Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

Administrator instructions

Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.
 You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of the this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Contents

User:Jerry121 reported by User:P199 (Result: )[edit]

Page: L'Île-du-Grand-Calumet, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerry121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
Attempts to resolve this I did first through the edit summary, then I tried to talk to this user, either on the article talk page or user talk page, but so far completely ignored. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 04:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: John Wilson Bengough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • Changing "though" to "although":
  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]
  4. [11]
  5. and then after being shown what Cambridge and Fowler's have to say, he does it again with the comment "then you're both wrong"
  • Changing colons to semicolons:
  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. "so have you checked on the correct use of colons and semicolons yet? Or do we need an RfC?"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not a content dispute—Corbett's intent is to fight and avoid discussion.

Comments:

This is not a difference of opinions—this is sheer trolling on Corbett's part after he badly lost a dispute between himself and a large number of other editors at Talk:Nuckelavee‎‎ and Talk:Sea Mither, which is what "Or do we need an RfC?" refers to—he immediately headed to Talk:Sea Mither to trumpet what a "bad writer" I am (neglecting to mention I had to revert almost the whole botched "copyedit"). He targeted John Wilson Bengough because I had had it promted to GA that very day. Corbett's motivation is not to improve the article (which he hasn't—he's actually introduced errors in punctuation and semantics), it's to fight, fight, fight to the very end. You can expect him to show up here with some line about "not understanding basic punctuation", but don't be fooled—this is not about punctuation. It's a vendetta. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits, but I've blocked the filer for 72 hours for WP:NPA. MLauba (Talk) 01:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Block lifted, under the assumption that irritation drove a reasonable editor to sub-optimal edits. I believe the above could be resolved amicably if the parties talked to each other rather than at each other. MLauba (Talk) 10:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: (I was drawn here by a request left on my user talk page by an uninvolved administrator)

  • Commenting on the merits: I copy edited the article prior to this. I would be happy to learn something new about grammar and punctuation, however the diffs above clearly show incorrect usage of both. Filer is correct in their assessment: The edits do not improve the article. Having said that ...
  • Commenting on the behavior: This is likely a display of old animosity shared by both parties against each other that probably goes back a while, a result of repeated attempts of each to humiliate the other with no regard for the maturity required to discuss the situation like adults. Regarding the behavior of the filer: Administrators here rightfully blocked him for wasting administrator's time by taking the issue here prior to taking it to the article talk page. Regarding the behavior of the filer's opponent: Suspect that his motivation was to retaliate against the filer for an older, unresolved dispute without regard for the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia article. Suggested behavior: Unless both parties are happy to go on for years like this, I suggest that they 1) judiciously avoid each other for a period of at least six months, then 2) talk to each other on the article talk page of whatever article where they find themselves unavoidably working together. When that day occurs, they should start by finding common ground, areas where they happen to agree, then move on to amicably and respectfully discuss any areas where they do not agree. Do not resort to old behavior on that day. I am confident that both parties can find peace if this advice is followed. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but it's difficult for me to read this comment and not see "She shouldn't have worn that skirt" in it. I used strong language, and the discussion was personal on both sides, but that can't seriously be used to excuse persistent disruption of article space. The suggestion that a talk page discussion would have solved it is ludicrous (b) I've opened one, and Eric hasn't bothered to show up; (b) Eric's motivation was to disrupt, no tot improve the article; (b) Eric's contributions to the discussion at Talk:Sea Mither consisted virtually entirely of trying to keep the discussion off topic. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll have to correct Prhartcom's assumption - the block was issued following an escalation in tone far beyond the boundaries of vigorous debate. It cannot in any way be read as comment on the merits of filing this report. MLauba (Talk) 10:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Thank-you, MLauba, it was the correct decision for both reasons. A block of both would have been even more appropriate, as I believe the filer is correct in their assessment of the situation immediately above: The filer's opponent's motivation was to disrupt the encyclopedia to retaliate for the tone of this and likely many previous encounters. That tone is the core issue and is what actually needs to be resolved by the filer and his opponent. My suggested solution to do so that was requested by the uninvolved administrator still stands. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
        I see you're a dab hand at making assumptions. What's wrong with examining the facts instead? Eric Corbett 13:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
        Well if we are to stick to the facts then the fact is that there was edit warring. HighInBC 15:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
        How can one person "edit war"? But do whatever you feel you have to do, although I can guess what that is. Eric Corbett 17:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
        If we were closing this edit warring complaint 'by the book' we would most likely block both of the participants. Consideration would be given to any assurance that they would stop warring, though I'm not aware of such. The thread at Eric's talk page isn't very encouraging. Eric is hardly diplomatic and I don't see any promise to stop warring by either person. A closure now would still be timely, since it is a long-running dispute. User:MLauba appears more familiar with the overall issue, so maybe he or she wants to close this report one way or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
        EdJohnston: I don't see any promise to stop warring by either person: I'd stopped already and have already made the promise on my talk page to take it to the talk page. What must be kept in mind is the bad-faith intent of the edits in the first place—they were not aimed at improving the article, but in causing disruption—and he was obviously trying to goad me into going 3RR when I stopped. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
        At this stage, as both have disengaged, I suggest closing with no action, a reminder not to use copy editing summaries as a means to get back at each other, and a recommendation to stay out of each other's way. And on a more personal note, I would definitely learn something if those edit summaries hinted at why something is being corrected instead of the perceived lack of expertise of the person being corrected. MLauba (Talk) 12:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, as recommended by User:MLauba. See his advice. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Research and Analysis Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 711998891 by MBlaze Lightning: Please avoid WP:UNDUE. this section is about major operations not about what Pakistan claims day another day! (TW)"
  2. 07:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC) "rm. It seems to me POV and WP:UNDUE And it is really not relevant in this section when it is just a claim by Pakistan which have no evidence whatsoever to back their claim."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is already under 1PR restriction. He is now warring against three editors. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

