Page: Microsoft Surface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FleetCommand (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:FleetCommand#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Microsoft_Surface

Comments: FleetCommand has been completely out of line lately and has no regard for WP:CYCLE and has begun edit warring. S/he has become completely hostile. WikIan -(talk) 10:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Fleet Command online!

WikIan has added three revisions.

• The first ([5]) is not a revert. I came, I saw a contradiction. I corrected it. Is it a crime?
• The second edit of mine (9:23) is even more plausible than the first. I had made several improvements to the article, including fixing duplicate citation naming, improving a bare URL, etc. ([6] and [7]) WikIan reverted them all in a blanket revert (10:35) just because he had disagreement in tiny area, saying "Reverted FleetCommand's edits, let's NOT violate WP:CYCLE". What WP:CYCLE? This is a blatant act of WP:DICK! Sure, I counter-reverted him.

IMHO, this person is here to pick a fight, not to build an encyclopedia.

I am ready to extend a resolution: Let's voluntarily remove all personal comments and personal attacks (both) from our talk page messages posted today (including this rather hilarious comment) and discuss the issue only, while assuming good faith, never again accusing each other of anything.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reverts within 24 hours so not a violation of 3RR in any sense. However I do see some hypocrisy in complaining that WikIan did a "blanket revert" which reverted some good edits, and then you did the same thing at 09:23. Perhaps you should both stop with the wholesale reverting and discuss things more? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Hypocrisy? I must protest! Sure, what I did on 9:23 (my second bullet point) was also a blanket counter-revert but back then I didn't know why WikIan did his 10:35 revert. (Now, we know. But we didn't know back then.) At the time, it seemed implausible all over. I could not do a partial counter-revert even if I wanted to. Sure, it is easy to come to WP:ANEW and judge what an editor did in the past but wouldn't you do what I did if you were me? You are facing a revert that is 100% (at least in your POV) wrong. I still don't know how the partial counter-revert must have gone; I only know the disputed area that I should avoid. Fleet Command (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he violated WP:3RR but just WP:CYCLE and he is edit warring. His blatant disregard for the guidelines here is astonishing to say the least. You say you want to "remove personal comments", yet you bring back old discussions AND claim I did a blanket revert in the name of not building an encyclopedia, yet you yourself have become the most counter-productive person in this discussion.

As I have stated, this discussion is about Microsoft Surface and how your information is wrong. You need to cite a source on how Surface (first generation can run Windows 10. Also, why is the information about tablet release dates irrelevant? You have stated that the article is about the series, yet you have constantly changed the wording (Microsoft Surface is fine without "series" to clarify that) and the facts (Only one Surface tablet was released in 2012. That makes the info incorrect and underrepersenting. WikIan -(talk) 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:FleetCommand and User:WikIan are both warned. The next person who reverts this article before getting a clear consensus on the talk page may be blocked without notice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:14, 3 November 2015‎
2. 08:48, 2 November 2015
3. 08:56, 26 October 2015‎

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Have engaged the editor on talk but editor insists on edit-warring.

Comments:

Contaldo80 repeatedly admits that he doesn't understand Cardinal Sarah's remarks, but insists on summarizing the remarks in the lead, reverting contributions from both myself and other editors.

Again, Contaldo80's rewording that Cardinal Sarah "is also a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights" is a biased misrepresentation, yet he repeatedly inserts it.

Cardinal Sarah is opposed to redefining marriage, but is not opposed to anyone's rights. In fact, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexuals "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." (Point 2358 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

