only one making the same, or similar, observations. Note, also, that my observations were made prior to the same or similar observations noted by other editors. However this turns out, it does appear there was edit warring going on and excesses of 1RR. Can't deny that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff 2 above [73] ((more nuanced, with some refs)) was reverting this IP edit [74] which is not restricted by 1RR. Diff 2 also introduces a new compromise position that only adds referenced info to Tvx1's position and is therefore not really a revert at all. Diff 1 is single revert within 1RR, as is Diff 3.

I don't understand how a plane that ISIL says it bombed [75] [76] is not related to ISIL.

Not being aware would involve not reading the Massive Warning Boxes [77] about 1RR each time one edits the article. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all I am involved with the edits in question. Reverting an edit and breaking 1RR then asking for page protection is pretty tough to swallow. Other than that User:Tvx1 seems sane and reasonable except on the "summary" position on this page where he believes his 1 source, that is bias and has been noted as unreliable in the past, trumps 20 other sources that say the cause was a bombing. We try middle of the road edits and to reach consensus, but there is no consensus he will agree with other than the reason the plane exploded is a complete unknown. Irregardless, he is a long time editor that broke 1RR and then did it again even after being warned about the page being 1RR. Lipsquid (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not broken 1RR "again". My third revert came nearly two days after the first two (which constitute my only breaking of the rule). That the source is biased is just your opinion and is not something for the talk page and it is being discussed there. Regarding Legacypac's 2nd revert, the policy says the following: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." According to that their second revert can be very much considered a revert. Lastly, I have not claimed the article has not relation to ISIL whatsoever. I stated that there was no motive in my edits to specifically alter information dealing with ISIL on wikipedia and I stand by that. My edits were only aimed at investigation of an aircraft accident.Tvx1 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

As Tvx1 already confirmed, on each edit they failed to read the BIG warning box on each edit that says "WARNING: Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users." An IP is not a "logged-in user". Secondly, 1RR does not apply to only parts of an article. Third, they removed the actual term ISIL with their latest revert which makes "no motive in my edits to specifically alter information dealing with ISIL" a strange thing to say. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I wrote that is very simple. Removing ISIL from that part of the infobox was not my motive. My motive was to restore a summary that was at least in line with the sources and the explanations in the article. I couldn't care less about ISIL or any conflicts in the Arabic region. If you check my edit history you will find that I have never before edited any article regarding that subject. So please stop insunating that my edits have any political motiviation. Tvx1 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Offer for Resolution

If T will a) restore the wording created by Lipsquid and myself (reversing the effects of their breach of 1RR and b) drop the request for full protection, and c) agree to start reading warnings and sources, I'll suggest this be closed with a warning. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think request a) is a fair proposal for resolution in any respect. That only satisfies your needs and ignores the fact that the talk page discussion never showed a consensus in favor of Lipsquid's change in the first place. It ignores the fact that as much as three editors have now reverted that wording, which clearly shows there is more to the dispute than just me breaking 1RR. I can only agree to proposal b) if all the parties involved in the repeated reverting agree to not make any further edit to the disputed content until after the talk page discussion has reached a consensus. I have no problems to agree with proposal c) of course. Why would I? Tvx1 01:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK. (a) Tvx1 can't restore the article to previous wording, because other editors have edited it in the mean time. (b) I've declined the request for protection, for now. (c) I'm declining to sanction Tvx1 for this; their only 1RR violation was on the 9th, they were warned, and haven;t violated 1RR since then. However, Tvx1 is now notified that 1RR is in effect, and any subsequent breach will result in a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem to adhere to that. I had never broken any RR policy and I don't intend to ever do so again. I really have no desire to lose my editing privileges over anyting at all really. I'm here to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. Tvx1 01:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Katycat3567 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )

Page

This Is What the Truth Feels Like (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Katycat3567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Yes they are"
2. 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "First of all, I sent you a message. Please read it. Second, doesn't international mean around the world?"
3. 22:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "No, they aren't..."
4. 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ That's fine, but the Target exclusive tracks are no longer Target exclusive."
5. 22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ The Target bonus tracks are going to be made available everywhere, so they're no longer exclusive to Target."
6. 22:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ Unsourced writers, and if it's a bonus track for the standard... that never happens. Include it with the tracklist."
7. Consecutive edits made from 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) to 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "This sounds awkward"
   2. 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
   3. 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
8. 02:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "The title is blurry this way. If it's just a title, why does it matter to you?"
9. 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "It's the Target version, not the official album cover"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was warned about edit-warring on their page, not once but twice within a twenty-four hour period, and has even edit-warred on an editor's user page and another music-related page (Cheap Thrills (song)). User's editing behavior seems to be very problematic, by the way of battleground behavior. livelikemusic talk! 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, so I'm new here, and I said that earlier tonight. I didn't know about the 3-revert rule. I would like a second chance, if I could get one. I'm sorry if I came off as rude to anyone, it was not my intention. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, livelikemusic, I have nothing against you, so why are you out to get me? You commented on the other post made about me on another page, and now you made your own. I don't want us to be enemies. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Chickchick77 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Chickchick77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 19:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "We need this informations in front of the pages because it is important for Yazidi people. Many people do not understand that Yazidis are not Kurds. There are a lot people who fight for the Yazidi identity and the world must recognize their genocide."
4. 16:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "please do not delete facts and sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yazidis. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Comment User has a history of disruptive editing on the article as shown on the talk page. Uamaol (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Though the user has done many reverts at Yazidis, and has criticized others in edit summaries she has never posted to an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tilde.drakan reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

03:38, 7 February 2016‎ 219.110.121.11 (talk)‎ . . (5,622 bytes) (-2,582)‎ . . (Deleted some statements b/c their citations are irrelevant (as I mentioned before) or the translation of the citation is wrong. Please find appropriate citations first if an editor wants to restore them.)[78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,645 bytes) (+1,023)‎ . . (drug medicinc, cuisine delete category. Undid revision 703706605 by 219.110.121.11 (talk))[79]
2. 10:58, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+991)‎ . . (Revert vandalism.)[80]
3. 11:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Undid revision 703909103 by 125.184.187.139 (talk))[81]
4. 06:14, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+600)‎ . . (With respect to Sengoku period, Source exists. refrain from malicious editing.)[82]
5. 06:51, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,115 bytes) (+429)‎ . . (restored to a stable version.)[83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

04:09, 9 February 2016‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,884 bytes) (+1,803)‎ . . (→‎February 2016: new section)[84]

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

Comments:

It was distorted documents from the beginning of Phoenix7777. For example. "The fecal wine local history of the Korean peninsula has been many centuries, except for the era when the Japanese Empire prohibited the practice due to health concerns." [85]This is, Non-existent information. Malignant edit, cause confusion in the false information.―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you mentioned, "The fecal wine local history [...]," is not included in the article at least from the beginning of 2016, so it is irrelevant to your present reverts. -- 219.110.121.11 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Creation of 219.110.121.11 [86] This was distorted edited continuously. No original research. Phoenix7777,219.110.121.11, Estimated to be the same person. ―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please write intelligible English. If you cannot do so, you should not edit English Wikipedia.

(i) "Creation of 219.110.121.11 [9]" -- What do you mean? Is [9] my creation?

(ii) "This was distorted edited continuously." -- What does it mean?

(iii) "No original research." -- My edits are based on verifiable sources and I made citations properly. It is you who erases well-sourced statements.