  • COMMENT
Admins can see, I did only one revert on an article that is not covered by ARBIPA. In my first edit, I didn't reverted any user rather I only removed the UNDUE content. FLCC will you please stop creating irritation, annoyance and distress to me? It won't take more then a minute to check your Contributions and see who actually warring across multiple articles covered by ARBIPA (this, and this. And Again,this is covered under ARBIPA sanctions and FreeatlastChitchat violated 1RR that was imposed on him yesterday. This user also hounded me on multiples articles. This user (FreeatlastChitchat) is probably one of the most disruptive editors I've ever seen to date. Checking his block log , talk page and a quick search will show what I mean. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 10:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that the majority of the AN/I filings were by User:Trinacrialucente who is now subject to an indefinite block. Can't see any wrongdoings on FLCC's behalf here, only that MBL has violated his 1RR restriction. I highly recommend a short block for the user being reported here. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 11:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the policy pages do not make clear what counts as a "revert." Under 1RR, the definition becomes critical. I agree that reinstating an edit counts as a second "revert." But, without this being written down anywhere, we can't fault the editors for not knowing. I think it is best to let off the editor with a warning. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment MBlaze Lightning should have read the warning properly. And we are not given any complete list of articles which comes under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan related articles. He assumed that Research and Analysis Wing is not under Arbitration. Me myself don't know which articles come under this arbitration, and why we have arbitration when we have administrators?
Having said that the accusation of Wikihounding is justified. This user:FreeatlastChitchat had editing disputes with MBlazeLightning and he followed MBlaze in Rakhi Sawant, a page which Freeatlastchitchat never edited before MBlaze . He edited just after MBlaze's edit. And this is not alone even AFD discussion for Umar Khalid, freeatlastChitchat edited just after MBlaze's edit. This guy is Wikihounding a user.Greek Legend (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ just following another edits is not hounding. As per policy "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, incidents, and arbitration cases.". You see from Rakhi Sawant page that MBL just removed a piece of information instead of tagging it or trying to find a source. I sourced the fact. Just how did it cause MBL's edits to be disrupted? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: MBlaze's edit history shows that he has been wikihounding and harassing a new editor User:TalhaZubairButt, if someone doesn't know how to properly defend themselves that doesn't mean that you have a liberty to wikihound and harass them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Arbitration enforcement remedies should usually be brought up at WP:AE. @MBlaze Lightning: To be perfectly clear, you absolutely violated your 1RR restriction. A user made a change, and you reverted it twice within a 24 hour period ([16] [17]). --slakr\ talk / 04:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:احمد الليبي reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page: Gagauz people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: احمد الليبي (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (User page)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  • Still at it today; (28 March)
  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Also at 3RR on: Page: Fayez al-Sarraj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]
  • And still at it today here as well; (28 March)
  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

  • Along with each and every edit summary, I again tried to discuss these issues with this user, but they refuse to respond;
    Diff: [37] - theWOLFchild 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


User notified: [38]

Comments:
New, WP:NOTHERE user with a bad attitude and possible COI. When I first added a "welcome" template, along with a pov notification, to their talk page, I was told to "mind my own business" and accused of "patronizing", "spamming" and "trying to increase my edit count". User is also repeatedly changing sourced content. Despite numerous requests to add additional sources and/or discuss on article talk pages, or the user's talk page, this user has refused to engage, and just continues edit warring. - theWOLFchild 12:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This user (wolfchild) doesn't have a clue both in terms of good information about the subjects of the articles in question and in terms of the style/language that should best be used for writing the articles. And it was actually him who started the edit war deleting my corrections by reverting to older versions and everytime leaving needless comment in my talk page. I'm confident that any admin here will easily see which expression is better "the Balkan country of Bulgaria" or simply "Bulgaria" and which info is correct regarding the existence of two parallel governments in Libya, whether this started in 2011 or 2014. احمد الليبي (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
For someone who claims to "know Wikipedia very well" (after 22 edits total), your explanation is lacking. The first issue is a content dispute. In such cases, admins don't decide content, neither do you, or I. Content is decided by consensus, hence the reason you need to propose your change on the talk page and seek support for it. The second issue is about sourcing. Your change was not supported by the attached source, meaning it was original research. You need to add a new source to support your change. You also need to discuss these issues on the article talk pages, but you absolutely refused. In both cases, the one thing you don't do is edit war, but you did. - theWOLFchild 04:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
March 28

This user is still edit-warring over these changes. One while is a minor content issue, the other is a sourcing issue. I have repeatedly requested that they discuss these issues on the article talk pages or on their user talk page, by way of edit summaries and another post to their talk page. They repeatedly blank their user page without replying and won't even leave an edit summary. For a user who's only been here a few weeks and only has about 40 edits, most of which are reverts, there are serious issues of WP:NOTHERE, WP:BATTLE, WP:IDHT and WP:CIR. Could an admin please review this report? It's been here for 3 days and clearly this issue, nor this disruptive user, are going away anytime soon. Thanks. - theWOLFchild 17:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • (Non-administrator observation) Comment if I can speak my mind here, I should say that you both deserve to have been brought here by yesterday at the latest. WP:BRD was broken almost immediately! But I would also suggest that, combined with his mutual edit-warring, I am inclined to view [[User:]]احمد الليبي as displaying all the symptoms of WP:BATTLEGROUND. The message on his TP reads "Please mind your own business en don't be patronizing nor to try to increase the # of your contribution by editing this page using spam-like templates," and his comment above about other editors' not "hav[ing] a clue" corroborates his lack of collegiality. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I should be reported for "breaking BRD"? I didn't breach 3RR, whereas he did. And while I have repeatedly tried to engage this editor in discussion or at least solicit an explanation, this user has so far refused to respond. But if you feel I should be reported, then remove your comments from here and file a new report against me below. Right now, all your doing is creating a distraction that'll probably lead to a free pass. - theWOLFchild 17:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Boghog reported by User:Fred Gandt (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Template talk:Multiple issues#Request to add talksection parameter

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion not on article talk page (as above)

Comments: The war began on Template talk:Multiple issues where User:Boghog made an edit request. In the request they noted that a live article was to be seen as a demonstration of a sandboxed alteration of the template in question. I returned the article to its correct condition, and asked the user to not do tests/demonstrations in live articles. They have since reverted my own attempts to correct the issue, and another user's. There appears to be a content dispute in the same article which is mixed up in the diffs. After the second revert, User:Boghog created Template:Multiple issues 2 with creation summary "created temporary template that is needed to resolve edit dispute". I have tagged it for deletion per {{Db-t3}}. User:Boghog contacted me repeatedly (whilst I was dealing with other concerns) after my second attempt to correct the article, which was a compromise, and found my compromise undone soon after. The conversation on my talk page about this issue is continuing as I compose this report; I am in two minds about continuing, but an article with two simultaneous content disputes involving the same editor, and what feels like an unreasonable bent to get their own way by any means, should be examined.