Instead of misrepresenting the subject to readers, the cardinal's own words should be used to describe his position, without the peanut gallery's misrepresentation. If Contaldo80 insists on adding a dumbed down nutshell summary of the cardinal's remarks, it should be that Cardinal Sarah is a critic of the threats to family and chastity. Cr7777777 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment No diffs provided, no previous version provided, no user warning provided, and no evidence of a 3RR violation. Looks like a speedy close.Jeppiz (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Only three of those are edit reverts. Realskeptic (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Anyone can see through the diffs and article history that you've made 4 reverts there, and a 5th yesterday around noon. Just because you word the revert as if it's not adding the same material isn't going to fool anyone. Dave Dial (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are too caught up in detail. I did notice I made four edit reverts on the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC Conference within the last 24 hours, so if you really want to you can block me for that. I don't understand the hostility by other editors or why they seem so determined to keep certain information off Wikipedia, however. I am told not to edit-war, yet simply reverting my edits with attacks seems the preferred method to engaging in discussion. Realskeptic (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin, this is being discussed at ANI. APK whisper in my ear 04:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Muhammad in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[9] [10]

1. 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC) "you revert all the edits, that's the problem, you are here for? people are here to build encyclopedia. go help build constructive information and edit only that is not constructive and helpful"
2. 09:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC) "people are doing to build encyclopedia here while you acting a fake lawyer with your fake evidence."
3. 09:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC) "Are you serious mad? I dont mind sock. Go help to construct helpful information here."
4. 08:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688995177 by 2.48.183.152 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Muhammad in Islam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also involved is 2.48.183.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who claims Shibamanot is a sockpuppet. No attempts at discussion. clpo13_(talk) 09:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shibamanot is a sockpuppet of User:Simpleabd. See page history and the talk page to understand. User:Simpleabd has been creating a lot of socks and all of them were blocked per Wikipedia:DUCK.-2.48.183.152 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more recent edits on his/her part in the above.Super48paul (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that 2.48.187.101 is a deceiver, as you see i have some contributions. he only reverts only in topic about Muhammad. It seems, he wants to produce bad faith in that article obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibamanot (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 2.48.183.152, 2.48.187.101, and Shibamanot all Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stifle, can you please re-review the IP blocks? I have indef blocked Shibamanot as a sock. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've only just seen this – I'm happy to leave everything as-is as (1) the blocks expire soon and (2) it was still edit-warring. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Proportional representation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12] Nov.3
2. [13] Nov.3
3. [14] Nov.3
4. [15] Nov.2
5. [16] Nov.1
6. [17] Oct.18
7. [18] Sep.17
8. [19] Sep.16 (IP edit)
9. [20] Sep.15
10. [21] Sep.15

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

This is a "re-revert" war. I have been reverting User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd's edits and trying to discuss for more than two months and User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd is re-revertng my reverts. User:Abecedare protected the page for several weeks, on Sep.17, in an effort to stop warring, and there is a currently open WP:DRN dispute, to which User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd agreed, but he is now increasing his re-revert frequency. I warned him he was risking 3RR, here and here. I just want a break from this guy, but in my opinion he should be permanently blocked from all electoral system pages because of his blatently politically partisan editing evident from a glance at his short editing history. He has twice been warned about warring, one was for another article (which he immediately deleted). BalCoder (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Stifle (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User talk:Stifle,

User:BalCoder has previously engaged in an edit war with User:Reallavergne on the same Proportional Representation article. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854 under "Mass reversion and disrespectful language - Proportional Representation". This user has once again engaged in horrific personal insults, mass reversions, and has refused to provide a single source (while rudely dismissing the 40 sources that I have provided) to substantiate his/her reversions on the exact same article. Additionally, this user has violated the WP:3RR rule himself/herself.

1. [23] Nov.3
2. [24] Nov.3
3. [25] Nov.3

This user has also engaged in Sockpuppetry by logging out and using the following two IP addresses: 131.104.138.146, and 131.104.138.174. It is my view that this user should be blocked permanently or at least warned about intentionally abusive language. Furthermore, I find the assumption that I am male to be extremely sexist. Wikipedia should be a space where female editors are given the same level of respect and dignity as male editors. I am now working with collaboratively and respectfully with User:Reallavergne and User:Øln to build consensus on the proportional representation article.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Spencer Saylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31] already warned by another editor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple attempts to address this and related issues at ANI and the WP:PROD talkpage over several days, in which the IP has refused to participate.