(iv) "Phoenix7777,219.110.121.11, Estimated to be the same person." Phoenix7777 and I are not the same person. --219.110.121.11 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bluid balls reported by User:Harry the Dirty Dog (Result: 24 hour block)

Page

Rolf Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bluid balls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "seems to now match his renown as a musician/presenter"
3. 17:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""Unsourced" doesn't stand up, sorry. WP:LEDE is a summary of body, and there are myriad sources given for his appalling sexual abuse"
4. 17:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Absurd, multiple sources supporting this guy's raper status"
5. 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "rv per WP:OWN. i actually don't. i may not be part of the select few who "own" this article, but there are multiple sources supporting this man's raper status"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on Rolf Harris."
2. 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rolf Harris."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mentioning his conviction in the first paragraph */ rm per WP:BLP"

Comments:

Fourth revert despite warning and invitation to discuss on TP. Edit is also against consensus which is why it was reverted by several editors. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 18:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked this user for 24 hours for disruptive editing (before seeing this report). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

May require a longer block given his reaction to being blocked and his continued WP:BLP violations on his TP/Edit summaries. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Pwolfik reported by User:HardstyleGB (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

List of European countries by average wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pwolfik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected to be the same user as 188.146.0.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because is making the same editions and reversions.

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 02:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "User HardstyleGB protects vandalized version of the page with wrong sources (non-governmental) and wrong exchange rates of currencies"
5. 02:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 02:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing the page and check sources/exchange rates before you begin to do it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Edit warring. The user Pwolfik is breaking the 3 revert rule. This user will be notified and this page will be requested for protection."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User warned in his personal talk page. The user Pwolfik kept ignoring the warnings and continued to revert to his version of the page.

I want also to request the protection of this page, because in those last days it's suffering several editions from anonymous users without any trustful sources. --HardstyleGB (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Article semi-protected for one week by Lectonar.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cls14 reported by User:D.R Neal G (Result: Semi-protection warned filer)

Page: Budbrooke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cls14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
I am reporting the said user for making alteration and edits to the Budbrooke( Talk:Budbrooke} page based on the following reason, he open states that he not local to the area and bases his edits on ignorance. In other-words if he can't Google it or has no knowledge of what being said he deletes or alter it regardless of the reference, that are conveniently contested or dismissed. I personal belief this user is either a local property developer who own the bar and cost-cutters or someone in his payment making the changes for out of a vested interest, its a fair assumption considering someone whose invested in property in the area would not want earthquakes, tornado's or the fact the village sit on one of the countries largest natural sink holes. Also I note the exclusion for the amenities section of the local farm-shop. D.R Neal G (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• As a right of response: a) It doesn't matter if I am local to the area of not. That doesn't mean I can't edit. b) Just because I don't live somewhere doesn't mean I'm ignorant of it. c) I do delete it if I can't find it on Google BECAUSE d) The references given by D.R.Neal G are made up references. d) It doesn't matter who you think I am, that's not relevant. However as you stated I am not local previous how could I have a vested interest. That makes no sense. e) I've never challenged the earthquake, that's well documented.

In conclusion to whoever reads this: I have been editing Wikipedia for about 10 years now, I'm autopatrolled and a reviewer with over 190 articles created and 8,500 edits. However this is by the by. In this case I am deleting edits by this new user because he is putting things in an article that are derogatory about a business with no real references. I have personally got hold of the newsletters that he claims are his references but what he claims they say they do not. If anything the above user should be cautioned or at least told by someone else not to make remarks about something without referencing. He has started and is continuing an edit war by not following Wikipedia protocol.

Until this point I was unaware of the three revert rule as it is not widely advertised. I reverted so many times because the above user did not follow Wikipedia protocol and made remarks about someone's business without referencing. Wikipedia should always be referenced when making controversial claims.Cls14 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: D.R Neal G has repeatedly added badly unreferenced information to the article, which while possibly not falling under WP:BLP because a specific person isn't mentioned, may be seen as disparging against a business without any evidence. Aside from this, I note that Cls14 has received neither a 3RR warning nor a notice about this discussion, as required. I also note that D.R Neal G has seemingly impersonated another user (namely GeneralizationsAreBad) on Cls14's talk page. LjL (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Note also this vandalism by the filer. GAB^Hello! 00:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I also just undid this, as I deemed it no more than a personal attack and possibly partial WP:OUTING or at least personal details that have absolutely zero to do with that article's talk page. LjL (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Cls14's talk page you have chosen to contest and dismiss my reference. You claimed to have a copy of the newsletter used as a which I used as a reference and noticed it did not contain any relevant information to what it was being reference to. Considering I keep and catalogue the local parish newsletter and am the only source of back dated newsletters and the newsletter in question backdates to 2013. And neither yourself or anyone on your behalf has approached me for a copy. I find it hard to believe you just happen to have a copy, consider it only delivered to local resident in Budbrooke and by you own admission you don’t live in the Budbrooke area. That aside you guilt of the very thing you accusing me off 3RR rule and your further guilty of post on my talk section a phoney warning. I have been completely neutral in my wording and even offered you to re-word it to make it even more neutral as long as the basic fact are not hidden or glossed over. At the time of writing this you have chosen no to , but rather engage in childish pranks. you may have been a editor on here for 10 year but that does not excuse altering pages to benefit a third part. As your not the first historically to be seduced in to changing history for commercial of vanity reasons. Its just that you been rumbled and I speek on behalf of Budbrooke residents, leave our village page alone as your changes are not welcome. user:D.R Neal G —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I have semi-protected the article and its Talk page for one week. I have also warned D.R Neal G for a variety of reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment by user:D.R Neal G: Bbb23 (talk) you have also failed to issue the same warning to Cls14's talk page Please adhere to the rules you expect everyone else to follow or whats the point of having them. Cls14's talk page volatile amongst other things 3RR rule. Or is it one rule for them and other for us, because if so that not cricket.

User:Sureshpandey reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: )

Page

K. C. 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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 09:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 08:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "/* K. C. Pant */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Erk, a bit too late for that now... ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

I have sent a message on the talk explaining my edits, but the editor has gone ahead with logging out to their IP to undo them, once again, without any explanation. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, plot twist. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Doctor Franklin reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page

Polish census of 1931 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Doctor Franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by FreeatlastChitchat"
2. 07:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704718980 by Faustian (talk)REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by Faustian"
3. 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704698505 by Faustian (talk)REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by Faustian"
4. 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704555506 by Iryna Harpy (talk)REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by Iryna Harpy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Polish census of 1931. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

SPA has been edit warring against multiple editors. Please prot the page as well(I have already requested gold lock at the relevant venue, just needs attention) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week by CoffeeYmblanter (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: )

Page

Magic: The Gathering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704694001 by CombatWombat42 (talk) Combat we've done this before, go to the talk page. Misogynist mean hate for woman."
2. 00:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704686026 by CombatWombat42 (talk) I think you need relearn the word misogynist, and then reread the article with a criticle eye. Take your concerns to the talk page."
3. 23:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reviewed the source and Wiki statement does not match. Playmats are third-party products, not cards. Nothing else in the source supports the wiki statement."
4. 21:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704670013 by 2601:80:4301:E36C:C1F3:2EAB:CC95:3B6C (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Magic:_The_Gathering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note: I've given a final warning to both the reporter and the person being reported, of which neither have broken yet. If the reported is blocked, I recommend a shorter block for the reporter, for being responsible for 3 reverts himself. It's been stale for 12 hours though, so I recommend neither being blocked, but either being blocked for further reverts. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Legacypac reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Protected)

Page: Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version with " investigation ongoing" listed as summary in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts: (note that this article is subject to rigorous 1RR restrictions)

1. 00:58, 11 February 2016 - removed "investigation ongoing"
2. 15:20, 11 February 2016 - removed "investigation ongoing" in violation of 1RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: where Legacypac makes clear that he is familiar with the 1RR restrictions here by reporting another user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: where Legacypac warns other editors about edit warring here

Comments:
User willfully breached 1RR on a SCW-ISIL DS article ignoring the big warning on the talk page, and 2 big warnings when you go to edit the article. This put them on top of a content dispute, where they continue to remove well sourced content. See talk page and additional warnings on the article's talk page and see the extensive discussion on the incident above where Legacypac claimed that User:Tvx1 violated 1RR.