P.S. Sorry if I've done the diffs wrong. fredgandt 22:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally: I should note that the content dispute which appeared to be ongoing at the article, turns out to be no more than an RfC. fredgandt 13:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This was part of longer term, multi article dispute concerning what in my humble opinion was excessive and inappropriate use of attention banners by a third party (see for example this discussion). I hope you now understand where I was coming from. Boghog (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I am sorry, but this is not an edit war, but a misunderstanding. I respectfully tried to engage in a discussion here, but with limited success. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Point of order: At most, I have reverted three times and hence I have not violated WP:3RR. The fourth edit was a modification to my own edit. Boghog (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding 3RR: I must admit to making a mistake there; more than 3 not 3 is something I missed. However, I didn't miss that not breaking this rule isn't an excuse, or that a report isn't valid without this rule being broken. I prefer to allow admin to review this report as it was made, and therefore will not be defending my position repeatedly. I of course will answer any questions to the best of my ability to assist. fredgandt 23:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Boghog: It's still revert warring. If you find yourself making basically the same change several times over and over again in the manner you did there, it's safe to assume you're edit warring—misunderstanding or not. If someone undoes your change, take it to the talk page or seek dispute resolution. --slakr\ talk / 04:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As pointed out above, I did take the issue to the editor's talk page. Boghog (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Constructionworkerz reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Thank You (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Constructionworkerz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:00, March 27, 2016 (UTC) "Love how you said you probably should've ignored me the other day when you edit-warred over ten times, and now look who's edit-warring again? You still are the same person, but you expect me to change. You haven't learned a thing."
  2. 17:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "For fuck's sake, it says she worked with them in the article. People need to stop having sticks up their ass."
  3. 16:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "It says that she worked with them. Do not remove it again, please."
  4. 16:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "First of all, do not remove Rock City, as they are confirmed. Second, which source states that Ricky Reed is a producer? I checked them all. It doesn't mention him anywhere on the page, or in the sources."
  5. Consecutive edits made from 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "I don't see any information saying he's a producer, but I do see some saying that they are."
    2. 14:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Thank You (Meghan Trainor album). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Definite edit warring, no brainer. Also, a current SPI is in place for this account here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Good God, Wikipedia's edit-warring policy is shit. Basically, if you have a good reason to edit-war, you can edit-war as many times as you like. Otherwise, you get banned. Do you know, another user, Carbrera, edit-warred over 10 times the other day, and guess what happened? Nothing! He got off Scot-free! So, what I love is that, I edit-war three times, and I get reported for it. HOWEVER, Carbrera edit-wars over 10 fucking times, and Wikipedia says, "No Problem! No problem whatsoever!" Wikipedia, go fuck yourself. Constructionworkerz (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That's because reverting edits from a sock are not against policy. Take time to read the policy rather than remaining non-knowledgable about it. Carbrera (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, that's incorrect, Carbrera. Definite vandalism reverts are allowed, reverting a sock or suspected sock is not, unless it is blatant, obvious, and definite vandalism. While the user being reported here has been annoying with their edits at the current article in question, and those edits are unsourced, they are not vandalism, therefore, edit warring yourself over those edits is not appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Am I a confirmed sock yet? ;) Constructionworkerz (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You say that, but I'm the only person here being reported, when Carbrera has now violated the 3RR rule. This is why this policy is shit. Constructionworkerz (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked by someone else --slakr\ talk / 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked for 6 weeks)[edit]

Page: W. H. Auden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trackteur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Sustained and consistent behavioural issues across a number of articles. The issue here is about page-move warring to move a long-stable article at W. H. Auden to Wystan Hugh Auden against WP:COMMONNAME.

As for a number of similar poets (T. S. Eliot, W. B. Yeats), Auden is known predominantly as W. H. Auden (Who even knows "Wystan Hugh"?). This is a clear case for WP:COMMONNAME to keep it where it has been, with the initials.

Addendum: He has now done this to TS Eliot and CP Snow too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43]
  2. [44]

There was no prior discussion of this which, for such a prominent biography GA, would have been essential. Discussion afterwards rejected it: Talk:Wystan Hugh Auden#Move.

This is typical behaviour for Tracteur. See their history and talk page for many more examples. There is no discussion, they either dismiss it with "Done" or "lol", or else "clean" it [45] [46] from their talk: page.

I believe this editor to be yet another returned sock of the prolifically hosieried Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) and opened an SPI recently: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tobias_Conradi, however this was not technically proven. Whether Conradi or not, the behaviour is now getting to the point where it's unacceptable whatever their identity.

In other articles we see simple rapid-revert behaviour such as at Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, where he is adamant that some pointless <nowiki></nowiki> must be added.

  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49] (Added after the ANEW report was opened)

More instant edit pushing at Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]

Water turbine

  1. [52] - adding a link to rotary engine that has nothing to do with water power
  2. [53]
  3. [54]
  4. [55]
  5. [56]
  6. [57]

Two clear themes are evident here, all initialisations are WRONG, regardless of context. This applies to personal names, or to organisations. Secondly consistency in naming overrides everything, even sources, COMMONNAME or a body's own choice of name.

Finite element method in structural mechanics, where academic author names are to be expanded at all cost:

  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]

On Olgierd Zienkiewicz we seen the name initials issue and also the removal of all initials. International Centre for Numerical Methods in Engineering or Centre Internacional de Mètodes Numèrics a l'Enginyeria (CIMNE) is a Spanish academic body. As is usual in Spain, it's best known by its initials - and the initials follow the Spanish form of the name, not the English. Keeping CIMNE is important here, especially in English.

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

This is a track record, and a past month's block, of disruptive editing against a number of other editors. See Talk:Chapelcross nuclear power station#Rename? It is prolonged, disruptive and shows no sign of diminishing or of any willingness for discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

His only response to the ANEW post so far has been to repeat the <nowiki> on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest edit warring, since this ANEW was posted, was to stalk my edits to Kyshtym disaster
  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]

This is introducing a serious technical error, changing a Mega- prefix to a milli- prefix (a factor of 10^9 smaller) and then edit-warring to re-impose it. Any comment at User talk: was blanked before I'd even finished posting it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Wow, that's a big report. Instead of seeking just an EW-block, why not post at ANI and seek some sanctions as well? - theWOLFchild 18:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I was hoping that ANEW would be able to cope regardless.
Here's T. S. Eliot (since the ANEW posting). Removing the initials (two renames as well):
  1. [69]
  2. [70]
Then after much reversion, removing the full name instead:
  1. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]
This isn't an editor who cares about accuracy, it's one merely seeking a mindless and unimportant lexical consistency regardless. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking a ban on page-moves would be a good start, (after a long block). Are you sure you don't want to bring all this to ANI? - theWOLFchild 19:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Feel free to cross post it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Dismayed. I feel Andy is right here. But maybe some kind of discussion/ explanation, initiated at their own Talk Page, would be a more cautious first step? I'd like to see the rationale here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 6 weeks DES (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Panam2014 reported by User:K!lluminati (Result: Restriction in lieu of block)[edit]

Page: Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Panam2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75] "After 24 hours, I could have 2 reverts. Biased source."
  2. [76] "Undid revision 712165758 by 5.50.66.71 (talk) my ip adress"
  3. [77] "Contribution with my account"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79] and [80] and partially [81],[82],[83] and few others.