Comments: This is a case involving PROD removal and replacement. Ordinarily this is not a 3RR issue, since PRODs generally cannot be replaced. However, several users, myself included, have cited significant evidence that the IP is the sock of a blocked or banned user, which by policy allows replacing the PROD. The IP (actually one editor using multiple IPs serially) refuses to address the claim in any forum. The refusal to discuss the good-faith, policy-compliant argument to justify PROD replacement therefore justifies an edit-warring/3RR block. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I apologize, I lost count of the number of times I removed the PROD template. Since the PROD policy is not to replace them in the first place, I did not think I would have to keep track of the number of times I would have to re-remove the template. If this warrants a 3RR block then go ahead.2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm no fan of this user's edit warring, it is conventional that new users are blocked only if they continue to edit war after being warned. Please note that any further removal of proposed deletion notices would qualify as edit warring across multiple articles, even if the 3RR is not exceeded on any one article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a new user; this is an experienced user editing via multiple IPs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there's evidence for that, then this user should indeed be blocked now. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that I have a blocked account or am evading a block. As for the multiple IPs, I have no control over how my ISP assigns me an IP. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, this user hasn't stopped edit warring. After being warned, he removed proposed deletion notices from a large number of new articles [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. I suggest blocking him. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a PROD template is not vandalism nor edit warring. It is the process outlined by the WP:PROD policy to contest/object/etc. to a proposed deletion. While technically a "revert", IMO the initial removal should not be counted as a revert for 3RR or edit warring purposes. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, removing a proposed deletion notice isn't edit warring. You, however, have managed to turn it into edit warring by vexatiously removing large numbers of PRODs without providing any substantive explanations of why you believe any of the articles shouldn't be deleted. Since you insist on the letter of the proposed deletion policy in contravention to its intent, you shouldn't be surprised when the letter of the edit warring policy is enforced against you. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy an explanation is not required. Also many of the PRODs I object to are not valid deletion reasons, so no reason requires no opposing reason. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the "intent" of WP:PROD is for uncontroversial, uncontested deletion (whatever language they choose to use). So it was never intended that any deletion that could be contested or controversial would simply go through the PROD process. It was always intended that any contesting of a PROD would require the matter to be settled at AfD. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. User:2602 etc. is correct in stating he/she is allowed to contest PRODs by removing the tag. Absent actual evidence (rather than assertions) that User:2602 etc. is a sock, there is no authority for restoring the tags. Everyone needs to go read WP:TEA or WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of PROD template against policy:

Page: Bill Bradley (endurance athlete) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: E-Infrastructures Reflection Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: International School of Kabul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Mollie Milligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Parhypates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: UKeiG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Further edit warring on talk pages of articles:

Page: Talk:Bill Bradley (endurance athlete) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Spencer Saylor (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:Steve Mendez (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Talk:UKeiG (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to (restoration of PROD after removal): [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]

Previous version reverted to (further edit warring on talk pages): [46], [47], [48], [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Restorations of PROD after objection & removal:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]

Further edit warring on article talk pages:

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See above section, also [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above section. Also [61] and [62]

Comments:
While having reported me for alleged edit warring above, it is not proper to restore PROD templates contrary to established policy. I would revert the restorations myself if not for such action being called edit warring. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment having seen multiple ANI threads on this IP, viewed their behavior, seen them baiting regular contributors, I believe that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's behavior would be protected by the exemption for countering vandalism, if there had actually been a 3RR violation. There has been no such violation. Protecting the project is not a valid reason to block. A strong and heavy WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to this IP. Scr★pIron^IV 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said in the explanation, I have no blocked account. Therefore I am not evading a block. I am also not vandalizing as I am editing pages in accordance with policy, including WP:PROD policy. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Editing for the primary purpose of repeatedly removing large numbers of PRODs without explanation isn't vandalism — it's trolling. I would suggest that WP:IAR protects the editors who have reversed your trolling. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "large" number of PRODs that I object to. If I wanted to "troll" I could have removed the template from every page listed in "Category:Proposed deletion as of ____ ". But it is clear that I have not done that, I have only removed the template per the instructions to object to PROD of those specific articles. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, adding some article talk pages to this report. Named user is reverting edits I make to the talk pages of articles. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. Retaliatory listing. Stop it. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Robert Sarah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]
5. [67]
6. [68]
7. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

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

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

Comments:
Contaldo80 aggressively violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding his contentious commentary and personal analysis into articles.