Legacypac has been one of the most belligerently persistent edit warriors that I've seen operating currently in Wikipedia and is more than willing to use (and abuse) process to deal with his opponents, rather than solve issues amicably. Unfortunately, he seems to think that rules only apply to other people. By his own definition, he has violated the 1RR restriction on this article over a spectacularly WP:LAME issue. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I think you made a mistake on the second diff, did you mean this diff? HighInBC 17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn evidently only filed this to make an ugly personal attack - to which I say get lost. The exact same allegation was made in the previous 3RR (where I pointed out there was no violation) and which was closed as a warning to the other party.Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. It is hard to be sympathetic to either side here. It looks like people should be able to compromise on the wording. It does not seem that editors disagree about the facts, only about how to present the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston- please clarify that I did not breach 1RR. Also, do we have full license to say any false thing and level every kind of personal attack now because it sure looks like it from where I sit. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering you just, less than 24 hours ago, escaped a CBAN on ISIL-related topics that had majority support (but no consensus) for similar "belligerently persistent" behavior, I think you should be thankful you've, once again, inexplicably managed to dodge the ax and not try to push it further with demands for clarifications. Some quiet modesty instead of loud braggadocio would be in order, though it's clearly too much for any of us to hope for at this point. LavaBaron (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please find a new hobby otther then following me around spouting persistent nonsense. 23 signed post on an ANi thread, then trying to overturn the close, now posting here because you did not get your way? Use your bludgening STICK to beat your own head instead. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"beat your own head" ... Nice. LavaBaron (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SimplyCA reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]. (Previous version of article is at [88].)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89] – 20:57, 11 February 2016
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92] – 23:01, 11 February 2016‎
5. [93] – 00:22, 12 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
The new editor, who had been duly apprised of proper RS citing, continues to violate WP:BLP in a case involving a minor child. Normally, I wouldn't bother to keep restoring the article to status quo, but this editor has been coming to my talk page and taunting me, and from what I understand of 3RR rules, reverting vandalism — in this case a blatant WP:BLP vio involving a minor child — is an allowable exception. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I should note that even after he found the necessary citation, he requested my help to add it. I did so, and yet he continued to taunt me on my talk page to such an extent that a disinterested third-party editor whom I do not know removed the offensive content [96] and admonished SimplyCA on SimplyCA's talk page. Clearly, SimplyCA is not someone here to work constructively, and I can only hope his edit-warring and uncivil behavior is dealt with in a fair an appropriate manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment New editor, needs to be given a bit of a break. Got frustrated and that's understandable when you don't know the rules and are being reverted when you think you are very right and the comments aimed at you are less than welcoming. There's definitely some biting at the new editor's talk page coming from the editor filing this report that has set the tone for and encouraged the new editor's latest comments here. In my opinion, the experienced editor who has faced this type of opposition numerous times previously in the way of edit warring probably should have just let it go and came back at a later date. There is no deadline, after all. At the very least, it would have saved a lot of back and forth and tempers rising, resulting in this report and more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, you've been told by more than one admin to stay away from me, and more than one admin has admonished you for your horrible behavior to me and others. You have no business seeking payback by coming here and taking the side of an obvious miscreant who is not here to help build this encyclopedia. Stay away form me — your obsession to keep coming around to needle and bait me, as you've done to other editors, is sick. Moreover, you told admins you would stay away, and your word clearly means nothing.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your objection to me commenting in a noticeboard open to comments by other editors doesn't make what I've said here any less right. My comments are more in defense of the new editor you are biting than an indictment of you. Obviously, you harbor ill will toward them, but is it really necessary to add more insult to injury by saying, "an obvious miscreant who is not here to help build this encyclopedia"? I know you are capable of better behavior toward other editors, I've seen it. Please don't make things worse. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What part of "you've been told by more than one admin to stay away from me" and "you told admins you would stay away" do you not understand? Your obsession with finding me on Wikipedia and deliberately attacking me and my motives and leveling accusatory remarks is sickening. Stay away from me.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in "finding" you on Wikipedia. I don't watch your edits, I don't follow where you go here. I see something I feel is worth commenting on if it's at a page I have watchlisted and I comment. As do others at this and other noticeboards. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to comment. Your opinions aren't absolutely necessary in order for other editors to reach a conclusion. You found a report I put up, and even in the face of a BLP vio involving a child, your demonstrably repeated desire to bait me led you to violate admins' admonitions and your own evidently worthless promise not to interact with me. Of all the millions of posts on Wikipedia, your singling me out repeatedly is obsessive. You're having fun poking at me, verbally spitting at me, daring me to lose my temper. I tell you to stop, and you refuse. Continue to harass me, and I'm taking your harassment to ANI, where your wiki-hounding did not fare well the last time. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you see a WP:BLP vio about a minor child something to ignore, and that you appear to blame the victim of the attack for "encourag[ing] the new editor's latest comments." That's sick. And as for "biting", you conveniently ignore the first, very polite note I left him at User talk:SimplyCA#Bobby Cannavale. No one here needs your obfuscations and half-truths, and I don't need your false accusations. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just commenting to note this personal attack [97] by SimplyCA on Tenebrae's talkpage. Calidum ¤ 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. In an attempt to diffuse the situation of bad faith by winkelvi here interjecting phrases like "Obviously, you harbor ill will toward them" to editors that they seemingly have past disputes with here, I left a brief AGF reminder on their talk page about AGF. It was a second separate one since winkelvi was assuming bad faith today in another matter. When reverting the warning (3rd RR today there) winkelvi accused me of bordering on harassment. Own your behaviour winkelvi, of course editors can comment here on the reports, but when you choose to comment only at reports about your perceived enemies it becomes disruptive. Jilllyjo (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment why is an editor on site wide 1RR for edit warring offering ill considered opinions on other editors on the 3RR board? Seems a little hypocritical. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note. Let's start all over. Tenebrae's contention that SimplyCA's edits were BLP violations is incorrect and to extent that they were, they clearly don't qualify under WP:3RRNO. Therefore, both editors have edit-warred and should probably have been blocked early on. However, despite the back-and-forth on Talk pages between them, they seem to have reached an understanding on how the article should read, so any sanctions against them would be punitive unless the disruption to the article resumes. As for Ponyo's removal of the precise birth date of the child per WP:BLPNAME, which Tenebrae rejected, she was spot on. We do not include the precise birthdate of minor children, particularly non-notable ones. I'm tempted to remove it myself and enforce it administratively, but it's not worth backlash that will no doubt ensue. Finally, the bickering in this thread is a distraction, and that was caused by Winkelvi; they should know better. If nothing else, it was irrelevant to the topic at hand. I suggest everyone go do something else more constructive. Otherwise, I will formally close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We include basic biographical information of a celebrity's children's birth when the parents themselves broadcast it on national television, or their representatives send a statement out to press announcing it in detail. The RfC conclusion at Talk:Brian Austin Green confirms that WP:BLP allows this with reliable sourcing. It seems strange to say Wikipedia should hide the date when Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's daughter was born, when the parents themselves ballyhooed it on the covers of magazines.

However, making a claim about a minor child's middle name without any citing whatsoever is very much a BLP video, so to claim "that SimplyCA's edits were BLP violations is incorrect" seems incredible to me. And I don't know how anyone can say it's OK to add a claim about a minor child's middle name without any verification at all.

Personal antipathy toward me should not excuse SimplyCA's edit-warring to insert a BLP vio, or such vicious comments that disinterested third-party editors removed them from my talk page. It doesn't set a good example, or give him any reason not to edit-war if he knows he can get away with it.

