Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive283

User:41.77.138.106 & User:197.242.79.10 & User:81.218.229.29 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Page Semi-Protected)

Page: Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.77.138.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 197.242.79.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 81.218.229.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [8]

Comments:

From the diffs, it is clear that the same user is using multiple IP addresses in order to edit this article. See this sock puppetry case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm/Archive, it became clear some time ago that someone with a close personal connection was editing this wikipedia article in a self-promotional manner. It has been plagued with sock puppetry. See also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Heleen Mees. WCM_email 09:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected this seems moot, I'll put in a sock puppet report later. WCM_email 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:131.191.80.213 reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: Protected by CambridgeBayWeather)

Page

James Rhodes (pianist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664209468 by WordSeventeen (talk)WordSeventeen is abusing policy to censor- there is no BLP issue whatsoever."
2. 02:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664209073 by WordSeventeen (talk)m /* Early career */ . There is no blantant BLP issue here. WordSeventeen is abusing the BLP policy . UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
3. 02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664208345 by WordSeventeen (talk) There is no BLP issue here at all. Read the policy. UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
4. 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ Reinstated public material that is sourced to UK Supreme Court website; it is neither libelous nor contentious to include this material"
5. 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664183460 by Lightinlondon (talk)"
6. 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664182240 by Lightinlondon (talk) UK Supreme Court decision provides info that ex-wife is American novelist https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-press-summ"
7. 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664180918 by Lightinlondon (talk) The UK Supreme Court decision (https://www.supremecourt.uk/clearly identifies ex-wife as an American novelist. That is public information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:James_Rhodes_(pianist)#Blatant BLP issue

Comments:

The above is a misrepresentation. Additional relevant discussion pertaining to the "edit warring" claim is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as well as above on this page at User:Lightinlondon reported by User:Joseph2302. The consensus at the Notice Board is that there was no "blatant BLP violation" as WordSeventeen claimed when he began the edit war, which led to him making more than 3 reversions in just 3 hours (listed in the NoticeBoard discussion). There were attempts at reasoned discussion on the talk page. Additionally, an additional secondary (non-primary) citation was added to the one already provided as the discussion on the talk page seemed to indicate doing so would address WordSeventeen's "blatant BLP" claim. After adding the additional non-primary citation, the paragraph WordSeventeen had censored as a "blatant BLP" violation was then re-added. However, another reverted that addition.

Although I had suggested (on the talk page) that WordSeventeen take the issue to the Notice Board rather than revert the addition (as there was no BLP violation, blatant or otherwise), that person did not do that. So I brought the issue to the Notice Board. The incidences mentioned above by Tigearn happened hours before WordSeventeen claimed a "blatant BLP violation" on the page. The statements above misstate the situation. The situation has been misrepresented by both Tigearn above as well as WordSeventeen in that person's claim of the application of 3 reversions.

The relevant evidence for my statements here is primarily on the talk page but also on the NoticeBoard as well as in the editing comments made with talk page edits and the main James Rhodes Wikipedia article. WordSeventeen consistently showed an inability to reason carefully, or to process anything stated on the talk page carefully, including what was already on the talk page before WordSeventeen even began making edits on the main Wikipedia page. In my opinion, the claim of a "blatant BLP violation" at best reflects WordSeventeens grave misunderstanding of what constitutes a "BLP violation" of any kind, as well as a misunderstanding of policy relating to how to handle such matters. At worst, the claim represents WordSeventeen's blatant abuse of a (completely unsubstantiated) claim that there was a "blatant BLP violation" to censor what material appeared on the page.

WordSeventeen's own history of more than 3 reversions in the past 24 hours on that page needs to be investigated. Those reversions are itemized by another editor in the notice board discussion of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Rhodes

What also needs to be investigated is whether there is any pattern of the editors involved joining in to support one another, even when there is no basis for the initial actions.

What happened in this incident is a good example of Wikipedia gone bad. WordSeventeen came in claiming "blatant BLP" violation (but failed to ever make clear what his objection was; another editor claimed it was due to lack on non-primary citation, but one non-primary citation was originally provided), when there was absolutely none. WordSeventeen was either incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion on the talk page, or was unwilling to do so. Unfortunately, two other editors also chimed in with misunderstandings of the BLP policy. When an attempt was made to fix their objections to the paragraph, which on the talk page was stated to be the lack of multiple non-primary citations (one non-primary, solid citation (The Guardian) was originally provided), that corrected version of the paragraph was removed. Then WordSeventeen misrepresented what happened in the incident, claimed edit warring (when in fact WordSeventeen had engaged in this initially), and requested the page be locked. My conclusion is that this incident, including all that happened on the page (esp. by WordSeventeen) and the edit warring claim which is made here by Tigern, represent a gross twisting of the facts, and blatant abuse of the BLP policy.

Incidents like these are what keeps many people with solid writing and thinking ability from participating in Wikipedia at all. The consensus on the Notice Board pages is that that was no BLP violation whatsoever in the paragraph WordSeventeen removed initially.

Please note there is discussion of WordSeventeen's actions as an editor over at the Administrator's Noticeboard which includes his actions on the James Rhodes Page so perhaps that will address my concerns about what happened in the incident that involved me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen131.191.80.213 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 131.191.80.213 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
WordSeventeen has been blocked for a month, and his Pending Changes Reviewer and Rollback rights have been revoked, for his disruptive editing in this and other incidents; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen131.191.80.213 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Protection of James Rhodes page has been removed; it was put in place after a series of events begun by WordSeventeen's disruptive editing practices. See link immediately above for details.131.191.80.213 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected per a report higher up on this page. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeff.1.1.1.7.8.9.1 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

33rd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jeff.1.1.1.7.8.9.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Delete the comment about Humphrey Bogart if you have to, on the 21st Academy Awards page, but otherwise don't delete mine please. I have now added references."
2. 16:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Just like on the page of the 21st Academy Awards it states a similar "popular opinion" about Humphrey Bogart's performance this is a similar style. I have added sources."
3. 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664727669 by Wgolf (talk)"
4. 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC) to 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 33rd Academy Awards */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

They keep adding questionable content, despite being asked to take it to the talkpage. 3 editors have reverted this change, initially because it was unsourced, but they seem unwilling to discuss it properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please also note this SPI. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

EauZenCashHaveIt reported by User:Midas02 (Result: Both warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: [9] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Comments: Sorry for not having reported this earlier, but I wasn't aware of how this policy quite works. I had done a cleanup to a dab (James Jackson) page according to WP:MOSDAB, so within full compliance of an established Wikipedia policy. The above user then came along, triggered by an edit I had made on a page he has under scrutiny, and which he reverted thrice as well, although I had explained the reason for those changes. [14] [15] [16] So he reverts the change to the dab page as well, without having anything to do with that page, without questioning or searching consensus, and with an apparent lack of knowledge of applicable policies. He has done so up to about twenty times! I was about to report it, when another user got involved, he immediately got slammed as well. [17]. On the talk page he finally changed his position, but is now reverting again putting his demands to other editors.
More than the change itself, is the attitude which is a continuous issue. His talk page shows that in just two months he has already gotten into similar rows with half a dozen people. It's always the same issue: agressive, heading in feet first, reverting without respecting other people's edits, not searching consensus, and often accompanied by abusive language, finger pointing, poking [18] [19] [20] [21], [22], and so on.
This attitude has to stop. Nobody needs his approval for the edits they make, and by using abusive language he is crossing a red line. Please deal with this appropriately. --Midas02 (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. This is a long-running edit war on a DAB page. The most unusual part is that Midas02 insists on adding an entry for "*James D. Jackson, sociology professor and candidate in the United States House of Representatives elections in Mississippi, 2010". There is currently no article for this man. Usually being a candidate for office does not confer notability, and DAB pages are intended to disambiguate articles that already exist. Could this be promotional editing? But if either party continues the war from now on they are risking a block. Use WP:DR before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I expect an administrator to know and uphold Wikipedia's standards and policies, and to act against unacceptable behaviour by users. You're failing to do the first, not only because your answer is completely flawed (I'm cleaning up a dab page, not adding links; one of those links is for an actor, not a politician; that link is already used on Wikipedia; you are accusing me of promotional editing, which I demand that you retract), but also because my edits are in full compliance with WP:MOSDAB and that is the ONLY policy which applies here. Experienced dab editors BD2412 and Boleyn can testify of this. As such I do not have justify applying an established policy.

You're also bypassing the nature of the complaint, which is the behaviour of this user. Just going by his talk page, in just one month he has been aggressing Backendgaming, Rswallis10, kelapstick, and counting as he seems to run in with just about everybody he comes across. I have been called a hoot, Rswallis10 is a thug, kelapstick is pushing an agenda, others are called "brats". How much longer will this last. How many people have to be insulted because you will assume your responsabilities? --Midas02 (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Midas02 is right to add James D. Jackson, an entry which meets MOS:DABMENTION. Disambiguation pages are to help readers find information on a topic; usually this will be an article to itself, but it can also be a part of an article. Midas02 regularly edits dabs and I've seen nothing to make me think of promotional edits. Boleyn (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• I second that. It is entirely correct to add a name that meets MOS:DABMENTION to a disambiguation page. A reader who is searching for this particular James Jackson will thereby be informed that everything Wikipedia has to say about this person is in the linked article. bd2412 T 17:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: In that case, James Jackson (actor) should redirect to the disambiguation page, and the entry on that page should contain a blue link. My issue has always been with the red link. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Where does any James Jackson (actor) enter into this discussion? bd2412 T 22:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: If you check out the history of this silly dispute, you'll find the actor to be the trigger of it all. The dispute spawned the discussion. I was replying to your mention of a "reader who is searching for this particular James Jackson will thereby be informed'... EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 01:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Jackson (actor) appears as a red link in the initial edit [23] (way down at the very bottom). I think that's what started this whole thing. I opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Looking_to_clarify_MOS:DABMENTION. I think it was applicable but misapplied, which may be the key to resolving at least the content issues. Willondon (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't notified of this discussion, nor was I warned thereafter. Midas02 reverted back to his desired version DOZENS of times, and repeatedly refused to discuss the subject, having told me that I "forfeited my right to be heard". There has been an agreement on the talk page for him to create an article, but he is still refusing to reply to that or participate. All the other stuff from my talk page that was discussed here is irrelevant, it's a pathetic attempt to soil my name on this noticeboard and get his way with the disambiguation page. Sorry, but this is invalid from the get-go. I'd also pay attention to his rude remarks towards EdJohnston, the resolving admin, after the latter "failed to humor his demand". EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Midas02: I still remember your previous crusade to have me blocked. It won't take too long to find that other noticeboard, in case your tireless hounding finally gets on the last of my nerves. The backhanded way of gathering supporters by pinging them has also been duly noted. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 21:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, this right here [24] is not right. More editors reverting without an edit summary is not how conflicts are resolved. Either participate in this discussion like the mature adults that we all are, or don't get involved in the story. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The redlink is fine on the dab page (see WP:DABRL). Please take a deep breath, assume some good faith that experienced editors do sometimes know what they're doing, and stop reverting. 11:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Both warned)

Page: Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 14:24, 27 May 2015
2. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 14:27, 27 May 2015
3. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 18:37, 27 May 2015
4. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 18:39, 27 May 2015

Comments:

The problem here is the editor is misrepresenting what the sources are saying. His combined death total of two sources was initially incorrect. He wrote 64 killed per pro-Hadi sources. The two sources indeed talk about 35 dead and 29 dead respectively, however, the first figure (35) is for dead on BOTH sides, not just for the Houthis. As for the second figure (29) it is claimed by officials...at no point is it stated they are pro-Hadi officials. I tried first talking to him over the course of the next two days but he has been uncompromising and has continued reinserting the figures are both claimed by pro-Hadi officials when in fact the 1st source for the Houthi dead is a pro-Houthi soldier and the 2nd source for the Houthi dead are only named as officials and (like I said) are at no point stated they are pro-Hadi. In addition, not in the spirit of Assuming good faith and sticking to WP: Civil, has accused me of bias and many other things. As seen from his talk page, he made hostile un-constructive accusations at other editors as well in the past. I myself have conducted at least 2 reverts per day during this edit war and have reached a point that I have stopped and am asking for admin intervention on this point. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be a content dispute. @EkoGraf & Mr.User200, I see no signs to resolve the matter, so please try to resolve the dispute in the article's talk page with civility. Both of you have violated the 3RR rule and could face a possible blockage of 24-hours depending on a admins. decision. Also, please read WP:CONDUCT policy & guidelines. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. If either party continues to revert, they may be blocked without further notice. The tone used by Mr.User200 at User talk:Mr.User200#Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) reverts raises some concerns. Mr.User200's talk page shows he has previously been warned by User:Beeblebrox and User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Berox7 reported by User:Snowded (Result: Blocked)

Page: UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Berox7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
Pretty obvious case of a party supporter who is simply not listening. In addition to the talk page section, several of the issues were discussed on the talk page in earlier sections ----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully endorse Snowded's actions here. Berox7 has been extremely disruptive and rude to fellow editors, all the while completely ignoring Wikipedia policy on a range of issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ZiaLater reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [33] Note: same is part of previous reverting/warring.--TMCk (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35], [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Finally self reverting:

1. (Reverted back to old numbers and old source for now.)