User:Contaldo80 repeatedly admits that he doesn't understand Cardinal Sarah's remarks, but insists on summarizing the remarks in the lead, reverting contributions from both myself and other editors. [74] [75] [76]

User:Contaldo80's rewording that Cardinal Sarah "is also a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights" is a biased misrepresentation. Instead of misrepresenting the subject to readers, the cardinal's own words should be used to describe his position, without the peanut gallery's misrepresentation. If User:Contaldo80 insists on adding a nutshell summary of the cardinal's remarks, it should be that Cardinal Sarah is a critic of the threats to family and a promoter of chastity.

User:Contaldo80 is the only user I've ever reported to the administrators. Cr7777777 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I do feel special. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale. Edit war has died down with no reverts since Monday. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Chess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: James343e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]
5. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:
Editor has repeatedly attempted to insert his opinion that chess is a sport into the article's first sentence. This is not a universally held opinion, nor is it a matter of objective fact as he asserts. He is attempting to over-ride a longstanding consensus and edit-warring in the process. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:

Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Diffs #3 and #4 are not reverts at all (unless I'm mis-reading something) - these were changes/additions to which nobody has objected yet. (Of course, if anyone objects, I'd be happy to discuss at talk, but nobody has raised these on the talk page).

As for diffs #1 and #2, the material at issue (a Kurtz quote) was back in the article (I've "self-reverted"). I removed the Kurtz quote because my understanding was that this material was only in there to balance out an earlier reference (which I also removed). Another user thinks the quote still belongs there even if an earlier reference is taken out. So I've put it back in, pending discussion.

So in sum, I count a single revert, based on my understanding of another user's edit, which I have self-reverted, and is under active discussion at talk. Not an edit war by any stretch of the imagination.

In any case, I won't be editing this article for at least a day (Though I will be engaging on the talk page). Neutrality^talk 03:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Does not seem to be an edit war there, and it does not seem that Neutrality has breached 3RR. He has actively edited the article adding a substantial amount of well sourced content in a dozen or so edits. See the article's history. No idea why the OP is reporting this. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note the OP editing behavior [92] - Deleting content without any discussions in talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing as no violation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nezi1111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]
5. [98]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments: Realtively new user who has Edit War warnings from other articles. User does not seem to have the social skills to engage in productive discussion.
Meclee (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not this user's first time edit warring... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i gave my reason. source support my edits. you want to redefine racism with a view that isn't in line with source and your only argument is "oh...but its WP" and, when i refuse you start insulting. that sums up our "edit war". Nezi1111 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of backing off the editor is now warring on other articles. Blocked 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Joe Simmons (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bill Bradley (endurance athlete) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: UKeiG (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: [101], [102], [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments:
After HW's attempt here to have me blocked failed, HW continues to revert my edits in violation of established WP:PROD policy. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious harassment and retaliation. Four reverts over three articles is not a 3RR violation. Note that this disruptive, IP-hopping user is also retaliating by removing PRODs simply because I placed them, and has violated 3RR on the Joe Simmons (actor) article. They're not here to build an encyclopedia in any way, but are throwing a disruptive tantrum by mass dePRODs after being blocked (see [110]). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopping IP is clearly WP:POINT and needs blocking. Normal editors should like HW should not be subjected to this abuse. (have independently listed IP below after seeing disruption myself. Widefox; talk 01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've rangeblocked the IP per ANI. This can be closed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed - no more action needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Joe Simmons (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689258963 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 3rd revert. Further reverts will be added to the edit warring report"
2. 22:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689249086 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
3. 21:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689246372 by Eteethan (talk) "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from an article, do not replace it" per WP:DEPROD"
4. 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "WP:CONTESTED"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Joe Simmons (actor). (TW)"
2. 00:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Added {{Whois}} template. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