The RfC applies to Brian Austin Green only. If you want to override WP:BLPNAME altogether to include the names of minors you will need to have a binding RfC at WP:BLP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And I find it ironic that for all this, I was the editor who actually gave SimplyCA a helping hand when he came to me and asked for help in adding the citation.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:SimplyCA is warned for personal attacks, due to comments such as this one. As to the edit war, both parties are in trouble as pointed out by User:Bbb23. Let's hope there are no further reverts without prior consensus. When User:Winkelvi commented above I guess they were trying to be helpful, but they did not succeed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:70.124.133.228 reported by User:CFCF (Result: )

Page

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

• Helminthiasis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zika virus fever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zika virus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Umeme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bweyogerere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ggaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "restored warnings"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously reverting and being unconstructive despite being warned by many different people. Repeatedly removed warnings from talk-page without better behaviour. CFCF 💌 📧 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

CommentA few of points here CFCF. 1) This report is badly malformed. You have provided no examples of any reverts and you have put several articles in the pagelinks line but only the first one shows up. Those need to be separated out 2) The last edits to the Schistosomiasis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article were Feb 6th. 3) Per WP:OWNTALK editors are allowed to remove messages - including warnings - from their talk pages. In fact your restoring them can be seen as edit warring so please proceed with caution. It would be a good idea to fix this report if you want admins to act on it. MarnetteD|Talk 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD—The user has been warned multiple times, which this page is alerted to. That the format of these reports is cumbersome and that following process requires ridiculous amounts of work is not my problem, but Wikipedia's. Do what you will, with it, but recognize that you are doing the community a disservice if you ignore it, not me.CFCF 💌 📧 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I have expanded the multiple article names under the pagelinks template. I also suggest that in the place of Zika virus fever, which does not exist, that Zika virus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was the original intended page. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TV. I have added the correct link to Zika virus to the list section so it wont get missed. CFCF whether this report is ignored or not will have nothing to do with me. It may wind up having something to do with the malformed nature of it and that will be down to you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.220.67 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

CBC News Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704814506 by Clpo13 (talk)"
2. 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704813430 by Bretonbanquet (talk) rv vandal"
3. 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704813146 by Clpo13 (talk)"
4. 19:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704759117 by Mezigue (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on CBC News Network. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Initial edits reverted per WP:BRD. Editor then edit warred to their preferred version without going to the talk page as suggested to defend their edits. Same behavior on Connie Booth and 2010 Pichilemu earthquake along with WP:3RR violations. See also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Besides the edit warring, this is likely block evasion, as 82.113.183.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was making the same edits on the same articles before being blocked. clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Clpo13" is reverting without bothering to think of a reason. This is highly disruptive behaviour.82.132.220.67 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You're site banned – nobody needs a reason to revert you. Anyone can restore your edits and take responsibility for them if they wish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even ignoring the obvious behavioral clues, please read WP:BRD for why you need to come to consensus when reverted instead of edit warring. At any rate, you've violated WP:3RR on three articles. I haven't. clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks by User:Ponyo. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note Placed result in section title. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Natsume96 reported by User:Einstein95 (Result: Indef)

Page: Beats of Rage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Natsume96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Comments:
This user has previously been blocked for 1 week after a previous reporting of edit warring and has since unsuccessfully reported on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page twice, and only posting on my talk page in the latter case (User talk:Einstein95#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion) -Einstein95 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Notice: -Einstein95 is a blatant vandal and he makes disputive edits at Beats of Rage. The content, e.g. Metro-Active X is available in search. Just using Google you can get it. So this report is fake. Natsume96 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I find it odd that an IP came in to restore content as there first edit that was the same content that Natsume96 was edit warring over in December. What makes it really odd is that the edits of this ip are followed by Natsume96 return to the article [102]. But things here don't just strike me as odd. Note that two separate but new ip's have moved to WP:FORUMSHOP this to WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_after_3_previous_blocks.. If there's anything to do here at all it may be to investigate both parties for sockpuppetry and block them as necessary for disrupting and wasting the communities time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am not a sock puppet, and I kindly request that you stop making those accusations User:Serialjoepsycho. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUCK-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

<Personal attack removed>. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef by User:Drmies. I removed a personal attack by an IP editor from the above report. Also semiprotecting Beats of Rage because there is a different IP there who is restoring Natsume96's changes and could be him. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:72.214.49.119 reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Robert Clivillés (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

72.214.49.119 (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 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 04:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "That's great that you feel it proper, but I don't want anything negative on my page that bears my name...

So why don't you please respect that..."

1. 1. 04:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
   4. 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 04:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Hey Guys, took a very unnecessary section of of my wiki, Robert Clivilles"
   2. 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Cleaned it up, Robert Clivilles"
   3. 03:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Cleaned up something, Robert Clivilles"
   4. 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Inserted a fact, Robert Clivilles"
   5. 03:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Cleaned up some facts, Robert Clivilles"
   6. 03:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Added a fact, Robert Clivilles"
   7. 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   9. 04:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Added some facts, Robert Clivilles"
   10. 04:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Cleaned up some facts, Robert Clivilles"
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Hey Guys, I am Robert Clivilles and took off some in-accuracies, and added some facts. I would love some help on how I can add a photo? You can reach me at robertclivilles@yahoo.com"
   2. 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "This is Robert Clivilles, I really would like the controversy section taken down, please."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Notifying regarding reversion of problematic edits"
2. 04:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Robert Clivillés. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Removal of properly sourced content */ new section"

Comments:

Also edit-warring at Clivillés and Cole and C+C Music Factory Chrisw80 (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, this has been also reported at AIV by Boomer Vial. Please disregard with my apologies and close summarily if I posted this in the wrong venue. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:76.90.210.162 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Bachelor (season 20) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.90.210.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [104]
2. [105]
3. [106]
4. [107]
5. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Comments:
Anonymous IP editor continuously adding one contestant's hometown [110] and the location where currently lives according to the show's ABC website: [111] ApprenticeFan ^work 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP had been adding unsourced content. Whilst I can agree that ABC states California, the IP disregarded WP:BURDEN and used WP:OR content by citing themselves as a source. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP has returned to edit war [112]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin close this already?! The IP is edit warring once again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

>scratches head< Huh?? The version they're reverting to has the home town as Marina Del Rey, CA. The version that it's being changed to is West Linn, Oregon. Where's the source for that? Right now, I'm thinking the IP might be in the right on this. Tabercil (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Previously blocked for a week in September 2015. This user tenaciously adheres to their own view and is willing to revert forever. A contestant on this show has ties to both Oregon and California, as pointed out by sources. There is a column in the table called 'hometown' which might be where they grew up and not where they live currently. This is something to be worked out by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cirflow reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114] Feb 12th added "by Brian Morris"
2. [115] Feb 14th added again
3. [116] Feb 14th added a second time
4. [117] Feb 14th changed other text
5. [118] Feb 14th restored it a second time
6. [119] Feb 14th and a third time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [120]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [121]

Comments:
User has been blocked for similar issues on this article a year ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, for one, why is my edit from February 12(2 days ago!) being included, and two, my edits were on two different topics! I did not go over 3RR For both topics. As for the edits themselves, on the second topic my edits were being blocked without any legitimate justification, compared to the detailed and rationalized edit summaries I gave in return, and the first topic is being discussed in chat, and I have therefore resigned from it until it has been discussed or consensus has been reached. It should also be noted that my edits for the first topic were made in order to allow for dispute resolution between two other editors. User:Cirflow

Also, the warning that I received here [122] was for a different discussion that happened a few weeks ago. To consider that a warning pertaining to this instance is wrong. User:Cirflow