Then immediately revering back, claiming only to remove a source:

1. (Don't know why this source is here. Fixed source.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link to notice suggesting self revert on user's talk & Discussion on my talk making excuses.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They started a thread at article talk after the fact and before self reverting.

Comments:
To me it looks like gaming the system since they didn't simply revert when provided with the opportunity but rather spend time (about 1/2h) making excuses and claiming not to know/be able to revert like a new user would which they are not, making it hard to believe the re-revert was just an honest mistake. Good faith is running thin considering their responses and long term warring for their prefered version on Venezuela related articles.--TMCk (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not try to break the rule and may have gotten accidentally carried away with the reversions while trying to explain my edits. I know you don't like me from your previous edits TMCk and you also told me it does not matter how I revert back (which I attempted to do) so I would not have to worry about the 3RR. You can say that I have excuses but when I have three different users reverting my work continuously it becomes overwhelming and I'm more prone to make mistakes trying to explain things to three different people at once. I apologize if it seemed like I was attempting to edit war.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you now allege I hold a personal grudge against you despite giving you the opportunity to self revert and not filing here until you re-reverted your self revert which still stands as of now. I pointed out that fact here and on your talk page.--TMCk (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: No action)

• Page: South Beach Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is currently a disagreement on the above page which is close to degenerating into a full edit war. I feel that the other editor involved, user:Jytdog is unequivocally violating MEDRS, and is violating NPOV, although that is not blatantly obvious at a glance, as the MEDRS is. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.

Background: A paid editor had been pushing to not describe SBD as a "fad diet" for a long time with no consensus, and had finally pretty much given up. Enter Anmccalff in Mid-March with this dif, picking up that argument where the paid editor left off, and also got no consensus. Our last exchange was Apr 30 here, where I suggested he implement some DR process.

Today Anmmccalff:

up and just deleted the "fad diet" language.

I reverted, saying please don't edit war and again pointed to DR

BRD would suggest, instead, that you discuss, and justify, your using cites which violate MEDRS, I would have thought.Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Anmmcalff again deleted

I again reverted, and promised an edit war warning,

which I gave them, here

ball remains in their court to initiate DR for these edits that no one else supports. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no "no one else," merely him at the moment...flagrantly violating a standard he is very quick to uphold in other circumstances.Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS:Jytdog is a bit touchy about any edit of his work, so could someone (else) please correct the mispellings above?Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

you really need to read WP:TPG - i am not freaky at all, in not taking well to other people editing my comments. and clearly i do not agree with your interpretation of MEDRS. (and btw, that i am the last one with patience to continue talking with you, doesn't mean that anybody agrees with you) in any case, this is not a matter for 3RR unless anmccaff continues to edit war instead of using DR. i won't be responding further unless that happens and i need to continue this. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: There are no more than two reverts by each party, and they took place on 27 May. There isn't yet a clear report of long-term edit warring. Unless more data are provided, this will most likely close as No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There wasn't a 3RR, and if there is a long-term edit war, the case has not yet been made clearly. Please discuss elsewhere whether WP:MEDRS justifies calling South Beach a fad diet. Somehow it's hard to imagine randomized controlled trials deciding whether a certain diet is a fad. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mjbmr reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: No violation)

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

Two of us have been warning this user against edit-warring, but he keeps reverting to his edits, without even correcting errors that have been pointed out to him. While the gibberish he keeps adding can be cleaned up, it would be nice if he would wait for discussion. I don't care about him being blocked, I just would like him to think before he edits. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No violation – See below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to be able to come here for edit-warring even if 3RR was not violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes, but this was more of a skirmish than a war when reported, and neither of you had commented on Talk pages about it. It would probably be a good idea to start conversations about the disputes on the Talk page of the associated articles. However, I personally suggest that the onus should primarily be on Mjbmr for that, since they seem to be the one who wants to change the article content (or, in the case of Southern Luri language, convert the redirect into an article). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

BarrelProof The content on Southern Luri language exists before Kwamikagami started redirecting it to Luri language without reaching a consensus, there are aticles about other dialects of Luri language: Northern Luri language, Bakhtiari dialect, it should be discussed first to make any changes to these articles. Mjbmr (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to start a discussion at Talk:Southern Luri language about your desire to turn that redirect into an article. It was previously always a redirect (for five years) until you converted it into an article a couple of weeks ago. Kwami disagreed with that action and reverted it. Now you should start a discussion to try to reach a consensus. This is not really the right place for the content discussion. The situation at Northern Luri language seems very similar. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this new edit of Southern Luri language by Mjbmr broke WP:3RR. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Check the history, Kwamikagami broke WP:3RR first, I asked him on my second revert to discuss this, but he undid my edit for the third time. Mjbmr (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I only see three reverts by Kwami within any 24 hour period. I see four by you. Also, you're the one who wants to change the long-stable redirect into an article, so you should be the one who starts a discussion at Talk:Southern Luri language about it, in an effort to establish a consensus, and you still haven't done that. Even if you think I'm wrong as a matter of principle and that Kwami should be the one to start the discussion there, you should be gracious and do it as a gesture of goodwill. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that Kwami has started a discussion about this matter at Talk:Luri language. That is probably a good place to hold the discussion – perhaps better than at Talk:Southern Luri language, since more people probably have Luri language on their watchlists than the redirect. Very few people probably watch old redirects. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked Mjbmr to read BOLD. That would solve the problem, if he followed it. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Mjbmr has placed a {{retired}} template on their user page, and has not edited since doing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Not sure how you can mark this as "No violation". There is clearly a violation asserted above (in boldface), although it did occur after the discussion here had already started. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jdavi333 reported by User:Canuckian89 (Result: )

Page: 2015 Baltimore Orioles season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdavi333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried to warn User:Jdavi333 about our non-free policies and why non-free logos like File:Orioles new.PNG are acceptable for use on the main team article, but inappropriate on the individual season articles. However, he seems intent on re-adding the image every time I try to explain why it can't stay.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. I remove it, They re-add it
2. I remove it again, They re-add it again
3. Explain why it can be used on the team article, but not the individual season articles, Added back again

I explained the difference between copyright and trademark on my talk page here in our conversation (for example, the Phillies "P" logo, which is used on the 2015 Philadelphia Phillies season page, since it is too simple to be copyrighted). However, the Baltimore logo does fall under this "too simple" category, and cannot be used on the 2015 Baltimore Orioles season page. In addition to this, they seem to be going around to all the other 2015 MLB season pages, and adding non-free logos to each season article (for example, 2015 Mariners, 2015 Rays, 2015 Blue Jays, and others...), so they can say "But all the other team pages have logos on them". Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

User:177.177.178.57 reported by User:SpeedDemon520 (Result: No action)

Page: Sophia Abrahão (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.177.178.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]

Comments:

This IP editor continued an edit-war after being warned. More than one person has reverted him, so that's edit warring against consensus SpeedDemon520 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• @SpeedDemon520: I spoke to the editor at my talk page. I think the editor was getting frustrated, leading to the edit-warring (of which the editor is undoubtedly guilty). However, after helping the editor, I'm hopeful things have been sorted out. Perhaps we could wait a bit before taking any action to see if the editor has changed their tune? --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It seems that the IP may have added some material by mistake that they would prefer to have kept in a sandbox. If so then this removal is just a sensible precaution to be sure that the content is correct. There is a longer article about this singer on the Portuguese Wikipedia. See pt:Sophia Abrahão, which editors could study using Google Translator at least to see if the assertions are similar. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:170.93.140.42 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Semiprotected an article)

Page

User talk:170.93.140.42 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

170.93.140.42 (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. 03:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Andhra Pradesh capital city. (TW)"
2. 15:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Andhra Pradesh capital city. (TW)"
3. 15:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC) "/* May 2015 */"
4. 03:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Andhra Pradesh capital city. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Kept on adding stats on tha page without reference. Vin09 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Andhra Pradesh capital city one month due to repeated unsourced changes by IP. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Dismas (Result: Move-Protected)

Page: Cytherea (actress) (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: diff of move

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebecca1990#Edit_warring - They've actually warned each other!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cytherea_(actress)#Requested_move_27_April_2015

Comments:

I'm filing two cases. One for Rebecca1990 and one for User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (It's an edit war and there are two combatants but this page seems more geared towards 3RR rather than edit wars) They both know they're warring as is evidenced by HW's warning to Rebecca to stop edit warring. The war has spilled over to other articles. Most of this is centered on if pornographic actors should have "(actor/actress)" or "(pornographic actor/actress)" as a disambiguator. Though they've carried the argument on with other things which can be seen in their contributions.

Another topic of theirs can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#CNBC's Dirty Dozen list. They've entered into a discussion but that hasn't stopped them from edit warring over that either. diff 1 of many, diff 2 of many.

For evidence of other move warring see:

• Linda Wong (actress)
• Samantha Fox (actress)
• Chris Steele (actor)

Thank you for your time. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Hclaricejohnson reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Warned )

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

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maddie Ziegler#Infobox

Comments:
An ongoing discussion is being ignored, and it is possible that the red mist has come down on these FIVE reverts, two of which have been after warnings have been left. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already warned the editor, and I'll keep an eye on the page. Given that the article had an infobox since its creation, an RfC is probably the best way forward. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and was about to do the same. I note also thst the final revert came only 3 minutes after the formal warning, which might not have been seen by the editor. DES ^(talk) 02:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How pointless. They were warned twice during their edit warring and they had ample opportunity to view those warnings, so it's laughable to leave a third (and weakly worded) "warning". So much for having a bright line rule if we don't actually bother to enforce it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aalugobi reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page

Free web hosting service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [53]
2. [54] - edit summary accuses people of sockpuppetry
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. 10:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665000136 by Joseph2302 (talk) Disallowing constructive citation"
6. 10:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664979123 by Bonadea (talk) Not allowing constructive citations on false grounds. Please check talk with Bonadea. Overexercising power."
7. 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664923594 by NeilN (talk) Citation is needed. What's wrong with Neil."
8. 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664919949 by NeilN (talk) Unnecessary"
9. 21:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664827889 by Bonadea (talk) Note: Unnecessary revert made (Little Extended knowledge is better than no knowledge))"
10. 06:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Content added, few language structure corrected and citation provided."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of spam link to http://freedomainer.com/hosting/ , despite the fact that myself, @Bonadea: and @NeilN: have reverted them, and explained that it's a poor quality source. Their talkpage suggests unwillingness to cooperate with any other users, as their repsonses are always "You're wrong" or "You're overexercising your power". Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They have also indicated they will not stop, despite 3 users explaining why the source is no good. On their talkpage, they wrote "And you talked about reverting it 3 times, I will do it as long as I feel I am right in my stand-view, and as long as you guys revert it back (I will stop if you guys stop). You can file the report if you want but I too have freedom of speech & opinion and to make contribution as long as I feel its constructive." Wikipedia needs good editing and collaboration, not poor sourcing and a righteous attitude. Joseph2302 (talk)@

Also edit warring at Civil engineering. Explanations seem to meet with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. [57] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked this user indefinitely as they are clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Graham87 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Vietg12 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

Page: Koreans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vietg12 (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. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]
7. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [65]
2. [66]

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

Comments:
I warned the user twice, to no avail. They make no sign they are going to stop edit-warring. Ogress _smash! 06:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. This user filed a WP:3O, got an answer, then ignored it and continued to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Erlbaeko reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments: Pretty clear violation of 1RR on an article to which general sanctions apply on two consecutive days. Complicating matters somewhat is that one of the parties in this dispute appears to be a blocked editor "contributing" as an IP, although that is unconfirmed (and Erlbaeko has reverted other editors, myself included, as well during this whole dustup). This might be the wrong place to note it, but I do feel this article requires some attention from administrators, as this kind of unproductive editing has not been uncommon in the page's history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin EdJohnston has been addressing this issue here. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Imo, it is not a violation of the 1RR-restriction, nor is it a violation of usual 3RR-restriction.