technically correct to not allow prod back on, but clear WP:POINT. Disruption only editor WP:NOTHERE. hopping IP Widefox; talk 00:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Already rangeblocked the IP per ANI. This can be closed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Berean Hunter, hard to understand why the gaming disruption lasted so long on WP:POINT alone. I've proposed wording to cover this loophole in PROD. Widefox; talk 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [not relevant]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [111]
2. [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

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

Comments:
This article is under ARBPIA 1RR restrictions. I've spoken to Makeandtoss several times a couple of weeks ago about 1RR (see link above) and he has received the ARBPIA warning, but he's kept it up. He also violated 1RR on Naftali Bennett on Nov 1st.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither history of Jews in Jordan or Naftali Bennett were on 1RR. And # [114] is not a revert. The alleged 1RR violations I was 'warned' about, are not true. As I have discussed this on User Talk:Makeandtoss#Moshe Sharett. --Makeandtoss (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as no violation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Reception */ edited/deleted biased/unreliable sources"
2. 14:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689339575 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"

Comments:

Editor previously blocked (<2 weeks ago) for 1RR/ARBPIA violation -- not getting the message... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: what is the basis for considering the first diff a revert? Is there a particular edit which it undoes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course -- it would be whichever edit added the paragraphs in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems quite an extreme interpretation, although if you can point me to policy/precedent that any content removal is counted as a revert then I will take a look. That said, I can see the edits are tendentious. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 1 month. Editor has a generally tendentious attitude towards ARBPIA articles, has been warned repeatedly and blocked 1 week for violations of same in past. Recidivism is an issue. --Jayron32 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Rachid Aït-Atmane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MYS77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688937546 by TonyStarks (talk) No. They're still called Modric and Benzema while playing. RACHID is how he's called since he arrived in Spain, and thus, to football. Respect that"
2. 20:51, 3 November 3 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688946429 by TonyStarks (talk) 1) Search: "Rachid Sporting Gijón" produces more results than "Rachid Ait-Atmane". 2) His SHIRT NAME is Rachid, RESPECT THAT."
3. 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689262757 by TonyStarks (talk) Until you don't show some sources, I'll keep reverting. Learn to respect other people."
4. 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688952070 by TonyStarks (talk) Sources were given to the user. No replies were made. So, I tend to conclude that's an agreement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User reverted my changes four times in a 48-hour period (he waited until the 24 hour period was over to revert again). He used the revert function twice to revert my change and manually reverted the content twice to revert my changes (see page history). I won't touch the article anymore until an admin intervenes. TonyStarks (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

Winkelvi started an edit war and complained about Me performing one! Quite the hypocrisy! Ariel. (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice try but not a valid report. The reporting editor has been violating WP:POINT by reinserting content irrelevant to the article and edit warring over it. This report is retaliation for removal of said content. Discussion has been attempted at the article talk page and two warnings regarding edit-warring behavior have been left at their talk page here and here. Looks like a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you reverted 3 times I did not. The contribution is quite relevant and your removal is illogical, and completely unexplained. I attempted to talk with you on the talk page but you just talk about some edit war, and nothing about the actual text. Stay on point and don't make this into some personal war, your behavior is inappropriate. Ariel. (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have a lack of understanding regarding WP:UNDUE. Please read policy on it so you can better see why the content you insist on inserting is not appropriate for the article. My comments at the article talk page are quite "on point". It's not my fault you are employing WP:IDHT. And yes, your behavior has shown an edit warring intent. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seriously believe that the POV of the Jewish religion has an undue weight on the Bible? Ariel. (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article you keep inserting the content into isn't about Judaism or the Bible. And that's precisely why said content is inappropriate and irrelevant to the article and simply doesn't belong there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not inserted an article into the content. What in the world are you talking about? I inserted two dates and referenced the first date with a link, and that link is about Judaism AND the Bible, and the second is referenced to the pyramids, which is what this section is about. You are seriously making no sense to me, I don't mean to be insulting, I really don't, but what you said really makes no sense. Ariel. (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that maybe there is a language barrier here? (if not, my apologies for assessing the situation incorrectly)