The first edit definitely shouldn't count in the reverts required to violate 3RR. That being said, the 3RR deals with how many reverts are done on a page- regardless of whether or not it is a different topic. Your edits were reverted because you didn't have consensus and you should have sought to get consensus at the talk. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

While you are well over three reverts in the last 24 h. And you do not need to "get" a new warning for each time you edit war before it counts as a 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. WP:EW tells us to count the total number of reverts on an a page "whether involving the same or different material". Describing your revert as 'to allow for dispute resolution' is curious. It is more usual to propose your idea on the talk page and wait for others to support it there. Discussions on your talk suggest you see yourself as part of a long-term WP:BATTLE on this page. Consider RfC or mediation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result:Both blocked, article semi-protected)

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock of SupernovaeIA. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SupernovaeIA/Archive)

Previous version reverted to: Not applicable due to length of edit war

Reverts by Suitcivil133:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6
7. diff 7
8. diff 8
9. diff 9
10. diff 10
11. diff 11
12. diff 12
13. diff 13
14. diff 14
15. diff 15
16. diff 16
17. diff 17
18. diff 18
19. diff 19
20. diff 20
21. diff 21
22. diff 22
23. diff 23
24. diff 24
25. diff 25
26. diff 26
27. diff 27
28. diff 28
29. diff 29
30. diff 30
31. diff 31

Reverts by SupernovaeIA (and socks):

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6
7. diff 7
8. diff 8
9. diff 9
10. diff 10
11. diff 11
12. diff 12
13. diff 13
14. diff 14
15. diff 15
16. diff 16
17. diff 17
18. diff 18
19. diff 19
20. diff 20
21. diff 21
22. diff 22
23. diff 23
24. diff 24
25. diff 25
26. diff 26
27. diff 27
28. diff 28
29. diff 29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Suitcivil133

SupernovaeIA

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The diffs listed above speak for themselves for the most part. This edit war has continued for eight weeks now, despite the page being fully protected three times, and both users being blocked twice. It's becoming increasingly clear that these editors will not stop edit warring on this page until forced to do so. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked both warriors for a month and semi-protected the article for three weeks. Not sure what to do with the socks but at least for the next three weeks they can not edit the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Pb17522 reported by User:Montanabw (Result:24h)

Page: Runhappy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pb17522 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runhappy&type=revision&diff=705058627&oldid=700265191

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runhappy&offset=&limit=500&action=history (there are over 10 RR on the 13th into the 14th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [124]
• [125]
• [126] (Where the editor expresses intent to continue edit-warring)

Clear COI editor [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pb17522 see contribs] will not drop the stick on the Runhappy article. [127]. Edits repeatedly and almost exclusively to remove reference to a trainer who was fired and filed a lawsuit against the horse's owner. Extremely notable incident and very well-sourced. Only other edits of substance this editor made have been to the article about the horse's owner. At least three members of WikiProject Equine have asked this user to knock it off, but since Feb 10, it has gotten particularly problematic, at least 8 RR on Feb 13. Also, before this editor created an account, we had at several anon IPs attempting similar whitewashing edits from the time this article was created ([128], [129], [130],[131]. Clearly a WP:NOTHERE situation. Also recommend that if this editor is blocked that the article have permanent semi kept on it because they most likely will try to return. Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 hours )

Page: AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

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

Comments: Pretty much a textbook 3RR violation; four reverts (of two different users) in just over two hours. Minor variation in fourth revert may be an attempt to evade 3RR limits.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The warring is a little stale, but the account has had numerous other warnings over adding inappropriate content, so I have no confidence it won't start up again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Sir Sputnik reported by User:2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:5679:624E (Result:Filer warned)

Page: 1976–77 UEFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1979–80 UEFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1978–79 UEFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user reverted many notable edits on Wikipedia, see his edits history.

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]

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

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

Comments:

• He reverted notable material, infoboxes, referenced material on other articles, there are many, not just this 3 articles ! Is a violation of notability and improvement of Wikipedia articles.--2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:5679:624E (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• When we can revert this notable edits ? if you say he is not a vandal.--2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:5679:624E (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop it, otherwise I block your IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

why do you threaten people with blocks when they asked a simple question??--2A02:2F05:1F:FFFF:0:0:5679:6496 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Lipsquid reported by User:LjL (Result: 24 hours )

Page

Laffer curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704638026 by Bonewah (talk) We just moved it with consensus. We agree to take it out of lead so now you insist in taking it out of the article. You are way, way over 3RR"

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705029312 by Bonewah (talk) Way over 3RR"
2. 01:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704978325 by Bonewah (talk) That's 4 reverts in a couple of days. There is a 3RR rule. The quote is sourced."
3. 19:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704974647 by Bonewah (talk) A sourced quote by definition isn't my point of view. You already deleted it once, this is twice."
4. 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Problems */ Missed the ninja sourced quote removal by Bonewah"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

No warnings from me after [141] since that incident was about this editor WP:HOUNDING me after I reverted him on the same Laffer curve article.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[142] and [143]

Comments:

I am reporting this editor and not the other editor currently mostly engaged in the edit war because even though the former has repeatedly accused the latter of violating 3RR, as a matter of fact, the latter technically hasn't violated it but the former has. So Lipsquid repeatedly accuses others of violating rules, and also claims consensus that does not exist, which makes me doubt their good faith. This is together with the events I previously reported at ANI, which forced me to back away from intervening on Laffer curve or even giving Lipsquid further notices or warnings. LjL (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for both Lipsquid and Bonewah - although both have been on the talk page, they are still reverting each other back and forth, getting in the way of other editors, and it is that spirit of the rules, rather than the strict letter of 3RR that leads me to believe a short block is appropriate. Hopefully the block will allow you and Volunteer Marek to work out a stable version that everyone can be happy with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: and, if I may again interject, I would humbly like to be allowed to partake in the debate again too, together with them, without receiving intimidations in the form of seeing completely unrelated edits I made on other articles reverted "at random" (if you take a look at the ANI report I mentioned above, I think you'll find it was pretty random, since my edits that were undone by Lipsquid involved fixing trouble a "rogue" editor had caused and which had been reported at ANI). Nobody seemingly had a serious look at that report, except for Lipsquid and two other people who are very much my "fans", and I felt quite helpless. LjL (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those nasty calls an admin has to make that will upset somebody - I can't in good conscience block one without the other or I would be undoubtedly screamed at for being WP:INVOLVED by the other party. I would have full-protected if I didn't see evidence of anyone other than Lipsquid or Bonewah wanting to edit the article, but I found they were, so that would have got in the way of innocent bystanders. Failing that, I would have dropped a message along the lines of "alright, all this reverting is textbook edit-warring, stop it now or there will be blocks", but I notice other editors had dropped such warnings anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Oh I'm not saying you should have blocked one and not the other. The reason I only reported Lipsquid and not Bonewah was that Lipsquid had technically violated 3RR while Bonewah had not, and yet, ironically, Lipsquid had repeatedly accused Bonewah of violating it. But at the same time, the amount of edit warring from both parties had gotten a tad ridiculous, 3RR or not.