1. Revision as of 12:21, 23 May 2015, is an attempt to find a third version. It is also a revert of this IP-edit.
2. Revision as of 20:05, 24 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
3. Revision as of 18:07, 25 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
4. Revision as of 09:36, 26 May 2015, is a revert of this edit.

Yes, 2 reverts is made whithin a 24 hour period, but at least one of them are IP-edits. As EdJohnston have explained, reverts of IP editors doesn't count according to the 1RR-restriction on Syrian Civil War related pages, but are subject to usual rules on edit warring. Ref. General sanctions - Remedies. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I like this to be formally closed. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#Erlbaeko it appears that Erlbaeko did not violate the 1RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a difference between No violation and No action? If not, I like it to be closed as No violation. If it is, what is the violation? Also. There is a question in that arbitration requests (by Sayerslle "contributing" as an IP-editor, ref. SPI) whether this revert is a revert of Kudzu1 or a revert of an ip. I am not sure. What is correct? Also, I do not agree with Kudzu1 that a revert to previous consensus is against policy, in a situation where there is no consensus for a BOLD edit/removal of info. Ref. WP:NOCON. Instead I believe he should have reverted to previous consensus himself or started a discussion on the talk page, instead of this revert diff. Fyi, there is also a discussion about this incident on the talk page of the article here: Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article.

P.S. I notised that you see Kudzu1 as someone to ask for advice. Ref. diff. Nothing wrong with that, but if you feel that you is to close to him to judge his behaviour you may leave this to somebody else. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, this report closed with no action against you. It's not clear how or why you would want to appeal it. 'No action' and 'No violation' are very similar results. If you aren't happy with my decision, you can appeal it to WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston. If it is no violation, I like it to be closed as 'No violation'. I also like an answer to my questions above. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Clockback reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)

Page

Peter Hitchens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Clockback (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 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 12:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 12:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 08:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */ new section"
2. 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */ reply"
3. 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Badly need help reinstating legitimate picture= */ reply"

Comments:

This user is trying to contest a picture deletion by adding complaints to the main article, despite multiple warnings not to do so. I've found who deleted it for them, so that they can discuss the issue, however they are refusing to talk to the deletor, instead demanding immediate reinstation of the image [75] that was deleted. Ignored warnings about vandalising the article by adding their pleas for help/frustrations about it being deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is SO unhelpful and also severely inaccurate. the person who deleted the picture says on his talk page that he has left Wikipedia, so I am not 'refusing to talk to him'. I am simply unable to do so (not that he gives the impression of being anxious to help, or explain himself. he could have done that before deleting the picture which a) was placed therewith the personal written permission of the photographer and b) was properly submitted to wikimedia commons, hence the designation [76] which I could only have obtained from them. ) . Nor am I 'demanding' instant reinstatement. This is plain untrue. I am asking for someone with more web skills than I possess to help me reinstate the picture. the person who removed the picture also deleted the image, so I will have to trudge all the way through the process again, which i believe I had done correctly. I do not wish to do this unless I have advice on where, if at all, I went wrong. I have very limited web skills,. It took me a great deal of trouble to get this picture posted in the first place, and I believe I did it entirely within the rules and in good faith. Yet it was arbitrarily removed *and* needlessly deleted (so making reinstatement twice as hard) , without so much as an attempt to contact me. I am asking for help, and all I get is rigid, inflexible bureaucracy. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the plea for help which I posted and which the above contributor deleted. : A CRY FOR HELP. HELP! I AM SEEKING A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR PREPARED TO HELP REINSTATE A PHOTOGRAPH, LEGITIMATELY UPLOADED PROPERLY REGISTERED AT WIKIMEDIA THE USE OF WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN PERSON, WHICH WAS POINTLESSLY AND OFFICIOUSLY DELETED FROM THIS PAGE. DETAILS ON TALK PAGE. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS APPEAL UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO HELP. I AM SURE THERE ARE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS WHO SEE IT AS THEIR DUTY TO HELP RATHER THAN JUST INTERFERE. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM, PLEASE JUST LEAVE THIS HERE UNTIL SUCH A HELPFUL PERSON COMES ALONG. IT WON'T BE LONG, THEN THEY CAN DELETE IT AND WE CAN REINSTATE THE PICTURE.

Note the absence of any 'demand' for 'instant reinstatement'

PH signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nowhere that says they have left Wikipedia, see their commons page and their English Wiki page. Also, the issue I'm actually having is that you're vandalising the main article repeatedly to complain about it being deleted, despite the fact you've been warned not to. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong yet again. The user concerned is 'Magog the Ogre'. If you visit his page you will find he has indeed left. I am trying to get help from someone who understands this needlessly complex system. I have a perfectly legitimate photograph which would add to the entry. I have the photographer's permission to use it. I have put it through wikimedia's own procedures, hence the file name (see above) . I have no idea how I could have been more scrupulous or careful. I just want some HELP! Please, someone. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, according to [77], it was deleted by Didym. Also, stop posting your replies to my talkpage, I've already banned you from using my talkpage for using it as a vehicle to complain about me/Wikipedia image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned User:Clockback. I've posted at commons:User talk:Didym to see if he has advice about the next step in restoring the image. Clockback is confirmed by OTRS to be the article subject, Peter Hitchens. But if he does revert the article again he may be blocked. There is also an available image at File:Peterhitchens.jpg and I wonder why we couldn't use that one until the deletion issue with the other one is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing, bureaucrats. I think you will find that the former picture has real copyright problems, since it was taken by a Mail on Sunday staff photographer and used for years without any permission and in violation of copyright, which is one of the many reasons I took the opportunity to replace it with a picture that had the photographer's direct personal permission, no copyright probs and having been put properky through the wikimedia process.How odd that the previous one, which should have been removed years ago, officious interference. In any case it's ancient and out of date.Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GMORocks reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: here

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: Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Background discussion

Comments:
New user. First edit was aggressive changes (+ 2,239) to a controversial article, changing many things at once. Some of it OK per policy and guidelines, much of it not OK. Doesn't understand that you don't make sweeping changes to a controversial article all at once, and apparently doesn't understand content policies and guidelines. Please protect the article for a few days to drive discussion, and warn the user to slow down, make changes slowly, and discuss things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

we also have WP:COPYVIO as well from here per this comment,.

all copyright violation has been fixed as the sentences have been re-worded. GMORocks (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

after being reverted by a third party, GMORocks

• edit wars again
• and again (that is now 6 RR) :: ::: And no. The content about the IARC report on glyphosate is a valid ref that we worked into the glyphosate article back when it came out. Your personal attack is another newbie mistake. You are heading for a block instead of a warning. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

GMORocks has continued edit warring even as this ANEW discussion has been taking place. Addtional edit warring diffs below:

1. [78]
2. [79]

The editor has not engaged at Talk and is apparently unwilling to attempt to understand or engage in the WP:BRD process. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Considering the user continued to edit war after commenting here, there wasn't much choice but for a short block. SmartSE (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog

I wish to report that Jytdog has been reverting my edits with incorrect reasons from the 1st edit onwards.

• diff - reason : "remove unsourced content; changes to well sourced content", invalid reason since inline citations with every line
• diff - reason : "please do not edit war, but discuss on Talk per WP:BRD - please make changes in smaller bites, too. Thanks" - demonstrates WP:OWN and no errors mentioned
• diff - reason : "Please stop edit warring. please discuss on Talk. Thanks", again, demonstrates WP:OWN and no errors mentioned even on talk page

User:Jytdog has been showing significant bias against the content I have added in, specifically the section mentioning the recent IARC classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic". Every statement I added has reliable references and inline citations (NYT and Huffington Post). GMORocks (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

right, i didn't violate 3RR. You did. Above I asked for page protection and a warning but due to your violation of our content policies and your aggression I am asking for a block now. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Capitalismojo has also been showing bias against my additions with the statement "This vast change is not an improvement". He/she has been reverting my edits citing copyright violations (which there are none) and "bold" (which it is not) and most recently "vast changes".

I am indeed biased against edit warring, so should all wikipedians. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Follow up: Now despite knowing better, the filer did not follow their own advice and has broken 3RR himself with this 4th revert.--TMCk (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. self-reverted, with apologies. perhaps you will remove the COPYVIO, TMCK. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask if you have bad faith and a deadline in mind. I do have other things to do, too, yah know?! And no courtesy ping for you next time :P --TMCk (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

don't know what your writing even means, but by the dif i see that i edit-conflict erased a comment from you. fixed that, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

References

User:76.88.86.113 reported by User:HillMountain (Result: Blocked)

Page: Art history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.88.86.113 (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. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

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

Comments: This user has been warned about his disruptive editing.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Blaue Max reported by User:Zeevjabotinski (Result: blocks all around)

Page: Quenelle (gesture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blaue Max (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=664960648

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665001759
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665043574
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665045337
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665047052
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665053852
6. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665054583
7. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665055360
8. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665055708

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max Comments:
there is also on his page, a link to a "neo nazi" blog.

User:Zeevjabotinski User:Jetur and User:Obvie [85] are obviously sockpuppets who are trying to push Original research. They were created today, they have full knowledge of Wikipedia policies and push the same POV... Blaue Max (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It is surprising that an account less than 24 hours old (Zeevjabotinski) knows how to file at 3RR and has nice userboxes on their user page. Some admins would do a duck block of all three accounts. Also, Zeev names himself after a Jewish hero while writing about a salute that is said to be antisemitic. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked + the socks/meats, since it's clear that the nominated editor (only blocked 24 hours; compared to inciting account 72 + socks indef) has recently been warned about edit warring and was also technically edit warring here before this descended into a full-on sockfest. --slakr^\ talk / 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Dismas (Result: Move-Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebecca1990#Edit_warring - They've actually warned each other!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cytherea_(actress)#Requested_move_27_April_2015

Comments:

I'm filing two cases. One for User:Rebecca1990 and one for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (It's an edit war and there are two combatants but this page seems more geared towards 3RR rather than edit wars) They both know they're warring as is evidenced by HW's warning to Rebecca to stop edit warring. The war has spilled over to other articles. Most of this is centered on if pornographic actors should have "(actor/actress)" or "(pornographic actor/actress)" as a disambiguator. Though they've carried the argument on with other things which can be seen in their contributions.

Another topic of theirs can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#CNBC's Dirty Dozen list. They've entered into a discussion but that hasn't stopped them from edit warring over that either. diff 1 of many, diff 2 of many.