Comments:

This user breaches of 1RR restriction that was one of the rules page.

Basically, he does editing on map without mention any sources/web links/documents. and when be asked to him about providing of source he replies your source is invalid, unreliable, biased and with hard sell tries to impose own-views to others that it's an example of WP:POVPUSH and his action is exactly contrary to purpose of Wikipedia and free circulation of information. even he refuses requests for discussion on talk page! (all of them are available on talk page).

It should be noted that he has been warned one time by admins in Syrian Civil War Map due to infringement [84],[85],[86] (2014 notices), and earlier was taken notice because violation of law WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR in Yemen civil War Map at here K!lluminati (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There are no 1RR for Yemen. Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources. [87], [88], [89] and [90]. He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that, @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here. @Ymblanter:. --Panam2014 (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Always you have difficult to perception and cognition of WP:RELIABLE source, should bear in mind all of text and articles must "be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" but you choke most opposition comments. this matter been done repeated over and over again in throughout of your-edits (be found here).
Accord to WP:SOURCES definition, the word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings:
  1. The type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)
  2. The creator of the work (for example, the writer)
  3. The publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press)
that from your point not source! E.G. Saba News Agency that's a member of the Federation of Arab News Agencies (FANA) and quote from it mainstream media such as Reuters (Paragraph 9) not a source! or rest of source.
The problem starts from misunderstand Arabic language and unfortunately due to lacking of international reporters and weakness in news coverage at yemen The majority of sources about yemen are written in Arabic and for this reason, sources (from 2 between sides) nominate invalid! it's problem. K!lluminati (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Amazing!! he removed Regulations Page of documentation! [91],[92],[93] is there any admin here ? :| K!lluminati (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Killuminati is a liar. SABA News is not a member of FANA since the beginning of the war. In reality, Saba is now divided into two branches: one pro-Houthi and the other pro-Hadi each with a website. And each agency contradicts the other. So that source is unusable.

For topic ban, I have removed anything. This is Greyshark09 who added without consensus and while it is not admin. Also, ISIS is present in Libya but with that, there is no topic ban. Donc It was logical to remove the ban visionary topic. There are no RR1 for Yemen. Reuters quoted the agency Houthi saba does not prove it is reliable time. It's just that it is sometimes cited when the information is verified by Reuters.--Panam2014 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

you called me "Liar" in event that WP:PA and using of inappropriate language & ugly words that it's prohibited! i hope admins take action in relation to this case.
About Saba; we not dealt with fakes domain. official main domain is Sabanews.net which has gained ISBN code and Whois tool shows this is older than other one. not real issue but also that's sources and being of validation those. you dont accept to hear voices of dissent & not tolerate opposing viewpoints and tring to impose your opinion to everyone as minutes ago you revert my edit [94] without inserting source just due to having radical ideas. Cool!
I point out once again per Wikipedia guidelines "mainstraem" or "POV" sources are not a criteria for being reliable. POV sources can be reliable and mainstream sources can be unreliable - the question is whether the source shows WP:RELIABLE:
“Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”
What counts as a reliable source? to answer this question i refer you to WP:SOURCES, any sources have those conditions are RELIABLE and can get loan them for content development so as it turns out controversy is going on around WP:POVPUSH.
  • Comment: To admins, he continues reverting on the page regardless of laws and at the same time 2 diff reverted by him.
  1. [95] "Undid revision 712312659 by Panam2014 (talk)" at time "15:12, 28 March 2016"
  2. [96] "Undid revision 712332455 by K!lluminati (talk) Unreliable source." at time "15:05, 28 March 2016"

K!lluminati (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@NJA: so sorry for tagging. take a peek, may help to resolve this matter?! K!lluminati (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It is strange for a POV Pusher to cry to WP:PA when wrongly accused his opponents of vandalism. Furthermore, claim that sabanews.net is the real estate is a lie because the Houthi took control of Sanaa and the news agency. This is why the Yemeni government has created a new domain. The sources do not say that only the pro-Houthi faction Saba is a member of FANA. It does not delete the points of dissidents view, this is just not using biased sources. Sabanew.net therefore also should not be used. I have not continued cancellations, it's just the start, I accidentally deleted all the information, even the ones I had not deleted. I have therefore delivered. Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. SABA is a member of FANA not the Saba agency controlled by the Houthis. Reuters says well "Saba controlled by the Houthis." Can you stop this pov pusher? --Panam2014 (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've suggested that User:Panam2014 can avoid a block if they will agree not to edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. This user was given a final warning by User:NJA on 4 February, pursuant to an earlier 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do , especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. In February , Kiluminati was also warned. Finally, I have heeded the warnings and when I cancel changes Kiluminati , I expect 24 not to cancel three times. --Panam2014 (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Panam2014: The deal is being offered to you not K!lluminati. Your answer is what matters. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: My answer is yes . Why you permit him to continue his actions ? --Panam2014 (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Panam2014 has accepted a restriction in lieu of a block. They will not edit any maps (Yemeni, Syrian or whatever) or the talk pages of those maps until May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:201.146.245.86 reported by User:DVdm (Result: )[edit]

Page: Religulous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.146.245.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [97], reverted by Cannolis

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [98], reverted by Xenophrenic
  2. [99], reverted by Xenophrenic
  3. [100], reverted by Binksternet, I think with the wrong Twinkle warning message: I guess 3RR was meant here?
  4. [101] with edit summary "sorry dudes, it's the academic consensus", reverted per no consensus, with invitation to go to talk page to find consensus. 3RR warning user talk
  5. [102], again "sorry dudes, it's the academic consensus"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [104] User never responds to talk page messages and warnings. Tenditious editing on other religion related articles.

Comments:


User:Ragomego reported by User:77.99.249.77 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [106]
  2. [107]
  3. [108]
  4. [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive311#User:Ragomego reported by User:77.99.249.77 .28Result: Protected .29 and I have tried to contact this user to resolve the issue with no success. 77.99.249.77 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Ragomego is warring to insert language that doesn't sound encyclopedic and appears factually wrong ('his mother was Irish'). At least one of the sources says Greb had no Irish ancestors. The user never responds on talk pages and we can't keep on protecting the article if he is the only one who won't discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:K!lluminati reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: Already handled above)[edit]

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


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

Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources. [112], [113], [114] and [115]. He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that, @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here. @Ymblanter: --Panam2014 (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. --Panam2014

@EdJohnston: Can you handle the request ?
There are no 1RR for Yemen. Kiluminati is a Pov Pusher. Now, he used biased sources such as Saba News Agency which is the official agency of the Houthis, which are a belligerant of the Yemeni Civil War (2015-present). Also, he edited the module without consensus as he knows that the other vendors do not want mdofications with these non-neutral sources. [116], [117], [118] and [119]. He had been warned here and here. In the past, he also used biased sources such as Al Masirah (TV Channel of the Houthi) that he claimed it is credible and using as source General People's Congress website of Ali Abdullah Saleh (Houthi allie). Also, he provoked edit warring : here, here, here. For that, @LightandDark2000: could be a witness. Also, there are others requets here and here. @Ymblanter:.
Killuminati is a liar. SABA News is not a member of FANA since the beginning of the war. In reality, Saba is now divided into two branches: one pro-Houthi and the other pro-Hadi each with a website. And each agency contradicts the other. So that source is unusable.