But aside from all this, my remark above was more a request for you - or someone - to please spend some time to look at the previous incident that involved me and Lipsquid, which is indirectly but strongly related to this one. I want to be able to take part in the Laffer curve debate again without fearing to see a mess on every other article I edit. See what I wrote on my talk page to someone previously asking for me to keep taking part. LjL (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and to show the (perceived?) hounding did not end after that ANI report, this is from more recent times. I don't see Lipsquid in that article's or in that talk page's history before he just randomly jumped in to oppose my position. Though at least this is a talk page comment and not a dry revert... LjL (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

68.194.58.163 reported by User:Yanping Nora Soong (Result: 1 week )

Page: J/Z (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheManchoMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (plus his sock, 68.194.58.163)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: User:TheManchoMan was just blocked indefinitely, but I am trying to get his sockpuppet 68.194.58.163 (talk) blocked as well. Thanks. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: Have you posted a notice at WP:SPI (Sock Puppet Investigations)? J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked. I turned TheManchoMan's talk page off after he threw some nasty personal attacks and blocked the sock for a week. As Jsharpminor says, this is more a matter for WP:SPI Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

3-revert-rule (Result: Blocked)

• Haplogroup R1a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 176.219.166.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ip breaks the 3-revert-rule at R1a. The Ip delets 2 reliable sources from 2 peer-reviewed journals. --Gushtasp (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. l have reverted it 3 times per WP:SYNTH policy. And also you were reported for disruptive editing. Additionally, that "new" users edits very likely banned sockmaster Tirgil. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This not a playground for jokes sir anonymous. You broke the 3-revert-rule, deal with it. And you accusations are not change it. --Gushtasp (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

ln order to break it, i must reverted it more than 3 times. Also, yeah, this is not a playground and everbody must obey the WP policies such as WP:SYNTH. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see;

revert no 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a&diff=704943423&oldid=704935582

revert no 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a&diff=704949554&oldid=704948904

revert no 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a&diff=704950720&oldid=704950281

And can you tell me why you make damaged the link? Do you want to hide something? --Gushtasp (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

lt was a mistake. And again, your disriptive edits were reverted per WP:SYNTH policy. Try to read it instead of writing here. End of the discussion. Admins will decide. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Yes I read and I think you are hardly right. I didn't mixed any of the sources. They are 2 independent sources with no relation to each other. I hope the admins will decide right. --Gushtasp (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your sources do not state that "R1a is not related to lE speakers". lt is your own synthesis regarding the researchs. Last comment. As l said, admins will decide. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my intentions, I never stated such a statement neither do I intend to do. The statement is not even from me, it is from 2012, don't know who made it. Here is what the paper states: "R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India."

Fullstop. Anything not understanding? No problem, I can help explain. --Gushtasp (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – IP blocked 31 hours by User:HighInBC. I have semiprotected Haplogroup R1a due to the reverts by an IP-hopper from 176.*. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:72.94.61.22 reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: Semi)

Page: Pyriproxyfen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.94.61.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155] (advised IP to go to talk page in 3RR warning, IP chose to revert again instead)

Comments:

IP user is insisting upon naming a section about an allegation a "hypothesis" despite being corrected by multiple users. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The first is not a revert.72.94.61.22 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oops, it is now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You're putting too much effort into this for such a minor point. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Says the guy who's edit warring... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. An IP has changed 'alleged' to 'hypothesized' four times. Consider getting consensus for this change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Pranabnaik reported by User:Martin Hogbin (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]
5. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163] [164]

Comments:
Please could someone have a quiet word with this editor, he is trying to add information that he believes is correct but with no RSand without consensus as two editors and myself believe that it is incorrect. I am not looking for sanctions at this stage. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Pranabnaik is warned they may be blocked the next time they change the name of the 'Salvo' character unless they have previously obtained a clear consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Drovethrughosts reported by User:Cebr1979 (Result: No action)

Page: The Walking Dead (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]. (Previous version of article is at [166].)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [167]
2. [168]
3. [169]
4. [170]
5. [171] (made after receiving notice and commenting on this very noticeboard message)
6. [172] (made after receiving notice, commenting on this very noticeboard message, and acknowledging he had read and understood WP:3RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Comments:
Uh...what's the problem here? I reverted the edits of a user twice (not three times) who added non-notable and unsourced materiel to the article and that user has since not reverted my latest edit. Two of the links you're pointing to (which are the same edit) are irrelevant and have nothing to with this. The fact that you brought this to AN3 is absurd when three reverts did not happen. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts: Uhm... I brought it here because this is where it belongs and I provided "false links" of nothing. You need to read (and understand) this very closely. An editor who's been around as long as you really can't use "I didn't know that" as an excuse (I fixed the diffs, thanks for pointing out my duplicate error - all 4 of your reverts within a 24-hour period are now linked to properly).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The 3R rule is for the reversion of the same content. I reverted twice. There is no "edit war". The other user hasn't made any futhur edits. The last two edits you're pointing to are irrelevant. This edit is not a revert, it's me making a basic edit of updating the phrasing in the lead and this is me reverting an IP editor who deleted references and readded episode counts when it's been established at MOS:TV to remove episode counts in season articles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"The 3R rule is for the reversion of the same content." That just isn't true. As I've already linked to and advised you to read, WP:3RR specifically states (in a big, pink box): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You are the editor who has now performed 5 reverts on a single page-involving same and/or different material-in a 24-hour period.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right, sorry I misread that. You're making it seem any edit I make on the page is a revert. Technically, any edit can be viewed as a revert if you're updating/changing material and/or copyediting. You're taking things to extremes here. You're reporting me for edit warring when I reverted a user's edits twice. There was not an edit war. How is this a revert? Are we not allowed to update text? My edit here was valid as I explained above. If you want to be technical, I reverted three times (which is not in violation) and is no different to what you did yourself here. I'm not responding anymore until someone with authority gives an opinion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol - I can't believe you just admitted you misread it and then immediately continued to exhibit that you don't understand?Cebr1979 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course I would admit I misread, because that's what I did. I'm asking you those questions. I'm asking you to give an actual rationale for your reasons of how a basic edit of updating text can be considered a revert, since you listed that edit as "evidence" of reverting, which is beyond absurd. It's amusing being accused by someone of edit warring who's been blocked five times previously, including not too long ago. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I haven't been blocked 5 times, only 3. You really do need to learn to read properly and the number of times someone else has been blocked in the past does not excuse the fact that you broke the 3RR rule today (and are showing no signs of remorse for having done so, I might add... even reverting one more time after it was brought to your attention). If you wanna pretend whichever one it is you're saying shouldn't count doesn't count... fine. That still leaves you at 4, though.... which still leaves you here.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'll "pretend" that a basic edit of updating text not to be a revert. Are you joking me? Of course it's not a revert, I'm copy editing the language. You still haven't provided any rationale as to why you linked that edit as "evidence". So, what, I'm not able to edit an article more than three times a day? That's what you make it seem like. Sorry for keeping it in top shape and not let IPs destroy the article. You're going to use this as an example? What, am I suppose to keep unsourced and wrong information in the article? You are unbelievable. Sorry for being a good editor who removes unsourced content and keeps articles in top condition. That's sarcasm by the way if you can't tell... Ugh. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I can tell, I'm not a moron. Sarcasm, however, is just showing more and more that you feel no remorse whatsoever for having broken the 3RR and are very likely to do it again. I would have expected a warning originally however, I think the 24-hour block that WP:3RR recommends is necessary. You could use some cool down time to properly read things you need to read properly.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed anything I've said or replied to any questions I raised to you. Thanks for being competent. I am asking you again, explain how this edit is a revert or edit warring. You are no position to recommend anything or to assume any future behavior of mine. I have a clean block log. The fact is you reported me for edit warring when there was no edit war. It went back and forth twice. It's over. You then cherrypicked a separate revert I made to an IP editor involving completely different material (explained above) that happened almost 24 hours prior. Again, no edit warring has taken place. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You're still ignoring that you've broken the 3RR. You never "misread" it (as you've said you did), you're just flat out ignoring it in order to justify the reverts you want to continue making. Your "clean block log" doesn't excuse the fact you broke the 3RR. You should follow your earlier statement and just stop commenting. You're sounding more and more panicked and unremorseful with every comment.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