For evidence of other move warring see:

• Linda Wong (actress)
• Samantha Fox (actress)
• Chris Steele (actor)

Thank you for your time. Dismas|^(talk) 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to be available to repond properly until tonight. For the record, I'll note that this began because "Rebecca" began closing contentious move discussions she initiated and implementing her desired outcome, which is plainly and grossly inappropriate. The other matters involve rather straightforward applications of BLP policy, where "Rebecca" refuses to abide by basic sourcing requirements. Note also, on Rebecca's talk page, that she was previously cautioned by another admin regarding her behavior about moves, and that she previously edit warred to make Brandon Lee (actor) the title of a porn actor bio rather than pointing to the far better known mainstream actor. "Rebecca1990" is an SPA, repeatedly described as a likely paid editot by several long-term contributors, whose behavior in other disputes was previously described by admins as "appalling" bad faith. I see a similar lack of good faith here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about a lack of good faith in me? Dismas|^(talk) 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Pfk102 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Western Illinois University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pfk102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. 20:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224952 by Joseph2302 (talk) Sourced by western Courier"
5. 20:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224556 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
6. 20:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224018 by Drmies (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) to 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* IFC Fraternities */"
   2. 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* IFC Fraternities */"
   3. 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 631841702 by Drmies (talk)"
   4. 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 631841599 by Drmies (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Western Illinois University */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User previous blocked for edit warring. They are repeatedly adding poorly sourced, promotional content, and show no evidence of wanting to collaborate, see [94], where they called be an imbecile. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User is also claiming employment by the university and asserting WP:OWN as a result. This one needs to be indeffed quickly. As I type, he has re-reverted yet again. John from Idegon (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:37.231.165.51 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Semi)

Page: Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.231.165.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100]

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

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

Comments:
The material was inserted by an IP editor in a similar range in these edits: [102][103][104]. The material was then removed by another user, O mnp11, because of questionable reliability. It was re-instated by 37.231.165.51 multiple times with no attempt by the editor to lift their burden to demonstrate the reliability of the material. The user is also keeps posting a message to my user talk page as can be seen from their contribs.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sign your comment in my talk page. Second, go to Wiki:RSN if you're questioning reliability. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The info you keep removing was in the article for many days. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Go to Wiki:RSN yourself, or even better, use the talk page like everybody else.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And why aren't you using the talk page? You're the one objecting to its reliability, you should be the one going to Wiki:RSN. The admins told you that the last time. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The material became part of the article. It was there for almost a month. It was removed today and the edit was reverted. So the person who made the most recent change to the article should explain why he wants to make the change in the talk page. I'm reverting the article to how it was before. Admins told you on another occasion that if you object to the reliability of something that's already in the article (not recently added), you should be taking it to Wiki:RSN. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What would you know about what "admins told me on another occasion"? Are you a sockpuppet? When the material was added is completely irrelevant. The rules are clear: the burden is on you to demonstrate the reliability of the challenged material.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to allow the use of Yemeni state media on this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor has now reverted both O mnp11[105], myself[106], and Kudzu1[107].--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. There were five reverts by the IP named in this report, whose first edit was on June 2, and lots of edits by IPs who aren't participating on talk. If there are questions about usability of sources it looks better if those interested will make a request at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Teamdopefreshnationforlife reported by User:HillMountain (Result: Blocked)

Page: America's Got Talent (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Teamdopefreshnationforlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]
5. [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

This user engaged in an edit war on America's Got Talent (season 10) and ignored a request by the editor he was feuding with to resolve the edit war. He ignored that user. After that, he was warned about the consequences of edit warring on his talk page. He evidently ignored that as well, and reverted again. As I was typing this, he just made another revert. He has reverted five times in less than 24 hours. Hence, he should be blocked.:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Teamdopefreshnationforlife reported by User:Winner 42 (Result: Blocked )

Page

America's Got Talent (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 23:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 23:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 20:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 12:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on America's Got Talent (season 10). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked 48 hoursd, see below. Acroterion (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Har Nof (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solntsa90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]

Page is subject to a 1RR, like all pages that are part of the Arab-Israel conflict topic area.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

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

Comments:

User:Solntsa90 is well aware of the restriction , and of the arbitration remedies related to the topic area, (see his own admission: [120]). He was duly warned and given a chance to self-revert, but chose to pretend that he is reverting "vandalism" - for an edit that clearly does not fall under that definition , per WP:VANDALISM. User:Solntsa90 has been blocked before for edit warring.

There is a well-established precedent in both Wiki arbitration and international law that Jerusalem is neither legally part of Israel OR Palestine (Take a good notice that most articles on Jerusalem inconspicuously don't mention Israel [i]or[/i] Palestine in regards to the position on ownership of Jerusalem? Israel [i]de facto[/i] controls Jerusalem, but the claim that Jerusalem is in Israel, or is the capital of Israel, is not a position even Israel's chief patron The United States recognises, and I've told you many, *many* times to familiarise yourself with the wiki arbitration on Jerusalem, because it is a fringe position that is not recognised at wikipedia either.

With that said--I was not violating the 1 RR rule, as I was merely reverting your insistent vandalism of every page related to Jerusalem. I am a member of wikiprojects related to Palestine and Israel, so reverting vandalism is of interest to me. Please familiarise yourself with the arbitration and international law on this subject before reporting me in a rage.

With that said, I actually suggest that the user above who reported me be blocked themselves, as they have acted in poor faith,rudely rebuked me when I suggested they read the talk-page on Jerusalem and Jerusalem-related articles, and refuses to understand that what they do constitutes vandalism. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

...And before you say it, what you are doing clearly constitutes vandalism because, even after I asked you in good faith to review the Jerusalem talk page for arbitration on the article and related page, you told me you didn't want to hear '[my] opinion'. You continue editing articles according to your own views, rather than what constitutes factual reality and the views and positions of international law (as well as the USA). Solntsa90 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Solnts90, if you check WP:3RRNO you won't find an exemption for reverts about the status of Jerusalem. You have indeed broken the WP:1RR rule. Your claim about vandalism has no credibility since this is a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree; saying that Jerusalem is in Israel, despite all the arbitration, international law, and wiki talk page discussions, is vandalism, especially the way he approached it, acting in poor faith. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: 72 hours for violation of the ARBPIA 1RR rule. User was previously blocked for edit warring in 2014. The question of whether neighborhoods of Jerusalem are in Israel or not is up to editor consensus and is not foreclosed by any Arbcom decisions. In his response to the complaint, Solntsa90 didn't link to any words of Arbcom putting Jerusalem in Israel (or not) because the committee has never decided that. Thanks to some 2013 discussions we got a decision on one paragraph in the lead of Jerusalem which is in the result section of WP:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. EdJohnston (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this decision is correct. However, it is easy for editors unfamiliar with the "1RR" rule on certain subjects to fall afoul of it. I could have, very easily. I suggest that a notice be posted on the talk page or some other location indicating that there is such a restriction. Coretheapple (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. (see [121]). I would add that the user was warned that he violated 1RR (as you would have, had you inadvertently run afoul of 1RR), and given a chance to undo his edit, but chose to pretend he was reverting vandalism (and continues to do so on his talk page where he is asking to be unblocked, despite the very clear message by the admin above that the "claim about vandalism has no credibility since this is a content dispute." All Rows4 (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Libertarian12111971 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result:user warned)

Page: Islamic Community Center of Phoenix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Libertarian12111971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: May 16

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. May 16
2. May 21
3. May 30
4. May 30
5. May 30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• May 16 "An editor has now repeatedly ... in a slow-motion edit war ... deleted inlines to redirects."
• May 30 "You can't just edit war on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a cogent reason for your edit warring."
• May 30 "I ask you again, and warn you again, to stop edit warring."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• May 21
• May 30
• May 30
• May 30

Comments:
Frustrating.

This editor has stopped just short of 4 reverts, but is edit warring. He is repeatedly overriding my contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Despite my efforts to engage him in discussion.

I've tried to engage the editor in meaningful discussion a number of times, on his talkpage, on the article talkpage, and in my edit summaries. I've received nothing helpful in response. The best has been along the lines of "I disagree". Followed by a series of reverts.

Sometimes -- a problem that has plagued many of this editor's edits (he doesn't seem to care, as he has been spoken to about it a number of times in the last 10 months, by at least 4 different editors), he doesn't at times leave an edit summary. As in his reverts 1 and 4, above. Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm noting other issues as well. This comment looks like trolling in response to your completely valid and universally accepted admonishment that inline links should not be deleted because they are helpful, the editor wrote, "No, they're not." This comes a few months after I encountered them inexplicably removing a reference from an unreleased film article. The editor never replied to my query about that. Their response of "That sucks" in response to yet another explanation that edit summaries are crucial leads me to wonder if they ever read up on any of the other notices about this, or if they understand that this is a community project, not a solo venture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed similar problems -- though they go beyond this board. An example -- the inexplicable removal of a pertinent fact, and then ... in talk page discussion ... denying his removal, though the diff clearly evidenced it. See here. Not in keeping with the rebut-able AgF we start out with. And perhaps that is pertinent to this board. Frustrating. Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Attention to this would be appreciated. Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned, if they continue they are likely going to be blocked. Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:27, 1 June 2015
2. 16:12 2 June 2015
3. 16:49, 2 June 2015
4. 16:57, 2 June 2015
5. 17:22, 2 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: High-profile article, quite a lot of transphobic vandalism at the moment, quick action would be appreciated. ¡Bozzio! 17:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP issue, which is exempted from edit-warring penalties. Overemphasis of a trans subject's birth name is considered extremely offensive in the trans community. Normally the birth name is completely omitted from the lead, and mentioned only in the infobox and early life section. See media guides etc. for verification of offensiveness. I will not revert the article again today. Here are the sources: Skyerise (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• "Always use a transgender person's chosen name." - GLAAD Media Reference
• " Do not ask what the person’s birth name was." - Trans Etiquette 101
• "calling someone by their birth name is not only offensive to that person, but in some cases, puts them at risk." - Watching Our Language In Reporting Transgender Stories (NPR)
• "it may be rude to ask what their "real" name or birth name was -- they consider the name they have chosen to suit their gender (if they have done so) to be their real name, and they want you to think of them that way." - How to Respect a Transgender Person (WikiHow)

• Fully endorse Skyerise's actions as a BLP enforcement measure. Bozio's attitude around it is utterly improper. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Crying "BLP" doesn't excuse five separate reversions of five different editors (within a day) over a content dispute, which this is – not "libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)", which is exempted, per WP:3RRBLP. ¡Bozzio! 18:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, it falls under "contentious" due to it being offensive to trans subjects. Skyerise (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This edit-summary, "enjoy your block," which accopanied Bozzio's notification at Skyerise's talkpage for this thread, is entirely inproper.

Result: User:Skyerise is warned not to test the limits of the BLP exception, which technically doesn't apply here. That exception is intended for the urgent removal of bad material, which this is not. The reverting has stopped for now, and the general issue about how to identify a transgender subject is being discussed at WP:VPP. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: or anyone else, sorry to bug you, but Skyerise has resumed edit-warring even while the topic is under discussion (a discussion to which they have contributed), as shown by their recent contributions. ¡Bozzio! 16:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop violating MOS:IDENTITY which you have been informed of. Per MOS:IDENTITY, we use the transgender subject's chosen name everywhere on Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to admins (and sorry Ed, disregard the above): a discussion has now been opened at ANI. I'd prefer if we keep this to one place, and ANI seems like the best venue. ¡Bozzio! 17:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Palma.palash.yandex. reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: 24h)

Page: Buk missile system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Palma.palash.yandex. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: _{Subscript text} Here user introduced unclear language to article (also apparent WP:NPOV): [123],

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124],
2. [125],
3. [126],
4. [127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128], [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130], [131]

Comments:The article has a pattern of such edit warring, from IPs with similar geolocation and from newly registered accounts such as this. Best solution is to semi-protect the article again - whenever PP expires, this pattern of behavior re-emerges.

JoeSperrazza (talk) 05:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 02:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Narbit reported by User:Number 57 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Israeli legislative election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Narbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132] (this diff in itself was a violation of 3RR (other 3 are here: [133][134][135]), but the report here at WP:3RRN was not responded to quickly, and was later marked stale)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138] (another one since this report was filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User talk:Narbit#Israeli legislative election, 2015, where there is an escalating series of requests to stop.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue has been discussed at Talk:Israeli legislative election, 2015#Zionist Union leader (further participation in this debate was sought via the notice posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel#Israeli legislative election, 2015).

Comments:
Narbit was edit warring on this article on 19 May, but avoided being blocked for violating 3RR as the report was not responded to promptly. Subsequent discussion on the talk page showed no support for Narbit's position, so I restored the version prior to the original outbreak, which was supported by the other three discussion participants (one of which was myself). Narbit has now reappeared after not editing for a week, solely to start edit warring again. Although Narbit has not yet broken 3RR again, he has stated on the talk page that he is "not moving on this", so I have no reason to doubt that he will not continue to revert endlessly unless action is taken, and I do not want to continue reverting him until he reaches 3RR again. Number 57 13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Narbit is also now trying to insert text into my comments above ([139]). Number 57 13:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to defend myself because you are mischaracterizing the events that have occurred to suit your false narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narbit (talk • contribs) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I just restored the article (again?). I will add: I tried to mediate a period to allow possible interested parties to address the subject, and the consensus was in opposition to Narbit's preference. I also gave Narbit a very appropriate remedy within the article: address the question in the body text of the article. I don't think anyone here would have argued with the idea of including Narbit's main idea—characterization of the leadership of the Zionist Union party as a dual leadership—within the body of the article in the right place. It was a material issue in the election, and entirely appropriate to address in the text. Narbit is edit-warring over the contents of the infobox, as if that is the whole article.