For topic ban, I have removed anything. This is Greyshark09 who added without consensus and while it is not admin. Also, ISIS is present in Libya but with that, there is no topic ban. Donc It was logical to remove the ban visionary topic. There are no RR1 for Yemen. Reuters quoted the agency Houthi saba does not prove it is reliable time. It's just that it is sometimes cited when the information is verified by Reuters.

It is strange for a POV Pusher to cry to WP:PA when wrongly accused his opponents of vandalism. Furthermore, claim that sabanews.net is the real estate is a lie because the Houthi took control of Sanaa and the news agency. This is why the Yemeni government has created a new domain. The sources do not say that only the pro-Houthi faction Saba is a member of FANA. It does not delete the points of dissidents view, this is just not using biased sources. Sabanew.net therefore also should not be used. I have not continued cancellations, it's just the start, I accidentally deleted all the information, even the ones I had not deleted. I have therefore delivered. Finally, he continues to use the biased sources and without consensus. SABA is a member of FANA not the Saba agency controlled by the Houthis. Reuters says well "Saba controlled by the Houthis." Can you stop this pov pusher?
@EdJohnston: Kiluminati is a notorious POV-pusher . I gave diffs to prove he is the POV pushing . Why it is not notified too? I agree not to modify the module if he too is not allowed to do , especially as seen different request , it is more to complain about his behavior. In February , Kiluminati was also warned. Finally, I have heeded the warnings and when I cancel changes Kiluminati , I expect 24 not to cancel three times. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

  • Result: No separate action is needed here, because I closed an earlier report about the same dispute, still visible above. Needless to say this one is not in the standard form for a 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Kiluminati doesn't respect the 3RR. For that, he should be Warned. Could you re open the request or permit me to re open a new. The Kiluminati's 3RR : [120], [121], [122]. The edit introduced by Kiluminati : [123], [124]. The map before the edit : [125]. Clearly, he has violated 3RR. So why he is not penalized ? Panam2014 (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lectonar: It is the problem . The 3RR ended only because Edjohnston forbade me to me to change the module. But Kiluminati has not been blocked or warned from continuing. Could you consider my demand? because in the opposite case it amounts to giving carte blanche to continue Kiluminati . Especially since he already paticipate to various edit war with @LightandDark2000, Bigles, and PutItOnAMap:. Panam2014 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Saundra4you reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Diamond and Silk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Saundra4you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) to 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712353654 by 2.30.129.120 (talk)"
    2. 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) to 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712351165 by FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk)"
    2. 16:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "HATEFUL AND RACIST PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE IMAGE OF THIS PAGE."
    3. 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
  3. 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712273218 by FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) to 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 00:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712089436 by Cabazap (talk)"
    2. 00:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712206849 by LittleWink (talk)"
    3. 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Updating and Correcting to reflect the truth"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Diamond and Silk. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I thought it was just a couple of instances of blanking which the editor has been advised against: I now see it has been going on all day and, more importantly, involves the reversion of sourced' material. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. I suspect this user is risking an indef block. They put this in the text of the article, in Wikipedia's voice: "A female reporter from the Huffington Post felt very intimidated by these two strong black conservative women that her aim was to do a character assignation. If you know Diamond and Silk, you know that they were not going to allow this foolishness." EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Firebrace reported by User:Johnbod (Result: No action, self-revert)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [126]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [127] "(Undid revision 712354510 by Johnbod (talk) Will keep reverting until you stop or I get blocked, whichever happens first.)"
  2. [128] after my reversion, "(Removed unencyclopedic lists. No tedious discussion required.)"
  3. [129] " (Converting lists to prose per guidelines (show/hide only works on the desktop version, which rather defeats the purpose)", which was deceitful, as the lists were not converted to anything. Removal of 19 out of 29 kbytes without discussion

See Royal Collection: Revision history "(Undid revision 712354510 by Johnbod (talk) Will keep reverting until you stop or I get blocked, whichever happens first.)" after his removal of 19 out of 29 kbytes without discussion. Please don't disappoint this regular here. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Why don't you fill out the reporting template? - theWOLFchild 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I looked but couldn't find it. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
There's link near the top of the page that says; "Click here to create a new report". Click on it and it lays out the template for you, just fill in the blanks. - theWOLFchild 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
ok, found it. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
So I see. Face-smile.svg - theWOLFchild 17:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Firebrace: what is going on with you? You haven't breached 3RR yet, but you really can't plainly threaten to edit war until you have it your way. Intuitively, I can see merit to having that stuff in prose, and I can see merit to having a list (which gets automatically folded on screen). You weren't reverting vandalism or a completely obvious bad edit; it's a content dispute like many, so, edit warring is bad even if you're right. Are you trying to get yourself "retired" forcefully since you had half a mind of becoming so out of your own will? Between the two, I assure you the latter is a better choice, if you just find yourself in some kind of circumstances that don't let you stay calm enough to edit. LjL (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I have self-reverted to the last version before any of my changes. Firebrace (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, since the user self-reverted. User:LjL provides a good summary. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Simbagraphix reported by User:James Allison (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Template:Seventh-day Adventism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Simbagraphix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Already in articles, take it to the talk page"
  2. 00:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Duplicate"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Seventh-day Adventism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Service and ADRA */ new section"
Comments:

After user reverted my reverts, I warned the user and opened a discussion on the talk page. User has ignored my discussion and continues to edit war. User displays long-term pattern of reverting reverts rather than following BRD (example 1 and 2) as well as performing unexplained reverts rather than discussion (3). User has also previously been involved in edit warring on articles in the same topic (see here, here, and the edit war preceding this page protection of the same page now being reported). Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Another example of the user's over-reliance on edit-warring rather than discussion: The editor is beginning a slow-burn edit war on Seventh-day Adventism. In this edit they revert the addition of multiple wikilinks and other minor improvements, including a link that the editor themself added earlier, to object to a small rephrasing. In this edit, the edit summary claims "restoring original wording", where the editor actually removes a word after I wikilinked it. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been a editor in Wikipedia for many years working on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church with many articles created or expanded or improved in Wikipedia. The new editor as he just seems to have started last month, James, has not try to reach a consensus and seems to have a ax to grind on Seventh-day Adventist articles. If the new editor would just take the time to discuss his changes especially in those articles involving templates shown across the spectrum of Seventh-day Adventist articles and church doctrine as that cannot be entered in without a deeper understanding than just a surface glance and total disregard for well established editors. I have asked the new editor to take it to the talk page before trying to edit Seventh-day Adventist articles as it would allow for discussion, but he is trying to delete articles, or make unilateral changes on templates with no warning or discussion, or intimidate and accuse (nominating editors article for deletions and accusations of vandalism) rather than talk as you see on this fellow editors page..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MindyWaters. Thank you for your review and your response on the new editors issues and concerns....Simbagraphix (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Ontario Teacher BFA BEd reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [131] 14:32, March 28, 2016. Add Mother Teresa. (Not a revert.)
  2. [132] 16:18, March 28, 2016. Revert, restore Mother Teresa.
  3. [133] 16:59, March 28, 2016. Revert, restore Mother Teresa.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:

All topics related to abortion are subject to 1RR sanctions. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd was warned of this but did not self-revert after being requested to do so. Binksternet (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Binksternet,
Just to be clear, the second revert you are referring to was reverting the removal of Rona Ambrose, not Mother Teresa. So, it was only 1 revert after all. Also, I added to the article talk page and to your talk page in order to discuss the issue. You have so far refused to discuss the issue on either talk page. I, therefore, believe this complaint is both unwarranted and premature. Please attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page first, prior to unnecessarily escalating matters and involving third parties. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This revert of yours, the second one in a space of 41 minuntes, certainly restored Mother Teresa to the article. If you had intended to restore only Rona Ambrose, it still would have been your second revert in one day, which is not allowed. The burden is on you to discuss how your challenged additions are worthy of the article. In my article talk page post I explained my position. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for violating 1RR restriction and ignoring warning about it. User has been previously blocked for 3RR vio. Bishonen | talk 20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:24.183.29.4 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Bad Girls Club (season 12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
24.183.29.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  2. 23:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  3. 23:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  4. 23:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
    2. 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  6. 23:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
    2. 23:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  8. 21:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
  9. Consecutive edits made from 20:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) to 20:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 20:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
    2. 20:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Duration of cast */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Warning given at User_talk:24.183.29.4#March 2016. Issue here is MOS compliance. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This editor has been consistently problematic. He was blocked while using another IP and then blocked for evading the block by using this IP (AIV report). I've reported him to AIV for block evasion, as the other IP is still blocked, and he has now been blocked for another two weeks. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked by someone else --slakr\ talk / 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jambajew reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
List of Islamic terrorist attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jambajew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Kaduna bombings on Easter of a Church is clearly an Islamic Terrorist attack. It has the signature of Boko Haram. Terrorist groups don't always take responsibility. No one took responsibility for 9/11."
  2. 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Certain Users are attempting to remove attack occurring around Easter, in light to recent terrorist attacks."
  3. 17:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "User "MShabazz" or "Malik Shabazz" is a Muslim Troll trying to rewrite history by editing Wikipedia."
  4. 15:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "User "Malik Shabazz" is trying to white wash history, by removing terrorist attacks from his list. This is list of Islamic terrorist attacks, not a list of Boko Haram attacks. This (April 8, 2012) is clearly an ISLAMIC attack."
  5. 01:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Added Easter Sunday bombing in 2012 Kaduna bombings Nigeria, and added Easter relevance to 2015 Garissa al-Shabab attack, Kenya"
  6. 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "It is both Islamic and Terrorist"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Adding diff from 19:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • This editor is continually (re-)adding events that have no reliable sources to state that an attack is both terrorist and Islamist, in contravention of the article's guidelines and WP policy. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:82.61.34.110 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Go Away Little Girl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.61.34.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [136] 4 March. 79.27.106.92 replaces Goffin and King with Taylor and Simon, which is utterly wrong.
  2. [137] 15 March. 79.56.98.36 restores Taylor and Simon.
  3. [138] 17 March. 79.30.91.134 restores Taylor and Simon.
  4. [139] 18 March. 79.53.4.206 restores Taylor and Simon.
  5. [140] 18 March. 82.61.34.110 restores Taylor and Simon.
  6. [141] 18 March. 82.61.34.110 restores Taylor and Simon.
  7. [142] 28 March. 82.61.34.110 restores Taylor and Simon.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, because this is vandalism.

Comments:

This is a case of long-term edit warring, to replace correct information with falsehood. Five IPs from Sicily have been involved, including 79.53.4.206, 79.30.91.134, 79.56.98.36 and 79.27.106.92. The song article was protected for 7 days on 18 March. The much larger scope of the problem was described at ANI on 19 March, but there was no discussion. 82.61.34.110 was blocked for 31 hours on 20 March, but he's back. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked by someone else --slakr\ talk / 04:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:FD07:E900:5553:91C0:E6F:D3A reported by User:Spirit Ethanol (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Blocked for 72 hours. (non-admin closure)Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

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
 Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported
2606:6000:FD07:E900:5553:91C0:E6F:D3A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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:

Across multiple articles, please see Special:Contributions/2606:6000:FD07:E900:5553:91C0:E6F:D3A. Use of inappropriate language in edit summary. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment The user should be banned and all the edit summaries hidden by an admin, but this is not edit warring. Already reported at ANI. Jeppiz (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
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:Asilah1981 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: )[edit]

Page
White Puerto Ricans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Asilah1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712396298 by JesseRafe (talk)Canary Islanders are of mixed N African and European descent. Caucasian is the correct term."
  2. 21:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712391947 by JesseRafe (talk)Canary Islanders are not from Europe. Caucasian correct term. Dont use excuse of a typo to revert an edit"
  3. 20:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 20:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "Canary Islands are not in Europe but off coast of north africa so caucasian is better term"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Violation of 3RR with 4 reverts in 61 minutes. No intention to collaborate or look at the data. User has reverted and made many edits without any edit summary, ignoring pleas to take their issue to talk, and moreover, ignoring that their position is groundless as the Canary Islands article itself is about the population being European, and that "Caucasian" does not apply, especially not as the definition of "Europe + Africa". JesseRafe (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe so far I have been the only person who has written anything on the talk page. Isn't it ironic that it is you who are reporting me for edit warring.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafe Are we meant to continue discussing here, since you refuse to engage on the Talk Page? It seems to me that before you continue this discussion you should read up on the Canary Islands, look for them on the map, read about their history, culture and ancestry, and also PLEASE look up the definition of caucasian and what parts of Africa (and the world generally) are considered to be inhabited by caucasian peoples. I think once you are properly informed we can quickly resolve this issue.Asilah1981 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I was ignoring your sanctimonious replies here, and your misleading statements as any simple time stamp prove I already responded on the Talk page. Also, all of my edit summaries implored you to take it the Talk Page. I didn't start a thread there because I have no idea what your issue is, but you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of that the term Caucasian means. Perhaps you should try to look it up on Wikipedia? Caucasian. As you can see, unless you are discussing something related to Georgia or the languages of Armenia, the term you probably looking for is further down the page, under the heading "White people". But you are not here because you have the arrogance to suggest I look up information about the Canary Islands which you yourself evidently haven't because that article itself explains that their population is European, but because of your Edit warring. And no, that is not even close to what the definition of "irony" is. JesseRafe (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