OMG! You just did it a 6th time even after acknowledging you had read and understood WP:3RR on this very noticeboard!!! Now, you're really starting to display both WP:IDHT & WP:OWN!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cebr1979, your behavior is getting out of hand. You are acting far torather aggressively to be taken very seriously. In my experience, an edit war is qualified as being disruptive, of which Drove's edits are not. They are not bright line edit warring. Your own failing to acknowledge Drove's question is also not helpful. You have also failed to discuss with the user through other means, whether it be the article talk page, or their talkpage. Your diff of a warning is also fictitiousa bit improper, as notifications to this noticeboard do not count as 3rr warnings, unless they are ignored. I would not have made that last comment (given that the user did infact make more reverts to the page), except for the fact that I do not see their reverts as malicious, whereas the same cannot be said for your own report. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC) [edited= 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)]

Huh? I've never even heard of you before and "your experience" is clearly flawed. I saw a rule broken and reported it. There's nothing "malicious" about it. You need to look up the meaning of the word. Your hostility here makes no sense whatsoever. Are you two friends? I should also mention, I don't have to issue a warning in advance of reporting a user unless I was edit warring with that user... and I wasn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, edited my post, you're right, it's way too rough. I apologise for that. So, as to explain a few of the things I mentioned:

• It is generally concidered 'good behavior' (for lack of better wording) to leave a warning to a user before bringing their behavior to a noticeboard.
• My calling your report malicious, while very much strong worded, is due to the fact that you have used a rule to try and get an editor blocked, despite their own admission as to having misread the rule in the first place.
• My experience; I had edited under another account since October 2014, until I lost the password, and as such have been observing the way things work around here for over a year.

Also, sometimes it is necessary to ignore the rules that prevent us from building the encyclopedia, within reason. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... You need to re-read everything more carefully. I specifically stated I would have supported a simple warning until another revert was made after he had read it and understood it. That was the first time I ever mentioned the word "block." There was then another revert made even after that. I did not simply come here to "use a rule to get an editor blocked despite their own admission to having misread the rule in the first place."Cebr1979 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I might need new glasses, but I can't seem to find where you state anything along the lines of "a warning would be good". (Ah, there it is) Also, it is easy enough to administer a warning yourself. But, I'll leave this alone for awhile. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 01:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC) [edited= 01:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)]

You do need new glasses and... good.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action. If there is a revert war here, it's hard to see. There are lots of copy edits. Cebr1979 has not posted anything on the talk page to explain the items he disagrees with. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Ed... As per usual, you're making your decision on being ill-informed, not understanding, and just plain wrong. There was never an issue with any edit war, it was the fact therw were more than three reverts made by one user to the same page within 24 hours. Anyone who read this thread would have understood that. I am also not required to make any posts to any talk page. That's also been brought up here in this thread. What's done is done, though, so... Oh, well. I'm sure User:Drovethrughosts has learnt his lesson and will be more careful in the future. Otherwise, we'll all just end up back here, right? One of these days, though, Ed, I would think you would start paying attention. I just find the way you (don't) deal with things to be so odd. Oh, well. That'll be for another day too, I'm sure. Adios, all! Have great days!Cebr1979 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [174]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175]
2. [176]
3. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179]

Comments:

• Reverts by the same editor continue: ([180]; [181]; [182]; [183]) Borsoka (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Since Ditinili accused me of vandalism, I initiated a separate investigation against myself ([184]). Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that User:Ditinili has been edit warring on this article. There may still be time for him to respond here and promise to wait for talk page consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• The author of POV tags (in this case Borsoka) is obliged to justify their usage, otherwise they can be removed by any editor. Because all my changes were based on reliable and trustworthy sources (e.g. works of the head of the Archaeological Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences in Nitra), I demanded several times for justification of tagging whole sections and I suggested to tag problematic sentences and to provide explanation. This was repeatedly ignored. Thereafter, the text based on reliable sources was deleted "to help understand me" which sentences are (allegedly) POVs without further explanation. Such removal of the sourced text cannot be accepted and cannot be used as the justification or explanation of the tag. Unfortunately, I had again to revert such changes. After several urges, POV-sections tags were replaced by inline POV templates, again without serious explanation (until now, there are still such inline and unexplained POV templates). Instead of fixing the problem, the author (Borsoka) focused on offensive behavior (statements about "provincionalism", "dogmatism", "limited knowledge", etc). Again, this cannot be accepted as a proper justification. Then, the above mentioned user began to "improve" referenced text, e.g. to remove proper dating from the referenced text and to replace it with weasel formulations e.g.[185]. Again, this is not acceptable and I had to revert such changes. Ditinili (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for the records: my first (and continously reverted) tags at 09:05 13 February 2016 ([186]) and my comments on the Talk page at 09:03 13 February 2016 ([187]). Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you, this is the tag for which I repeatedly requested justification - which sentences are POVs and why (statements like "50% of text is POV" are not sufficient). This request was repeatedly ignored.Ditinili (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Just for the records: yes, I think that Ditinili's remarks shows that his approach is provincial and dogmatic which makes any communication really difficult with him. The development of my comments and his answers can be read here: [188] (answer: [189]), [190] (answer: [191]), [192] (answer: [193]), [194] (answer: [195]), [196], [197] (anwer: [198]), [199]. Here is the summary why I think that his knowledge is "limited" and his approach is dogmatic: [200]. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
    • You are responsible for fixing the problem - to properly justify POV tags added by you. Personal attacks like "your knowledge is provincial", "dogmatic", "limited" and similar do not fix the problem. Ditinili (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Sorry, I think there is no point in making a separate comment to all your messages during this ANI, so I refer to my "just for the comments" messages above. Borsoka (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Borsoka, if there is some problem (e.g. you have added POV tags which were not justified) then fix it. You did everything to prevent fixing the problem - you accused me of POV pushing because of the text not written by me, you reintroduced incorrect POV-section tags again and again, you deleted the sourced text, you replaced non justified POV-sections with non justified POV-inlines, you raised this incident because I reverted these non justified tags (as I can do), you offended me several times. Honestly, I don't understand such behavior. Ditinili (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Timothycrice reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC) "I think it's really ethnocentric for you to reject an article from the Frankfurter Journal. Your attitude toward Germans should not be tolerated."
2. 23:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "You say this isn't important enough to have in the first paragraph, and that's your point of view. What we want is all the facts. It is actually someone's point of view that they are far-right movement, so let's have the facts and decide for ourselves."
3. 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "This is now the second time I've told you this information comes directly from the article cited. The article says, "Foto: Pegida." That means the logo belongs to Pegida. Now you're asserting that no one in the media has alleged they are neo-Nazis!"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC) to 08:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "They are definitely enemies of Islam. What do you think "gegen die Islamisierung" means? In any event, you want to censor my way of saying things, even though you don't want to be censored."
   2. 08:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "I described even more thoroughly this time. What we want is the facts from the first paragraph all the way through to the last sentence in the article, not just what you think shouldn't be censored."
   3. 08:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 08:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 08:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "We want all the facts."
   6. 08:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "We want the whole truth, even if it's inconvenient, so here are the details about their logo that you don't want people to know about, for some reason."
   7. 08:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "Rephrasing it to make it clear these are symbols they perceive to be extremist, and they are all being thrown in a trash can in one of the logos they use."
5. 22:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "It just takes a little bit of common sense to realize that a Third Reich swastika being thrown in a trash can is a protest against Nazism. Read the article, it clearly says the image belongs to Pegida!"
6. 22:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Expanding on the fact that the Third Reich swastika is different than the swastika used in Jainism."
7. Consecutive edits made from 22:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• EE DS warning
• 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• See thread here where he calls one of the editors participating in the discussion "schizophrenic".