Speaking personally, I wonder how much Narbit cares about the rules here. After all this time, he has not figured out how to do something as simple as signing his posts on talk pages. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: This was archived without action. However, since then Narbit has started reverting again. Can someone actually do something about this? Number 57 08:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also pertinent that Narbit has also been edit warring over this on other Wikipedias (see the page histories of the Hebrew and Spanish versions). Number 57 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are substantial discussions about this on both the article talk page and on the reported user's talk page.

I would add that this has taken large amounts of time and energy from several editors here. Narbit stopped reverting for a time so as not to run afoul of the 3RR rule technically. However, he has explicitly said more than once that he will not rest until this is changed to his satisfaction, notwithstanding consensus of other editors to the contrary. I would humbly but strongly request administrators to be fair to the rest of us and put a stop to this. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

We have two more reverts today, so far:

• [140] (this mentioned above by Number 57 (talk · contribs)
• [141] (this just now)

How much longer do we need to do this? Or does he win consensus by bullying? StevenJ81 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week --slakr^\ talk / 03:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Okurogluselo reported by User:Taivo (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]

Rather than discussing on Talk Page, Okurogluselo has reverted again, even after being warned again here:

1. [147]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149] and [150]

Comments:
User:Okurogluselo is pushing a WP:FRINGE edit that violates WP:WEIGHT. His editing is disruptive and tendentious. While he made a brief attempt to discuss the issue on my own Talk Page, he ignored the issues I raised. While he has not violated WP:3RR there, his disruptive editing also affects Sumerian language. --Taivo (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: I gave notice to the user. With using the tool. Also I expressed about his talk page , to invite you to consider his/her general manners. The user of conflict simply erases everyting added to the article instantly, by me or by others. Furthermore the user never listens opinions of others. These are obviously "revert" literally. See below, please.Okurogluselo 22:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

You did not notify me of the following. Show me on my Talk Page where I was notified. --Taivo (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Okurogluselo: right now, you are in violation of our policy against edit warring and are disruptive editing. Several editors have reverted your changes to the page in question, and there is clear consensus against them that is developing not only in the page's edit history but also on its talk page. The only reason you're not blocked right now is that 1.) You're a new editor and might not be aware of these policies (and weren't properly warned using one of our user-warning templates *cough, cough User:TaivoLinguist*; I've taken the liberty of posting a proper one to your talk page) and 2.) I noticed you stopped making edits to the page and started making them to talk pages—which is the right thing you should be doing. If, however, you continue attempting to make those same edits to Language isolate without clear consensus of the other editors on the article's talk page, and if you repeatedly do the same on Sumerian language (or really any other page), you will be blocked from editing. Consider this your only warning, and seek dispute resolution instead of repeatedly reverting other editors. --slakr^\ talk / 03:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: (Also, I sent a message to you. Hope you will find time to read)

Agree. I will abide to your decision, I am respectful to any real concensus. I will prefer talk pages first, even I think that my recent attempt of conflict to edit article was minor in fact. However, I am afraid it was considered as an attempt to change the status quo, by the member of conflict. Really, it was not so.

Again I like to say, my main problem with the articles of Sumerian Language and the Language Isolate is about the language and style. The editors I mentioned above, think like me. The sytyle of the article (like many articles in linguistics) are determinative and assertive, even dogmatic more than scientific.

Nothing can be considered to stay permanent forever, the theories are subject of change, with the help of new studies. Otherwise it would be religion, not science. So, we should mention in wiki pages, about the possibility of changing in recent situation with the help of new development in any areas. Of course with giving reliable references.

Still, the article Language Isolate needs reliable references. Also I think, the editor TaivoLinguist should devote some of his energy to this problem. If he still consider real quality of the articles in wiki.

A reference is reliable in case of its being monitored in respectable indexes or published by serious publishers. Here we should not argue about dignity of such publications, but just we should give a change to wiki readers to learn about them. That is all about my intensions, no more.

Thanks to everbody to spend time for the case. Okurogluselo 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:Okurogluselo (Result: declined)

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Talk:Language isolate. Thank you.

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]
5. [98]
6. [99]
7. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page about the article Language IsolateTalk:Language_isolate

[101a] [101b] and [101c]

Versions of this page [101] and [102] [103] [104] [105]

[107] have done because of an another user, who barely speaks english. The editor User:Vsmith knows this issue nad send a message to the user. Okurogluselo 21:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
(Everbody please forgive me, because I cannot write shortly. Bad attitude.)Okurogluselo 21:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo 22:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)The violations committed by the userTaivolinguist WP:GOODFAITH WP:DIS WP:ETIQ WP:DONTBITE WP:STRUCTURE WP:UNDUE WP:BALASPS WP:IMPARTIAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

First, thanks to CorinneSD wrote about the issue 01:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC). As I wrote him, I am glad that impartial approach will be applied to the article. Also, you may look at the answers of TavioLinguist to other members about similar issues. I only think that roots of languages like Summerian can be still explored and now, some politically abused theories of past now can be useful with a new point of view, fortunately we have saved from the political campaigns of 20th century. Now, we can study about the problems peacefuly. Whay dont we give a change to new ideas? Anyway, I am respectful to your decisions, about the articles and about this unfortunate case.

Patiently, I tried to help development of an article and I trired to be respectful even in case of the member's offenses against my personal rights, as human and wiki member.

Until yesterday (tuesday), the article had a warning title above, expressing its orphanage, i.e. all the information was written without any references. Not at all.

I am the first one who added references to the article. However, the user TaivoLinguist, assumes himself only one who has got the right to write and edit the article. In minutes, he/she reverts anyting and any refernces about the issue. This behaviour is completely offensive and not only excluding recent studies about the issue but also excluding and harressing the member who love wiki and who love to contribute. Before my addings, the manner of speech, which TavioLinguist made dominant through the article, was deterministic and completely subjective. Just I changed some modals like "must" and "do" with "can". I gave a change to the other members, to know about new scientific considerations and competing theories. Most of my editions consists giving references from Zolyomi (1996) and Bomhard (2008) . Supported with these references, just I proposed that being categorized of an extinct language as Language Isolate is disputable and can be a temporary situtaion in case of lack of necessary proofs. Anyway, the references I added shows that nothing can be unvariable or dogmatic. Always studies continue, and will continue forever. But the user is extremely biased against some theories about Sumerian Language, yet he is very closed to listen anyone about Language Isolates.

Another unfortunate dispute continued about the Sumerian Language, connected to this. I have politely ask him the cause of his insistence about keep articles stable or permanent, closed to all new references or contributions, via sending a talk message to him at 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC).

" This term is (can be) controversial. Mostly signes a temporary situtation caused by insufficient research. In fact, any human languages could not be isolated. Other way of thinking gives way to idea of isolated languages, races and, racism. It is obvious, because you cannot give any references for your (subjective) ideas. However, I supply the article with reliable references. You may do the same, or you should not any more editions. We dont argue about the political side-effects of Ural-Altaic theories but, still we may learn about linguistic studies. There are tangible proofs about the roots of Sumerian language. And you cannot hide these from the wiki members.The article is lack of references and a caution message is above it. Why dont you try to fix it, if you really concern wiki and knowledge of humanity? Otherwise, I dont even want to think about your intentions. Please abide the principles of wiki. Or just take a look at them in policy pages, if you havent done yet."

In case of politeness, he accused me with not reading or incapable of understanding. Seems he is the only one who can understand. TavioLinguist wrote me at 23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC):

"You don't understand what it actually means. An "language isolate" is a language that has had enough research conducted on it to prove that it isn't related to anything else. You are thinking of an "unclassified language". You need to get your terms straight. Your claims about Sumerian have been utterly rejected by virtually every reputable scholar and there are plenty of references on the pages in question if you only bothered to read them"

Still I insist, there is nothing suh as "enough research" or a final end in science. Despite his manner, I was trying to be polite and even I thanked to him. At 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC) I wrote:

"I understand it well, you can be sure, "unclassified" is another issue. Consequently, there are a serious lack of references in the article about "isolated language". Researches can never be considered as "enough" if a problem exists. This is science, or we should live in stone ages harmony still. I propose it should be the term for a temporary reconciliation about unsolved issue, i.e. roots of language, just means, further research are needed,or there are no sufficient proofs until now. There are many theories about the relatives of Sumerian, and Ural-Altaic approach is only one of these. Once, it was dominant theory, now it is not. But it doesnt mean it is completely useless, anymore. Still the theory survives, because it is relased from the political campaigns in 19th and 20th centuries. So it is worth to be expressed in the pages. Anyway, I like your some contributions to the article, you have done really well. I will not use the term "controversial". Thank you."

Again he wrote in a rude and accusing manner at 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC).

"There is no controversy. The Ural-Altaic material violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It is universally rejected by historical linguists and therefore is not "controversial". The article is quite adequately referenced. You are the only editor who thinks otherwise and the only reason you think that is because you want to create room for your rejected Ural-Altaic nonsense".

The user should give support and evidences for his opinions. People perceive all others, in the way that they perceive about themselves. I didnt see any references supporting the article, before I added. Despite his subjective anti-Ural-Altaic opinions, I dont favor any theory above others. I am not a fanatic and I dont want to create room for any one. Just I think, the issue 'Language Isolates' need to be studied more and a revived theory is worth to be expressed.

Then he signed my editions with WR:Fringe. A revived and currenntly studied theory cannot be fringe. The opinion of the user obsolutely subjective and nothing here conforms with the explanation of fringe, in the wiki policy page. I read twice. Violation of WR:WEIGHT claim, is also an other offence from him. However, İt is obvious that the manners of the member and the editions he constructed are violations of many principles, I listed above. The former situation of the article and the mber's offensive sentences are evidences.

Just take a look Taivolinguist's other correpondences with wiki members about the issue. You may see the same manner again. Okurogluselo 16:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

References

There is no WP:3RR violation here in any of this. Okurogluselo still refuses to discuss the matter on the article Talk Page and has reverted a fifth time as well, despite being warned again by an uninvolved user (see 3RR report above this one). --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There are five more reverts against my proposals. I have been discussing the matter about the issue for hours, politely with supplying realibale new references about my point. However Taivo refuses to give any references supporting his ideas. Meanwhile I have to tolarate his rude and ofensive manners against personality and against any opinion different from his ones.[101] --Okurogluselo 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

Apparently Okurogluselo doesn't understand what a revert is. I have made no violation of WP:3RR. He is simply counting others' reverts as mine. In addition, he failed to properly file this since he gave no notice on my Talk Page. I found out about it simply because I was checking on the properly-filed complaint I made above. Okurogluselo simply refuses to admit that he has no case for placing this fringe information about Sumerian on the Language isolate page. --Taivo (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: Still I see offensive manner against my personality, yet I can discuss in civil manner. In fact this is an insulting and threatening manner, against who like to contribute to wiki in the future. Such manners, should be cleaned.

Every one reads this page can see who doesnt understand the issue. I am not sure that the user even knows what we discuss about here. Anyway, people know their incapability of understanding, surely accuse others with imcopetence in understanding.

If the user tried to perceive what I like to do, he/she could be more polite and considering all opinions.

First; I have never make, but never, changed the article Language Isolates in a serious or devastating manner, never I have attempted to revert the basic structure. In fact I seriously make benefits to save the original article and general structure. In fact, I have slightly revised the language or the discourse dominant in the article. For a scientific fashion, I subrogated the assertive modals with more mediatory and comprehensive modals such as "can". This much more suitable for a scientific and unbiased language. This is general approach of essays in English.

Second, I have only added proper references, which had never been added by any users, including Taivolinguist especially. Then about the issue extinct isolates, I gave the references above, just to mention about the other opinions. Because, always other opinions must exist if we will be human beings. The points we have reached cannot be dead ends. However, the user of conflict applauses the dead ends, in a religious manner.

Third; I have never promoted the Ural-Altaic languages in the article pages over other theories. The user of conflict carried the dispute to the space of the discussion about Ural-Altaic languages. Obviously, this is his personal rage against the theory, and against any different ideas as well.