JesseRafeOk look we are discussing rationally on talk page now (even though we both seem a bit confused about the other one's argument. Just cancel this, its pointless and a waste of other people's time.Asilah1981 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 27 March 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:34, 27 March 2016‎
  2. 20:36, 27 March 2016
  3. 12:34, 28 March 2016
  4. 12:40, 28 March 2016‎
  5. 15:54, 28 March 2016‎ "The fucking fact that these fucking facts are *sourced*, are about the Clooisters, and cannot be removed without consensus)" Note: First communication at talk page took place at 15:57, 28 March 2016, minutes after the fifth revert and just before the sixth
  6. 15:58, 28 March 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Just look at any of the dozens upon dozens of 3RR warnings on BMK's talk page

Comments:
Beyond My Ken is back to his usual belligerent edit warring, this time facing off against Ceoil, Victoriaearle and Kafka Liz in his insistence that his popular culture section must stay in the article, per his demands, despite rather clear consensus to the contrary. Regardless of any ex post facto discussions at the article's talk page, BMK has a rather clear obligation to step back at (or before) the 3RR mark, but has persisted in battling well past this point. Is 6RR enough to justify a block? Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Note that (a) this is already being discussed at WP:ANI, and (b) there's a special place in hell reserved for people who pounce on disputes that they see their "enemies" having with other people. I expect 75% of Wikipedians will end up in that section. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Note: Didn't see the ANI, but I did see the edit warring on an article on my watchlist. There is a special VIP lounge in the Tenth Circle of Hell reserved for admins who aid and abet our most aggressive edit warriors, going out of their way to give a 37th slap-on-the-wrist warning to five seven time losers who are then allowed to violate the bright line 3RR rule with impunity. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Block log highlights (see here) listing BMK's 3RR / edit warring blocks (7 so far by 7 different admins; 4 since 1/2015)
  1. 09:32, 16 January 2016 UkPaolo (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule)
  2. 22:59, 15 October 2015 Ymblanter (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 72 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
  3. 13:50, 28 July 2015 The ed17 (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 48 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring: long-term pattern, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=673506396#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Staszek_Lem_.28Result:_Declined.29)
  4. 02:21, 10 March 2015 Swarm (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on Little Syria, Manhattan -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=650725160)
  5. 10:02, 22 January 2014 Dpmuk (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on No Other Woman (1933 film))
  6. 21:30, 5 December 2010 Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Violation of the three-revert rule: on The Limelight)
  7. 10:28, 15 November 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Edit warring)
3RR noticeboard violations where BMK received a warning / page protected / no action (13 so far by 12 different editors; 7 since 1/2015)
  1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive135#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Miami33139_.28Result:_Not_blocked.29 - Archived July 2010
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive201#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_Yworo_.28talk.29_.28Result:_Page_protected.29 - Archived December 2012
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive228#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Cky2250_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Archived November 2013
  4. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive232#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:JHunterJ_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Archived January 2014
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive234#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Robsinden_.28Result:_Voluntary_restriction.29 - Archived February 2014
  6. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Lugnuts_.28Result:_No_blocks.29 - Archived October 2014
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive277#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Padenton_.28Result:No_action_at_this_time.29 - Archived April 2015
  8. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive279#User:Robynthehode_and_User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Lugnuts_.28Result:_Two_parties_warned.29 - Archived May 2015
  9. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive283#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Ibadibam_.28Result:_protected.29 - Archived June 2015
  10. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive286#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Skyerise_.28Result:_Page_protected.29 - Archived July 2015
  11. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Alansohn_.28Result:_No_action.29 - Archived August 2015
  12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive294#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Volunteer_Marek_.28Result:_Protected.29 - Archived September 2015
  13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive214#User:Beyond_My_Ken_reported_by_User:Tenebrae_.28Result:_Declined_.28amicable_resolution.2C_I_hope.21.29.29 - Archived November 2015

Floquenbeam, BMK has been blocked by seven different admins for edit warring. He's received no less than 13 non-blocks (warning / page protected / no action are included; no violation and blocked are excluded) and slaps on the wrist after edit warring reports by 12 different editors. These blocks and warnings have only become more frequent since January 2015. As usual, he's resorted to his "Aw, shucks. I guess I should have gone to the talk page sooner. I've got a bad temper." after being caught violating WP:3RR (or in this case, 6RR). As a bright-line rule, and one that Beyond My Ken has violated dozens of times, a block of increasing duration would be the most appropriate way to prevent slap on the wrist 37, 38 and 39. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn's block log BMK (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, thanks for pointing out how an editor can be reformed (and how you haven't). I've been clean, sober and unblocked for six years and eleven months, as of today. And how's your track record, my little churchmouse? Alansohn (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Uninvolved party. Alansohn, now would be a very good time for you to shut up. You made your point, and are only making yourself look bad. Shut up and walk away. My unsolicited advice. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As another uninvolved party, I would suggest that oknazevad follow his own "advice". - theWOLFchild 21:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Generation X article (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