Comments:

The reverts speak for themselves. I have nothing to add. Dr. K. 06:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Despite my best efforts to explain to this user the 3 revert rule, and after a lengthy discussion, he shows no understanding whatsoever of what he did wrong. He has also resorted to personally attacking me in his comment here. Dr. K. 08:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Concur, personal attacks in the edit summary, refusal to engage, not here to help really ----Snowded ^TALK 13:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for edit warring and personal attacks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:K!lluminati reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: No violation)

Page: Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K!lluminati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A week after the module blocking Kiluminati continues the edit war and withdraw the information and sources that talk about declines Houthis .

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• No violation - there does not appear to be obvious evidence of this user persistently disrupting the page reported. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Nemo bis reported by User:YannickFran (Result: Page protected)

Page: Comparison of internet forum software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nemo bis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203] This is the version from before the moment the content that is currently being disputed was added. This: [204] is however the last clean version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Nemo bis#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Comparison of Internet forum software#Features table Additionally, he's started the discussion after my first revert on my own talk page

Comments:
This user seems to randomly switches between User:Nemo and User:Nemo bis. --YannickFran (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected for three days - continue resolving things on the talk page. @YannickFran: - your edit summaries contained personal attacks, while Nemo bis' didn't - consider that a warning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ferkava reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked for 3 days. )

Page: Ahmad Dhani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ferkava (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. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]

Diff of "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material " warning template, (for one of these edits), on user's talk page: [213]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [214]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user's talk page: [215]

Diff of AN/EW notice on user's talk page: [216]

Comments:
This editor is repeatedly changing people names in this article (BLP vio?). No sources added to support changes and no edit summaries added to explain them. This editor refuses to discuss on talk page despite numerous requests to do so. - ^theWOLFchild 12:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Page: Omar Dani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ferkava (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. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [222]

Diff of AN/EW notice on user's talk page: [223]

Comments:

This editor keeps putting the acronym of a military organization in front of the full name, in bold. (this is a BLP). This is not a big deal... at least it shouldn't be. No edit summaries provided to explain edits. Repeated requests to discuss this on the their talk page have been completely ignored. As with the above report, there is no effort at communication what-so-ever, just continued edit-warring. - ^theWOLFchild 13:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: this user is now apparently going through his history to find any of his edits that have been changed and is reverting them, despite any improprieties. Another three articles are now affected. I had tried to further engage this user, but he is absolutely refusing to discuss anything anywhere or even explain his reverts with edit summaries. I'm just going to leave it all for now and wait for a response. - ^theWOLFchild 14:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days in the hope that may be enough to persuade the editor to start taking notice of messages about the problems with his or her editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:84.206.48.248 reported by User:Huon (Result:blocked 24 h)

Page: OTP Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.206.48.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely related: Andras0401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [224]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [225]
2. [226]
3. [227]
4. [228]

See also previous edits by Andras0401, adding the same image:

1. [229]
2. [230]
3. [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232] for the IP, [233] for Andras0401

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [234]

Comments:
Andras0401 seems to have a history of adding images of those towers to various articles where they are of little relevance. Huon (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, a crystal clear case of 3RR violation Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [235]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [236]
2. [237] (made after warnings on user talkpage)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see below

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mikveh#Lead_section

Comments:

VanEman recently made a few edits to the Mikveh article, of which I undid part for reasons stated in the edit summary and on the talkpage. VanEman is edit warring about my undo.

VanEman is a notorious edit warrior,(see e.g. the following posts on his talkpage: [238],[239],[240],[241],[242],[243]) with strong POV problems in the Judaism area (see e.g. this comment about him [244] and others). Please also note that accusing others of having a POV is a beloved tactic of his (see e.g. [245], [246], [247] and Talk:Mikveh#Lead_section for clear proof). Now he is at it again at Mikveh. I warned him not to edit war[248] and called upon him to respect WP:BRD,[249] but to no avail. I post this here now, because I want to nip this in the bud. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [250]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [255]

Comments:

Born in Germany, to German and Irish parents, raised in Ireland. As is in the article in the lead and cats. Schro has threatened to report to ANI, perhaps for a chill effect, yet left ALL other references to German-Irish in, including the talk page cats and projects.I have added a ref in the lead, since Schros' last revert as requested. Murry1975 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

~sigh~ This first diff isn't edit warring: it was was a bold edit. It was also a removal of what was an unsupported BLP claim. As the first edit isn't a revert, there has been no breach of 3RR (and neither has Murry1975 opened a thread on the article talk page, or left a 3RR warning either: I had given sufficient warning that the point was a BLP violation). At least he has finally managed to add a source to the claim, which is what I suggested he should do. Next time Murry1975, don't edit war to force a BLP violation: find a damned source to back up your claim. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Condescending. You didnt quote BLP until final revert. And I as I pointed out you took out ONE occasion of the German Irish mention. No wonder your block log is the size it is. "Not even close to a nationality" and "Irish-German" isn't a nationality" while disregarding the other mentions in the article and categories. As per your BOLD edit, the R happened and the I started the D on your page, only following the rules and guidelines when YOU want is against the spirit of the project. Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh lord, what a waste of space. And how unhelpful for you to mention someone's block log which does your case no good at all. Cassianto^Talk 13:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ~sigh~ (again) Please try and be honest when you make bold statements. "You didnt quote BLP until final revert". Are you sure? What about the note on your talk page you deleted? That was before my comment in the revert. And my block log has fuck all to do with you edit warring to breach BLP, so don’t try and play silly buggers with me. Breaching BLP and edit warring (of which we are both guilty) is "against the spirit of the project", but the spirit is neither here nor there: BLP is a policy, which makes it something that should be adhered to strictly. If you are unable to understand that, or don't understand about sourcing for living persons, then perhaps you should steer clear of such articles until you can understand how BLP works. Regardless, nothing you have written makes any difference to the fact that there has been no breach of 3RR, and you have still failed to follow the right process here. – SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment BLP is quite clear about this: you don't repeatedly add unsourced claims without a source. Policy obliges editors to remove contentious unsourced claims, and nationalities are always contentious at the best of times, especially dual-citizenships. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment It strikes me that there is absolutely ZERO discussion about this on the article talk page. Can't we even try to get along before asking for admin intervention?? Please, all parties involved, go there. Here, I'll even jumpstart the discussion for you. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. There was a revert war between User:SchroCat and User:Murry1975 in which the two editors seem equally guilty. Should we block both? The lack of talk page discussion makes it hard to take this complaint seriously. BLP isn't much of a defence for SchroCat when the article is packed with references mentioning this actor's German birth and his Irish upbringing. Of course it is up to consensus how his nationality should be described in the infobox; German-Irish is only one of the possibilities to be considered. If either party reverts again (prior to consensus) they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing what someone's "nationality" actually is (a particular issue when Irish nationality is involved). Trying to force the label of a nationality solely on the basis of other information is dubious and fails the combination of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, so no, BLP is a strong defence when there is such an obvious breach of BLP policy and practice. I suggest you brush up on BLP before you try and dismiss is qute so blithely in future. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Chrisw80 reported by User:Jewjoo (Result: 24 hours boomerang )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:User:Chrisw80 started edit war cause he cant see page 312 of WP:RS at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=647iSGYuEa4C&pg=PA312&lpg=PA312&dq=%22meryl+dorey%22+aids+theory&source=bl&ots=UIVa5oPH1O&sig=n_LX2BcDstMygSxIbGsPjwdiHGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsjd23mf7KAhXKppQKHTgcCKMQ6AEIRTAG#v=onepage&q=%22meryl%20dorey%22%20aids%20theory&f=false

What else can I say?

Dear User:Chrisw80 your behaviour surrounding the repeated deletion of the WP:RS of a published science book claiming it not RS, and your incivility towards me and others. I have been civil with you, I would appreciate it if you return the favour. I no longer wish to endure your intimidation and if you want the WP:RS deleted I will not oppose your unreasonable stance. I have better things to do, you win. Jewjoo (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)