I think personally, the theory Ural-Altaic may be useful in the future, but I only express this here. In contrast, I demonstrated the weakness of the theory in the article, with saying that just an alternative opinon, however, it is active and can be useful in the future. Moreover, within a completely different approach, and in a completely different language family, one will be able to find the relatives of Sumerian.

One day, maybe. But nobody could say "never will be found. It is forbidden". I dont think, anyone is a prophet here, seeing the future. So any category such language isolate, can be abondoned and replaced by a new situtation. Nothing can be stable forever.

Connected to Sumerian, the best example for the temporariness is the situtation of Ural-Altaic itself. Once it was widely accepted and dominant theory, now it is rarely supported. Only one of the opinions in the area. Of course it is worth to be mentioned, but no more. However, hostility and antogonism against a mere theory, is much worse than to accept it as the only rule for political campaigns. In fact the user Taivolinguist is the only one who operates a self-reliant campaingn, abusing wiki pages. Okurogluselo 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

By the way I gave notice to the user. With using the tool. Also I expressed about his talk page above, to invite you to consider his/her general manners, at the beginning of this page. The user of conflict simply erases everyting added to the article instantly, by me or by others. Furthermore the user never listens opinions of others. These are obviously "revert" literally.Okurogluselo 21:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs) Okurogluselo 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 22:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

1) You did not notify me. Show me the diff from my Talk Page where you notified me.

2) You claimed that I reverted your edits after I filed this, but you are mistaken. Two other editors have reverted your edits, not me.

3) Since you are the only editor pushing a fringe theory and trying to give it undue weight on a page where it is irrelevant, I have made no "comments" concerning other editors.

You are simply pushing a rejected theory propounded by fringe linguists. I have provided appropriate references, you just choose to ignore them. --Taivo (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Okurogluselo: I have already answered about all these allegations.

Again I say. I havent done a major change in the article's section, only I corrected the assertive language with using proper modals. This sounds more scientific. And I added the citations, which nobody has done before, just to show that further researches are possible to emerge. That is all.And where did I push any fringe theories in article pages? Just I gave necessary (and reliable) references and these offers a new approach, for both Sumerian Language and for Ural-Altaic theory.

Do the members of wiki have right to know about these studies? Can people only know the things you allow, in linguistics? And you are the person, transformed the issue to a frame about Ural-Altaic dispute, deliberately. Then just I have to object against your harsh manner about a revived theory, in talk pages and in my explanations.

Other members who reverted my editions even dont speak English. The exception was User talk:Vsmith, which reverted it, to save the last position of conflict. And User talk:CorinneSD thankfully consider the quality of the article, with whom you argued rudely for the same issue. The one who pushes something or press on the others is not me in the talk page. In fact, I released the pressure applying by the fashion and discourse in the article. As you wrote me about the issue in the talk page of Language Isolates once, you will never allow anyone who is not linguist, or who is not considered as linguist by you, to be able to use the right of speech, and to use the freedom of making contributions to wiki project. By the way, I know I am a linguist, even nobody needs to be a linguist, however you may consider again your own situation.Okurogluselo 01:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okurogluselo (talk • contribs)

• Declined — not only is it not a three-revert rule violation, literally all of the other editors on the page are in support of reverts made by TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs). --slakr^\ talk / 03:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Objection of Okurogluselo

Okurogluselo: As I declared, I agree and I am respectful to your decision on my side. However the decision of decline about the other side means, some editors is permitted to violate the three-revert rule and they can erase the conrtributions of others, without listening them and with insulting them. You should consider that TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) must consult the issue with other editors first. However, as obviously you declared, he gained support after his action. In an opposite order. Even other editors agree with his actions,TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs), it doesnt mean that he violated three revert rule. Moreover, he obviously violate the principles of civility WP:CIV and good faith WP:GF against me personally and againsy my good efforts. The case is a whole. The editors in charge must consider these violations of TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) in parallel with his reverts on my edits. This must be accounted and then the side of TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs) must be warned, for an impartial sentence. Okurogluselo 16:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)--Okurogluselo 16:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:212.178.255.32 reported by User:IJA (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.178.255.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Evidence of Warning the IP User

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This IP user keeps removing referenced content without any explanation whatsoever. It is worth noting that the IP address is located in Belgrade, Serbia therefore it is likely that they are sensitive to this article's subject content. I warned the IP user on their talk page but they instantly blanked their talk page. This user doesn't appear to want to talk and is just reverting my reverts. It is likely that this IP is also a sock. I have also contemplated requesting the article for semi-protection, but I don't think that is necessary just yet. Kind regards IJA (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin --slakr^\ talk / 03:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Horkers reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31h)

Page

Ian Freeman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "false accusations"
2. 20:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "false accusations"
3. 20:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "charity work"
4. 20:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Convictions */ false accusations"
5. 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Convictions */ this is a lie and a false statement"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[151]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[152]

Comments:

WP:SPA. Note I have vetted the BLP content. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (involved editor) I too have checked the BLP-content. It's covered by multiple sources in the article and even just a quick google search shows there are -many- other sources stating the same, many of them reliable. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 03:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:74.62.254.50 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: warned)

Page: London Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.62.254.50 (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. 1
2. 2
3. 3

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

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

Comments:
That user has been repeatably removing the name of the writer Christian Gudegast from London Has Fallen and this is the source right here about that writer as you see it on that site. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

• Warned — feel free to update if user continues. --slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Vrraybadboy2929 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: already blocked)

Page: Game Boy line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vrraybadboy2929 (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. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

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

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

Repeated vandalism by page blanking, edit warring.:

• Already blocked — @RoadWarrior445: page blanking is just clear and obvious vandalism; no need to report here, and no need to worry about violating the WP:3RR when reverting it. WP:AIV will get much speedier results so long as you add a vandalism warning each time you revert. 3 reverts of obvious vandalism is usually enough to report on, but by the 4th vandal edit, pretty much any admin will block. --slakr^\ talk / 02:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:RemoteControl97 reported by User:Niteshift36 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sean Hannity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RemoteControl97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]
5. [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164], [165], [166], [167]

Comments:

User has no other edits on Wikipedia except to add this information. At least 4 other editors have removed the material. Editor has reverted twice since the warning. He has started to take part in the discussion, while reverting. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring between June 3 and June 6. RemoteControl97's claim of consensus is unpersuasive, since he's the only one adding this material at Sean Hannity (seven times altogether) and now it's been removed by four different people. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned)

Page Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z07x10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [168]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [169]
2. [170]
3. [171]
4. [172]
5. [173]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale

Comments:
User:Z07x10 has been edit warring and then most recently accuses me of socking. User has engaged in edit warring on this page before and has also tried to put forward OR Mztourist (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

History shows that Mzourist broke the 3RR rule first. Without this breach, my breach would never have happened. He made 2 revert edits before Fnlayson's edit and 4 thereafter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=663826790 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=664455130 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=664729303 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665459770 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665460607 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665478874&oldid=665460648

There are also these two unsigned edits, which appear to edit the same parts and look genuinely suspicious and also use a horribly biased source, as you can see, with multiple inaccuracies disproven by existing sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665446315 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665470107&oldid=665445476

Basically he's been reverting the same thing twice in 24 hours and then waiting a bit and making the same reverts twice again. In principle that's still a 3RR breach and personally I think any unsigned edits should be reverted without any explanation. If an editor is genuine, they should sign their edits. The 29th of May represented a point of agreement, no edits should have been made beyond that point wrt that section without discussing it in the associated section on the Talk page, which was opened in February.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&action=history Note - (cur | prev) 13:19, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (Changed back to version agreed with Finlayson, please discuss on Talk page if you wish to change.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:53, 4 June 2015‎ HLGallon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,591 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (Undid revision 665461845 by Z07x10 (talk) manufacturer's puffery not a reliable source) (undo | thank) 6. (cur | prev) 12:25, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Composites having lower RCS than metals is not OR, it's scientific fact.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:14, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (167,591 bytes) (-6)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo | thank) 5. (cur | prev) 12:13, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,597 bytes) (-252)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Z07x10 stop blaming me for edits I didn't do and stop adding your OR!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:10, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,849 bytes) (+144)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Undone further bad faith non-agreed changes of Mzourist.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) 4. (cur | prev) 12:04, 4 June 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,705 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tag and removed OR; Z07x10 I didn't make and bad faith changes IP 86.69.13.240 did make changes while you keep trying to put in your OR, stop it!) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:58, 4 June 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,963 bytes) (+51)‎ . . (Removed bad faith changes of Mzourist - biased source with grossly inaccurate information. Returned to changes previously agreed.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:30, 4 June 2015‎ 86.69.13.240 (talk)‎ . . (167,912 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) ??? (cur | prev) 09:20, 4 June 2015‎ 86.69.13.240 (talk)‎ . . (167,890 bytes) (+147)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) ??? 3. (cur | prev) 16:57, 30 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,743 bytes) (-220)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: restored tags and removed OR based on percentages of composite usage) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 02:04, 30 May 2015‎ HLGallon (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,963 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: removed duplicated sentence and reference) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:39, 29 May 2015‎ Fnlayson (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (168,087 bytes) (-179)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: remove repeated ref) (undo | thank) Agreement (cur | prev) 13:33, 29 May 2015‎ Fnlayson (talk | contribs)‎ . . (168,266 bytes) (+180)‎ . . (Adjust or trim text to match what the sources truly support, restore reference) (undo | thank) Agreement (cur | prev) 13:05, 29 May 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (168,086 bytes) (+342)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features) (undo) 2. (cur | prev) 18:59, 28 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,744 bytes) (-345)‎ . . (Undid revision 664390477 by Z07x10 (talk)you haven't given sources just comparisons of composite percentages and your own OR) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 09:01, 28 May 2015‎ Z07x10 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (168,089 bytes) (+345)‎ . . (→‎Radar signature reduction features: Sources added, wrt composite material usage on surface area to reduce RCS.Z07x10 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)) (undo) 1. (cur | prev) 17:47, 24 May 2015‎ Mztourist (talk | contribs)‎ . . (167,744 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (Undid revision 663801391 by Z07x10 (talk)no source added, you just removed the tags) (undo | thank)

There is currently a DRN out on the OR matter, it is not OR in my opinion. I simply stated that the Typhoon used composite materials to reduce RCS and gave percentage composite usage for the Typhoon and Rafale as supplied by Eurofighter GmbH and Dassault. This is all I added: The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite,[140 - http://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft] while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite.[141 - http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-fully-optimized-airframe/] Everything in that sentence is supported by the links without OR.Z07x10 (talk)

Z07x10 has frequently edit-warred and tried OR on Eurofighter Typhoon as the Talk Pages show. I opened the original Talk Page discussion on RCS back in February. Earlier today an IP:86.69.13.240 made edits using a non-RS. Z07x10 then accused me of making bad faith edits and restored the OR. Z07x10 continues to accuse me of socking. Mztourist (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I left a message at Z07x10's talk page suggest he promise to make no further edits at Eurofighter Typhoon unless they are supported by a talk page consensus. Lacking such a promise, I think a block is justified. He was involved in a 2013 edit war about the same article (about the Mach number of the aircraft) in which he pushed his POV with great tenacity. In both disputes he accused his opponent of socking with no evidence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the evidence clearly shows Mzourist to have edit warred and breached the 3RR rule in principle twice over. Changes to text agreed between myself and User:Fnlayson on 29th may were changed without talk page discussion and he has been unable to support his false claims of OR on the talk page, which is why he resorted to edit warring. The text I added does not contain anything other than what is in the links provided, there is no OR whatsover, it is simply a statement of % composite usage in two aircraft as stated by the manufacturers of those two aircraft. User Fnlayson has since re-added the % composite usage. Frankly if we didn't allowed unsigned edits it would take away some allegations about sock puppeting. It's also next to impossible to prove sock puppetry unless you're the NSA. Home PC, work PC, laptop, mobile device, proxy servers etc. Frankly the 3RR rule is a farce and easily loopholed by waiting 24 hours, which is exactly what Mzourist did to avoid a flag but under the rules it's still a 3RR breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule:

"Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior.... Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