I have a well sourced, two sentence addition to the Generation X article, regarding a relevant subject that seems to be targeted by another editor for a campaign of rule-skirting removal. I think this other editor intentionally started this campaign using an ip account before seemingly creating an account to avoid the 3RR rule violation. I suspect that any debate will soon include these and other sockpuppets. Any help or suggestion on how to proceed? I don't see any applicable policy that suggests my edit/content is undue. Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So far there's no edit war. A discussion was opened on talk, so go there first. It's not appropriate to bring any of this up here yet. Wwwma (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You can't just push people around like this. There are rules and you knowingly are working around them. I could stoop to your level too but i'm hoping an impartial mediator here can help work this out without us having to get banned for 3RR, if not more. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Moving this submission to this noticeboard from the regular admin noticeboard. Maybe this was the proper place to start? Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is being "banned" from Wikipedia. As of now there is no edit war. Just go to the talk page and work it out there. You prematurely posted this on the admin boards before waiting until a real infraction took place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwma (talk • contribs) 01:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, you won't engage in responding to the talk page, as a comment has been left there and is awaiting your response. Secondly, of course you want this dialog here shut down - you have already violated the 3RR rule and are using multiple accounts to do so. The ONLY reason we are not having an edit war is because I brought this here. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for eventually responding there. It still does not excuse your actions/behavior in starting this. If you would have deigned to address this at the talk page first, we wouldn't even be in this venue. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
If you check the talk page there was a response posted. Just finish this on the talk page because there is no edit war whatever you say. It's all there under history. Wwwma (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I hope we can work it out on the talk page and I will continue there, but it needs to be addressed here that you knowingly violated the 3RR rule and attempted to get around it by using different accounts. Hopefully an administrator will address this situation, regardless of whether or not I agree with the outcome. Buddy23Lee (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: I've semiprotected Generation X to exclude the possibility of IP socking in this edit war. At present neither User:Wwwma nor User:Buddy23Lee have broken 3RR with their registered accounts, so there is no need for other action. If either party reverts again before consensus is reached on Talk they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston - What about the clear evidence that wwwma used a ip account to revert before switching to his/her user account to avoid the 3RR? Isn't that still violating the rule? It's the same individual, just using different accounts to try and skirt the rule. Buddy23Lee (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:70.162.223.119 in general and in regards to Danny Jacobs (actor)[edit]

Page: Danny Jacobs (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.162.223.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [144]
  2. [145]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [146], [147]

Comments:
During his or her brief career, editor notified numberous times and was blocked twice (see [148]). Quis separabit? 12:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain reported by User:GabeIglesia (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [150]
  2. [151]
  3. [152]
  4. [153]
  5. [154]
  6. [155]
  7. [156]
  8. [157]
  9. [158]
  10. [159]
  11. [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162]

Comments:

Greetings. I felt I would raise this to the attention of admins as there appears to be a persistent NPOV issue going on over at Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that has been taking place since March 25, 2016. WP:Civil has also been invoked. I myself haven't been directly involved, but I have been observing the discussion and the changing versions of the article, and it has become a bit concerning. I would appreciate the higher-ups having a look at this and setting things straight - even if it something as simple as a slap on the wrist in the form of a verbal warning, (or even if it's just a "Hey, GabeIglesia, nobody did anything wrong. Chill.") - I would just appreciate the edit war coming to an end on this high-level article.

The reversions are a little bit more complex than simply between one version of the article over another, as users have since edited the content within. As such, I just linked to all the relevant diffs I could find, but the basis of the disagreement should hopefully be clear in the talk page. Thanks, all. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Drmies (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:217.248.22.214 reported by User:Nyuszika7H (Result: )[edit]

Page
Talk:Blindspot (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
217.248.22.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "rv rearranging of an archived discussion"
  2. 12:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Stop mucking around with other editor's comments."
  3. 10:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Leave other's comments alone."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Talk:Blindspot (TV series). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP keeps making WP:POINTy edits taking the word of the relevant policies/guidelines too literally, and reverting perfectly legitimate edits to add missing signatures and indentation changes to make the discussion more readable. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

(What would the POINT I'm trying to make?)
The edits are resorting an archived discussion, changing the meaning of comments by placing them at various other places. It is also utterly unnecessary. My changes reverted talk page vandalism, thus 3RR and similar do not apply.-217.248.22.214 (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I may also note my belief that of some sockpuppetry being involved, as three different but similar IPs have contributed on this particular issue (217.248.20.109, 217.248.0.219, 217.248.22.214). This is supported by WP:SOCK, which states Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the principles of this policy, meaning that sockpuppetry is not just account-only, as the IP editor seems to believe. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
So what's your reason to assume "deception"?-217.248.22.214 (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User2.27.75.51 reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: )[edit]

Page: Victoria Cross (Canada) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.27.75.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 13:26, 25 March 2016 and 23:31, 28 March 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:55, 28 March 2016
  2. 17:50, 28 March 2016
  3. 19:34, 28 March 2016
  4. 22:42, 28 March 2016‎
  5. 15:52, 29 March 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 17:11, 28 March 2016‎
  2. 19:10, 28 March 2016
  3. 20:18, 28 March 2016‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 02:22, 29 March 2016

Comments:
FWIW, I've implemented a compromise edit, at that article. Hopefully, both disputees will accept it & move on :) GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If you give the situation even a modicum of attention, you'll easily see the anon has been reverting against two (long-time) editors. That makes a total of three "disputees", not two. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the other (long-time) editor, will agree to the compromise offered. Time will tell :) GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
You'll know if you get a consensus at the talk page favouring your change. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 16:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Depauldem reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: )[edit]

Page
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Depauldem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "the politico article explicit states the UK spending as $£204 million. The filings themselves back up those numbers. I cannot believe you are fighting black and white truth."
  2. 17:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "The politico article explicitly states the budget of the movie, and it is supported by the public audited financial statements from the film itself."
  3. 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 712530255 by General Ization (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) to 16:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC) "Politico is citing the official audited financial statements of the production company set up in the UK to make the movie. I add up the numbers myself, and they are correct. Since when are editors at war with reality??"
    2. 16:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 20:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC) "The source used POUNDS. The USD amount is $306 million"
  6. 20:25, March 29, 2016 (UTC) "The $306 million is what 204 million pounds is worth, using the exchange rate of 1.5 for 2015. If you want to use £204 million, fine. Or if you want to use the exchange rate of today, it would be $293 million. But the filings are not from today"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
  • It took a little while, but User:Depauldem has at least started to engage in a discussion on the article's talk page and stopped reverting (see: [164]). I am ignoring the fact that the user overwrote a comment, and assuming good faith, as the reply appears to indicate an effort to improve the article. (Full disclosure: I'm involved in the effort to resolve this content issue.) --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I think that may have been my mistake in overwriting the prior comment, which I think is now restored. I am now making my case in the talk section for the page and I am not editing/reverting the amount again. I think the numbers in the official citations I provided speak for themselves and the new, correct, amount will be restored by another editor. Depauldem (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I filed this because I didn't think we'd see a positive resolution otherwise, and since I did the situation has progressed better than I expected. We don't appear to need a block, but I'll leave this here for admin decision and closure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Shadow4dark reported by User:Ferakp (Result: )[edit]

Page: Category:Kurdish terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shadow4dark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

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

Comments: This user has added Kurdish terrorism category to every single pages it has visited. I didn't add his reverts, because there is more than 20 same reverts about the same thing: added link to so you can see his changes.


source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160329220428/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/3RR

Leave a Reply