• I said you keep inserting content into the Ben Carson article, not that you are inserting an article into the content.
• The content you are adding is not pertinent to Ben Carson, the article subject. The article is about the man -- you keep trying to add content that is not about, nor directly related to, the current content or the man.
• The section in the article is not about the pyramids, it is about Ben Carsons believe regarding the construction of the pyramids.
• Because he has never said he bases his beliefs (either for or against) on what you keep inserting, said content is even more inappropriate for the article and equates undue weight. Please read that linked article for a better understanding.

I can see what I have said makes no sense to you - as you pointed out. That said, hopefully this explanation will help you make sense of why the content you have been edit warring over should not be in the Carson article. If any other editors want to take a stab at explanation, feel free to jump in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you said now, but I very much disagree. The section (not article! Section) in question is about Ben Carson's beliefs. He is a Christian, and contrary to what you said he has mentioned his beliefs many times, so yes, he does believe in the dates I have listed. Therefor they are quite relevant to that section.

You have violated the 3 reverts rule, how about instead of waiting to be blocked, you self revert your revert and self impose a ban on yourself on that page. Let other editors weigh in on the topic, and you stay out of it except on the talk page. Ariel. (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"yes, he does believe in the dates I have listed." Do you have a reliable source that supports he has a) talked about those dates and says he believe in them, b) supports the content you keep adding back in, and/or c) proves the content is relevant to the article and the section in the article? "You have violated the 3 reverts rule" No, I didn't violate it. I reverted three times. If I were to revert more than three times, then I would be in violation of 3RR. "how about instead of waiting to be blocked" I see no valid reason why I would be blocked over a non-violation. "self revert your revert and self impose a ban on yourself on that page." No, that's not going to happen. I know it would make you happy and be convenient for you, but there's nothing to justify such a suggestion. "Let other editors weigh in on the topic, and you stay out of it except on the talk page." That's really not how things work here. Especially not in this instance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts, Nov 5th:

1. [120]
2. [121][122] - Pair of edits
3. [123] - Direct edit reversion
4. [124] Note this was not a reversion of a same day edit but a reversion of material I added on Oct 26th [125]

The 4 reverts above are part of 10 over 4 days (3 active) of editing. 5 being direct "undo" reverts.

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128] - Direct edit reversion
4. [129] - Direct edit reversion
5. [130] - Direct edit reversion
6. [131] - Direct edit reversion

Related reverts from Oct 26:

Material I added: [132]

And Scoobydunk removed: [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Notice of this discussion [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have made considerable efforts to discuss these changes and reverts as well as my concerns with Scoobydunk but I have found the discussions to be hostile, indicative of a [wp:battleground] behavior. Here is a talk section I started on Oct 28th, after some of Scoobydunk's earlier reverts without a talk page discussion [136]. An additional section on Nov 3rd [137]. Finally, an attempt smooth things over on Scoobydunk's talk page: [138]. On the talk page I asked that he revert his last edit as a show of good faith and because it was a 3RR violation. This request was refused.

Comments:
Scoobydunk has a [wp:battleground] attitude towards those he disagrees with. In August he was attacking an actual historian who was contributing to the article (not OR) [139] and the reaction [140]. He accused me of lying on the article talk page [Here is an example of the same battleground behavior with respect to an admin he disagreed with.[141] He has exhibited this same battleground attitude towards administrators [142],[143],[144]

Overall his battleground mentality and edit warring and talk page WP:BLUDGEONing makes producting editing and consensus building virtually impossible. Springee (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]