Mzourist personally reverted a change agreed by myself and Fnlayson 4 times by himself post agreement and twice prior, as very clearly shown above. He has also been a protagonist in previous edit wars despite coming off as the innocent party, I recommend that he is blocked as he's been a persistent nuisance on that thread, with incorrect allegations of OR and primary source.Z07x10 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't fully agree with your edit, which is why I reworded the article text to remove/reduce the OR/uncited text. Time to stop the accusations unless you provide supporting proof. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I realised that, and I thanked you for it circa 29th May, as I understand how my original edit did seem a little ORish, even if someone had requested verification of the preceding comment with other sources. As of 29th May we were agreed. I agreed with your edit stated here:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665481514&oldid=664561440, which User:Mzourist then reverted 4 times between 30th May and 4th June as shown in the history.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665481514&oldid=664561440. I don't feel I'm the guilty party here and the revert has since been undone and partially redone by yourself. I also have a DRN out, so I seem to be the one following the rules, Mzourist made no attempt to begin a DRN, which is what policy advises.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Eurofighter_Typhoon#RCS_1.2F4_that_of_RafaleZ07x10 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the change I was reverting to was User:Fnlayson's, not my own! I currently have a DRN out and haven't made any further edits, waiting for the DRN to be answered. It's a shame Mzourist didn't follow policy in this way when he changed Fnlayson's edit made on the 29th May.Z07x10 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Z07x10 is warned for edit warring at Eurofighter Typhoon and for making unsupported charges of sockpuppetry about his adversaries. He is also reminded that this dispute resembles one at Eurofighter Typhoon in 2013. At that time, several editors at ANI voted for his account to be indefinitely blocked, and there is a risk his luck will run out if this kind of behavior continues. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PavelStaykov reported by User:Crovata (Result: Blocked; semi-protection)

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

Previous version reverted to: June 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. June 4 (As I said Turkic kindergarten is not here)
2. June 4
3. June 4 (The kindergarten is not here.)
4. June 4 (new source is added) [there wosn't]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. May 19
2. May 19-May 27

Comments:
The user was warned for his activity on Bulgars and Dulo clan on his talk page since March (March 13-14, March 13-14, April 23-27, April 24 3RR, May 7, May 14), as well the issues about article edits discussed ("Dulo clan" and "Bulgars discussion").

His activity previously influenced also the Bulgars article (and Huns talk page), as such unconstructive and harmful edits became vandalism, and was reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive885#Editor with continuous unconstructive behaviour on May 14, but was archived without resolution. In his activity he ignores and denies of any inclusion the reliable academic scholars consideration (which calls junk), personally admits the violence of NPOV principles, and added OR of personal POV unrelated to the topic. His behaviour is symptomatic, as on several times like May 31 wrote "You came to my article my friend, I haven't invited you". I tried bring to reason but without success.--Crovata (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I've also semi-protected the article for one week because of edit-warring by different IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Joesmith12345 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lee Zeldin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joesmith12345 (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. [174]
2. [175]
3. [176]
4. [177]
5. [178]
6. [179]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No point in discussing these kinds of edits.

Comments: The SPA's edits are at best disruptive but more realistically vandalism. He's been reverted by several editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Huon.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Declined)

Page: Systemic reverts across multiple articles in violation of MOS:IDENTITY, Wikistalking
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [181]
2. [182]
3. [183]
4. [184]
5. [185]
6. [186]
7. [187]
8. [188]
9. [189]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments:

• MOS:IDENTITY requires that we use the chosen name for transgender subjects across Wikipedia. Subject opposes this for unknown reasons. It's easy enough to add a footnote with a citation for the gender transition and name change. Skyerise (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• The links provided do not show edit warring. It shows Bold edits by Skyerise on 9 different articles and one revert by Drmargi on each of those articles. -- GB fan 17:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's edit warring, which is a broader topic than the bright-line 3RR. Wikistalking to revert changes required by MOS:IDENTITY, intentionally depriving a transgender individual of their right to be credited for all their past accomplishments under their new chosen name, which is part of the intent of MOS:IDENTITY gender-change specific wording is not only edit warring, it displays a possible transphobic motivation. Skyerise (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess we see this differently. I do not see edit warring based on the diffs above and you do. -- GB fan 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You have already been advised by User:EdJohnston as a result of a previous discussion here, that your editing on that point does not qualify for the edit warring exemptions. Monty₈₄₅ 18:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm observing that warning by editing only. I've not reverted any of these inappropriate reverts. On each article you will find I made a single edit only. Skyerise (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Between the garbage on my talk page this morning, and now this, Skyerise has abused process more than once in some well-meaning but misguided attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Now she demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of both edit warring and wiki-stalking. This has gone from aggressive nuisance behavior to behavior bordering on harassment. It has to stop, and she has to recognize that the use of Caitlyn Jenner's name in various articles is still being worked out. --Drmargi (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't be serious. If you'd look into the matter, you'd find that the very same discussions have occurred multiple times, every time a notable transgender person comes out. Most recently this includes Lana Wachowski and Chelsea Manning. None of these discussion resulted in MOS:IDENTITY being changed, which is the current guidelines backed by WP:BLP which has the force of policy. Essentially the arguments supporting stripping the accomplishment of a transgender individual from their chosen name. Currently, MOS:IDENTITY is in effect and I am doing nothing wrong by editing to it. You, on the other hand, are editing to a potential future decision which has not been made and most likely never will be. I think there's a difference here. Skyerise (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. If this report belongs anywhere, it's not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GreenEarth Cleaning and User:Ajnewport reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: already blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [192]

Diffs of the user's reverts: GreenEarth Cleaning:

1. [193]
2. [194], [195]

Ajnewport:

1. [196], [197]
2. [198], [199], [200],

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [201]

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

Comments:
The 2 accounts are obvious sock/meatpuppetry accounts, as they are doing exactly the same thing- between them they have violated WP:3RR. I've given them multiple warnings, including [202]. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GreenEarth Cleaning. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Here they've admitted to being the same person, so have therefore broken WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked by others --slakr^\ talk / 02:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: protected)

Page

Astor Place Riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665541500 by Ibadibam (talk) too bad"
2. 22:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665530392 by Ibadibam (talk) No, per BRD, we'll leave it in the status quo ante while its being discussed. Please don't revert again."
3. 21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665512316 by Ibadibam (talk) Per WP:MOS IS NOT GOD. The other is easier to read. Let's serve our readers, please not our bureaucracy"
4. 19:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665510854 by Ibadibam (talk) More readable before"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Blank lines in lists */ new section"
2. 21:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Blank lines in lists */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC) on User talk:Beyond My Ken "/* Blank lines in lists */"

Comments:

Dispute concerning conformity to MOS:LISTGAP. Mutual efforts at direct resolution have unfortunately failed. Ibadibam (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Any "edit warring" resulted from Ibadibam's refusal to leave the article in the state it was in before the dispute began. There was discussion on my talk page, but Ibadibam rejected any solution which was not his preferred choice. At least one of my edits was labelled "this fixes it" (which I don't see in the diffs above), which introduced a new formatting (actually my original formatting, which had sufficed since 2010) and which Ibadibam reverted as well.

I should not be sanctioned for the unwillingness of my editing partner to follow WP:BRD's instruction to leave the aricle in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, nor for his intransigence in accepting only one specific solution to a problem which clearly has multiple possible fixes.

{Stand-by, the anti-BMK crew should be here soon to swear that I'm the spawn of the devil, and should be sanctioned with the largest possible rock dropped from the top of a very tall a-frame ladder, squarely on my balding head. BMK (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Page protected — @Ibadibam:, @Beyond My Ken: You're both candidates for becoming new editions to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, because you're both edit warring here. First, WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR are policies; WP:BRD is an essay and is therefore neither a policy nor a guideline. It is, obviously, good practice to go talk about something on the article's talk page—especially when a pattern like this develops—but neither of you did so, though to his credit, one did at least contact the other. As far as dispute resolution goes, however, the better place is on the article's talk page, because then you can more easily bring in a third opinion from an uninvolved party or start an WP:RFC. I suggest you pick one and go with it now, because if either of you continue the edit war without doing so, the next step are blocks, regardless of the current or future state of the page. Consider yourselves warned. Also, @Beyond My Ken: edit summaries like this don't help, and given your prior block log for edit warring (that I regret forgetting to check for until I had already protected the page), I very strongly recommend that you voluntarily self-adhere to one-revert rule, because this isn't going to fly in the future—regardless of who you're involved in an edit war with, why, or the severity of either party's involvement. --slakr^\ talk / 03:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, @Slakr:. I acknowledge my complicity in this edit war and regret that I contributed to its escalation. I did not respond on the article talk page because the issue does not appear to be particular to that article, but rather Beyond My Ken's objection to the guideline in question. I would request a 3O on the discussion at BMK's talk page, but I would like to respect his wish not to continue the discussion there. I could start an RfC on the guideline itself...but I am unsure whether BMK would accept its outcome, as his contributions to this discussion indicate that he does not care what is in the guidelines in the first place. The best possible solution to this would be a software change. This has been an open issue for years without action and I don't expect a resolution anytime soon. Taking all that into account, do you have a suggestion as to how to proceed? Ibadibam (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

To put gaps between list elements without breaking the list use the wonderful {{Break}} template EG:

1. Lorum ipsum
   
   
2. Notrum respot
   
   
   
3. Offenmod

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

Hey, that's great! @Beyond My Ken:, does that work for you? Ibadibam (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Z07x10 (Result: Declined)

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

Before reversion: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurofighter_Typhoon&diff=665559709&oldid=664561440

Previous version reverted to: [203]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [204]
2. [205]
3. [206]
4. [207]

He also removed a factual statement about % composite usage earlier twice, which has since been re-added by User:Fnlayson. He seems desperate not to include this factual statement about % composite usage for some unknown reason. He has removed it 6 times in total. Very bad faith behaviour.

1. [208]
2. [209]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] These words agreed by myself and Fnlayson were removed repeatedly by Mzourist: "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon#RCS 1/4 that of Rafale

Comments:
Mzourist has adopted the policy of waiting 24 hours before repeating the same reverts twice. This is a deliberate attempt to sidestep the 3RR rule but still does so in principle. As of the 29th May, no edits should have been made on that section without discussion or raising a DRN. User:Mztourist did not follow policy in this regard. He has also made deliberate bad faith inaccurate allegations of OR for this completely sourced comment: "The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite."

He has been previously warned about edit warring on other topics several times and had other arguments.

1. [210]

Z07x10 (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Z07x10 this is the edit warring I raised above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Z07x10 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned) for which you have been warned. You also raised a DRN minutes after I told you I was reporting you for edit warring and accusing me of socking. Now you have raised this hoping for a different outome. Your forum-shopping, as occurred previously in relation to Eurofighter Typhoon max speed is tiresome, personally I think you be indefinitely banned from editing the page. Its time for you to WP:DTS. Mztourist (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This specific warning covers your evasive and extremely annoying habit of deliberately waiting more than 24 hours before making the exact same revert and clearly states that it is still edit warring!: :: # [211] It also explains why he has slipped under the radar for so long despite multiple edit wars and also frustrated many other users into breaking the 3RR rule. And he has been involved in other incidents:

# [212]

The most annoying thing about him is his false and groundless OR accusations, as highlighted here:

1. [213]

He is yet to point out the OR in the following comment to me or anyone else!:

"The Typhoon's radar return is reduced thanks in part to its surface area being 85% composite, while the Rafale surface area is 70% composite."

He should either explain where the OR is, or withdraw his false allegations.

He should also explain how he just happened to be involved in the other edit war with myself on the Typhoon page, where he changed an edit agreed by myself and another user once again:

1. [214]

He has demonstrated persistently frustrating behaviour with his edit warring and seems geared towards getting genuine editors blocked with false allegations of OR or similar and 24 hour intermissions before his 3rd and 4th edits. I realise that I have been in trouble before but I believe Mztourist knows the rules and therefore knows how to loophole them and has therefore succeeded in getting relatively new users like myself in trouble. He needs to be warned that his tactic of simply sticking in a 24 hour wait between his 3rd and 4th reversion edits is still edit warring and is unacceptable! This is now the second incident where he has loop-holed the 24 hour 3RR rule in the last 6 months, the last warning on his talk page is dated December 2014.Z07x10 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at your talk page will answer the issues you have tried to raise above. Mztourist (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at your talk page will show this is the second time you have evasively side-stepped the 24 hour 3RR rule by waiting 24 hours between the 3rd and 4th reversion edits in only the last 6 months

1. [215].

That is foul play. Twice noted in only 6 months. It has been over 2 years since my last issue and surprise surprise, that was also with you!Z07x10 (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue wasn't just with me, but also a number of other users all of whom disagreed with you. Please stop harassing me on my talk page: User talk:Mztourist#Edit Warring Allegation made when this is the forum you have chosen to pursue or I will raiase a claim for harassment. Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I have also found other evidence of Mztourist edit-warring within the last 6 months.

1. [216]

Again we see this familiar pattern of waiting 24 hours between the 3rd and 4th edit, this time making a total of 5 reversion edits:

1. [217]

I merely left a little note on your talk page so that other users will know you have been involved in three incidents of this nature to date, for traceability purposes so you don't get to make 3RR claims about others while pretending you have a clean sheet next time round.Z07x10 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Very little has changed since the last time this issue was reviewed by EdJohnston.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

References

User:Humanparaquat reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)

Page: Emily Morse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Humanparaquat (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. [218] - adds "unaccredited" to description of degree (no edit summary)
2. [219] - removes all mention of the degree (no edit summary)
3. [220] - same removal repeated (no edit summary)
4. [221] - same removal repeated (no edit summary)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222] and [223]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [224] invited to discussion at article talk page on editor's talk page. A discussion on the article talk page is already open at Talk:Emily Morse#PhD.

• No violation. The first diff listed above is from September 2014, the second May 27, 2015, the third May 28, 2015, and the last on June 4, 2015. Obviously no breach of 3RR, just very sporadic reverts by an apparent SPA account.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:94.252.23.156 reported by User:Bosstopher (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665627548 by Mandruss (talk)"
2. 15:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665628478 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
3. 15:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665628873 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
4. 15:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665629512 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
5. 15:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "There is no BLP violation. It is sourced, published by herself, and clearly related to the topic at hand. Undid revision 665629806 by Sammy1339 (talk)"
6. 15:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665630662 by Mandruss (talk) You wouldn't let this be included in the article even if it was the headline of the NYT tomorrow and you know it"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Can't resolve anything because the talk page is semi'd Bosstopher (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Note. The article has been semi-protected by another administrator. As an aside, the semi-protection on the Talk page has been lifted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Semi-protecting only a talk page is problematic since it means IPs can edit the article but can't discuss disputed edits. I don't know that any of the IPs involved here would observe WP:BRD anyway, but it might be a mitigating factor here. Since I'm the one who requested the TP protection, I feel partly responsible for the chaos that has occurred over the past half day or so. Apologies. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:24.56.60.87 reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Tanda (association) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 17:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 17:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 17:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 16:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665636590 by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)"
7. 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665587306 by Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk)"
8. 05:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tanda (association)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This ip editor is closely connected with the entity they are attempting to promote in this article, as stated by the ip HERE. Regardless of the several explanations on that talk page, as well as in the edit summaries, this ip insists on promoting his company. Onel5969 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Both users blocked for 24 hours. )

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

Previous version reverted to: [225]

Six reversions within the last day, five in the last 24 hours, reverting multiple editors. Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]
5. [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

User is fully cognizant of such behaviours, as seen in their block log and edit history.

Additionally, as the user has informed me on my talk page, this page is under discretionary sanctions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232]

Comments:

This is my first day editing this article, and I have been met with challenges, and interrogation after my very first edit there.[233] This user's history is apparent to all, and newer editors should not be subjected to such behavior. Scr★pIron^IV 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mike V • Talk 22:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:71.201.93.25 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page

Henry Paulson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Freddie Mac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Fannie Mae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Federal Housing Finance Agency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Richard Shelby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP edit-warring on half a dozen articles to get clearly POV material regarding the 2008 bailout into articles (too many edits to take separately, a quick look at the page history of these [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] articles ought to be enough). They've been given both a level-4 warning for non-NPOV edits and a 3RR warning. Thomas.W ^talk 22:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you specify the page(s) at the top of this report, Thomas.W?

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, copyright infringement, and agenda-driven edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Teamdopefreshnationforlife reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

Page

American Ninja Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [240]
2. [241]
3. 00:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 23:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 03:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC) "/* American Ninja Warrior */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has previously been blocked for edit warring, and despite clear warnings that their additions were inappropriate, they continued to add them. I warned them about WP:3RR, which they also ignored. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like previous block was for adding pointless tables of information against consensus to, see [242]. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to revert, even though they been notified of this discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Soybean Car‎

Five reverts in about an hour. 01:17 . . (-1,954)‎ . . ‎118.93.95.49 (talk)‎ (Undid revision 665695727 by Vsmith (talk) look at all the fixes i did) [rollback]. Was warned of WP:Edit warring and WP:3RR. 118.93.95.49 Says "I am edit warring" on his talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

my version is much better then what you reverted to 118.93.95.49 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

He violated WP:3RR. So we are clear, I did not revert more than three times. 118.93.95.49 reverted User: Vsmith the last time. Makes five times in under an hour. 118.93.95.49 Says "I am edit warring" on his talk page. Lest there be any confusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is #6, which occurred after I filed this complaint and give him notice of it. Soybean Car‎; 02:05 . . (-1,954)‎ . . ‎118.93.95.49 (talk)‎ (Undid revision 665702100 by Skyerise (talk). it is repetition.) [rollback] 02:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is #7. Soybean Car‎; 02:10 . . (-1,954)‎ . . ‎118.93.95.49 (talk)‎ (Undid revision 665702417 by Andrewgprout (talk). If you car to lokk all of the ones I remove are still there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: 118.93.95.49 seems to be confusing User:7&6=thirteen with any other editor who reverts them. User:7&6=thirteen only reverted 3 times today and did not cross the "bright line". 118.93.95.49 has revert 7 times and should be blocked. "My version is better" never excuses edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked for 60 hours. -- GB fan 02:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion 118.93.69.238. Same stuff and behavior with a different identity. See Soybean Car. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have semi-protected the article and blocked the new IP. -- GB fan 02:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That makes #8 and #9. Slow learner. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:76.24.185.107 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: Declined)

Page: Marriage Boot Camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.24.185.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [243]
2. [244]
3. [245]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246]

Comments:

Edit warring on Marriage Boot Camp via disruptive removal of content by simply claiming it's "incorrect", without discussing the matter on the talk page.RoadWarrior445 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Only three reverts. None after you warned them. And you didn't notify the IP of this report as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Snackbag reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)

Page

David Beckham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "he was resident in miami during those years"
2. 16:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Miami was his residence and home from pre season training and games in January until season end in November - that's 11 months of the year !1"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) to 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "Miami resident"
   2. 18:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "USA"
   3. 18:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC) "since 2014"
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) to 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "He was in Miami 11 months of the year as is very apparent from the article ! If you opposing evidence explain it on the talk page."
   2. 14:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Resident in Madrid 2003-2007"
   3. 14:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "2012 not 2014"
5. 14:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Correction - Los Angeles NOT MIami. The article clearly states hew as with LA Galaxy during these years. Pre season training and games start in January and matches end in November. That is 11 months of the year resident in Los Angeles"
6. 14:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665763745 by Lukeno94 (talk) In the same column, under senior career, it states that he was playing for Los Angeles Galaxy during these years. What more evidence can be needed ???"
7. 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Go to the talk page and provide your explanation as to how, during that perios, he can play for Los Angeles Galaxy for 11 months of the year where he had and still has his home and not be resident there !!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

3RR not yet violated today, but this user has been edit-warring for a while (which is what the previous reverts are for) and has a previous block for violating 3RR. Snackbag is essentially an SPA at this point, as almost all of their edits have been to add in unsourced changes into a BLP without gaining consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the editor was blocked for edit warring on the same article previously and has obviously not learnt from that block. Qed237 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• And, just as I say that, here comes revert number 4. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The editing on North American Soccer League on 4 June shows signs of edit war also. Qed237 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Very true, and given the timings, I bet that IP belongs to Snackbag. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You are being very deceitful. You have not provided a shred of evidence in support of your ludicrous and obsessive claim that David Beckham trained and played and lived in LA for 11 months of the year and somehow got the bus from Hertfordshire every day. Unable to reconcile your deceit with the facts you have been trying to distract attention from the facts by all possible means. --Snackbag (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Which is not the claim anyone has been made, and you know that full well. I've even pointed out exactly what that field is for on the talk page, which is something you've failed to acknowledge or even notice. And the fact still stands that what you're really trying to do is remove the mention of Beckingham Palace, and anything else is just a cover. Your previous edits spoke for themselves on that front. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I want to remove Bec Palace, because he wasn't living there during those years you fool ! He spent 11 months a year living in LA. If you claim he's a Martian (and it wouldn't surprise me if you did) I would want to remove that as well. --Snackbag (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC) All you come up with is deceitfull attempts to distract attention from the facts, which do not support you at all. You've made a fool of yourself. Get over it instead of lying all the time. --Snackbag (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Where was he living for during that period for 11 months of the year - Los Angeles or Hertforshire ? Stop dodging the question with deceit and distractions. --Snackbag (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) None of this is a justification for removing it altogether. Why? Because he started living there in 1999, which was a long time before he moved to LA Galaxy. You would have a possible justification for changing the dates, but removing it altogether has become vandalism at this point, because you are doing so over and over. Secondly, the Beckham family still owned the property at that point, and that field isn't just for primary places of residence, as I've already pointed out (and you're still carefully avoiding acknowledging that, I see). Thirdly, the evidence is still pretty clear that, for the longest time, you were removing the entry entirely based on your claim of him spending 11 months a year in Miami, and at that point, you weren't even specifying anything beyond that - the edit history doesn't lie. Fourthly, as has already been explained to you multiple times, just playing for a club in location X does not automatically mean he lived there. I have never said that he did not live there, I have said that you have provided no evidence to say that he actually lived in LA - which, again, is correct; you haven't. Long story short; you've become a vandal at this point because you're deliberately removing information that is accurate because you don't like it, and you've replaced it with unsourced changes that are based on your own whims and original research. If he did live in LA, which is entirely possible and probable, then the correct thing to do would be to add that in as an addition, with a source - not to remove Beckingham Palace. Also, don't accuse other people of being deceitful and throwing up distractions when that is what you have been doing for months now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:119.235.2.125 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

Page: Chitral Somapala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 119.235.2.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [247]
2. [248]
3. [249]
4. [250]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [251]

Comments:

User keeps adding a duplicate entry on Chitral_Somapala with incorrect formatting and bad linking, and has been reverted several times by multiple editors. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours  —SMALLJIM  18:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:46.7.60.246 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

Page

David Irving (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Attempt to end an edit war."
2. 17:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665785670 by Doug Weller (talk)"
3. 17:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665784300 by RR420 (talk)"
4. 17:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on David Irving. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly a pov warrior, see [252] and [253] which reinstated this[254], possibly same editor. Doug Weller (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Try to keep an eye on the named account.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Baseballguy87.5 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet)

Page: Superstition (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Baseballguy87.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [255]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [256] 02:23, April 9, 2015 by Baseballman93.100. "This song is one of the biggest early disco songs."
• [257] 01:27, May 24, 2015 by Baseballguy87.5

1. [258] 23:52, June 5, 2015
2. [259] 17:56, June 6, 2015
3. [260] 19:24, June 6, 2015
4. [261] 19:33, June 6, 2015
5. [262] 19:48, June 6, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:

This is a sockpuppet case as well as an edit-warring case.

Baseballman93.100 was blocked in April 2015 for disruption, including his insistence that Stevie Wonder wrote disco songs.[264][265] Baseballguy87.5 then appeared in late May 2015 to say that Stevie Wonder's songs "Superstition" and "I Wish" were disco songs, the same as Baseballman93.100.[266][267] He revisited this (preposterous) idea in early June. He's repeatedly edit warring to put the genre of "disco" into Stevie Wonder's biography and his songs. Since there is nothing in the literature about Stevie Wonder writing disco songs, it's difficult to take Baseballguy87.5 seriously, which is why I have not started a discussion with him. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Apart from the edit-warring, this is a totally blatant sockpuppet. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)