Page: Dangerous Woman (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.170.34.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] [10]

Comments:

• Stale Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] and [16]

Comments:
The user reverts with the same reason despite my multiple attempts to resolve the issue on their talk page. The edits of mine are completely reasonable and have stated my reasons of the edits on his talk page, to no avail. The user seems they are the creator of the article and are only active due to the current edit war. Sekyaw (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although no 3RR is applicable due to his reverts being at somewhat of a slow pace, I am not optimistic one bit that the user will stop the unreasonable reverts without communication. Sekyaw (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not blocked I basically see the two of you reverting each other without any attempts to discuss at the talk page of the article. Please engage into talk page discussion.Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) to 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "Why are the shooting tables do not match those from the other NOCs?"
   2. 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) to 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "consistency with the other NOC pages"
   2. 14:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 03:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "STOP HARASSING MY EDIT. DON'T STRESSED ME OUT. DON'T ASSUME ME THAT I'M NOT HUMAN."
4. 03:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC) "The tables must be separated."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User clearly has ownership issues. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 3rd party commentIt should be noted that the reporting user Sportsfan 1234 has behaved very similarly and I have warned them both on this issue. Also that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#WP:Olympics - Manual of Style attempting to resolve the issues these two users have. At this stage I think a trouting may suffice as both have made some atempt to reach a consensus on the understanding that they re each on a last warning - Basement12 (T.C) 14:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. I'm done editing the San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics. I created the page though, but because you won the case on the edit warring. I decided to move it to the sandbox. You create the page instead, and put the necessary contents. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• FFS. Can which every admin deals with this please ensure that the article is moved back from User:Raymarcbadz/San Marino at the 2016 Summer Olympics to it's proper place. I retract my previous comment on trouting, this has gone too far. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 14:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Basement12. We'll bring the contents back if someone besides myself should re-create the article. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already moved the page back, even without addressing the rest of the case. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's too late. The page has been deleted. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting out of hand, Raymarcbadz has gotten the page deleted, and has now recreated it and restored it to their preferred version (which is against the MOS, and discussion!). When will this stop. There is only so much one editor can do (before it is considered edit warring, and believe me this is not the end goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you create the article instead, and see if you can prove that it follows the MOS guidelines? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case for WP:Boomerang to me. Sportsfan was not 1 little bit better with his behavoiour. Kante4 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Raymarcbadz continues to edit against discussion on other pages as well and threatening to delete them! [17] "Inconsistent with other sports; If you keep reverting my edits, I'll delete the page right now." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Lionel Messi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */Yeah, how do you know that, Im not and you cant prove it."
2. 12:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */Only Marche, I added Porto Recanati, the town where his ancestor came from."
3. 12:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC) to 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Honours and achievements */"
   2. 08:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Trivia */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Lionel Messi . using TW"

• Pennyerrs  Confirmed and indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page:

2016–17 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

AdamDeanHall (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. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]
8. [25]
9. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 3RR warning for this page
2. User's block log showing previous edit warring blocks

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Clearly explaining that this is a content dispute and not vandalism that is being reverted on the article talk page
2. Explanation on the talk page of the IP user that this editor keeps reverting

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Water fluoridation controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717935580 by Yobol (talk) Why don't you explain your objection in the talk page? My edit is in response to the request in the section "The lede is a mess""
2. 15:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Ethics */ re-added material that got "lost" in editing/reverting"
3. 04:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "revert yobol lede edit. Nuffield has weight .I will elaborate in talk page"
4. 02:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Ethics */ Nuffield Council on Bioethics is a report done by many expert in an authoritative organization. needs to have its due weight. (whether you like their conclusions or not)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See this diff and the subsequent two more warnings on their talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See talk page of article

Comments:

Numerous 3RR warnings on their talk page. Not even more reverts prior to this that do not fit within the past 24 hours. Yobol (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Anna Frodesiak with a warning that future instances will result in an extended block. Mike V • Talk 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

April 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "As requested by Rms125a, removed references and changed link to point reader towards those scholarly references. Rms125a please answer on Talk Page what you mean by "speculation" - your link below is dysfunctional."
2. 14:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed external link as requested by Rms125a@hotmail.com. Hope everyone is satisfied now."
3. 10:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "It is not one writer, but a scholarly survey of 100 (one hundred) writers. Read the reference."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on April 3. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Two warnings given. Amccann421 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Amccann421 accuses me of edit-warring, saying "Please do not add or change content, as you did at April 3, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."

However the other editors have pointed out today to me that in fact it is NOT permitted to cite references/sources in April 3 or in any other Date-of-Year pages. Hence I removed my references. Unfortunately, now Amccann421 has appeared on the scene and is criticising me for removing the refs and accusing me of edit warring. Please confirm, on the April 3 Talk page, that you have got it wrong. And please do not further disrupt the discussion and editing process unless you have a valid point to make. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.101.95 (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected two months. Revert warring by IPs who don't wait for consensus on the talk page. A fluctuating IP from 86.254.* is being reverted by multiple others, so this needs a discussion. Some editors argue that any Biblical chronology that is speculative needs to have evidence presented in a separate article on the topic, not in the date-of-the-year article itself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Joseph Gordon-Levitt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717993658 by Paul Erik (talk) Don't listen to him, I am them, there are too many Idols."
2. 22:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717987271 by Bbb23 (talk) Come on, keep this one. Rumors/gossip not this!"
3. 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717982508 by Bbb23 (talk)"
4. 21:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "He is known for his falsetto!" Not a revert.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Here they warn an administrator about edit warring, suggesting they're well-aware of the penalties. Bbb23 responded with a warning, though (I assume) on the wrong user talk page. clpo13_(talk) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Clpo13: When I post to Drmies's Talk page it is never a warning, except when it's about the unhealthy effects of eating bacon while watching college football. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bbb23, you know I greatly appreciate your words of advice and encouragement. Roll Tide, my friend. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite warnings about adding unsupported comments, this user has edit warred with two editors about Gordon-Levitt being a falsetto and/or countertenor. clpo13_(talk) 22:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Falsettos right now, don't take him off. violetnese 23:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know this board is about conduct, not content, but I can't resist. First, you can be a bass and sing in falsetto. Second, having a "high" tenor voice does not mean you're singing in falsetto. Third - and I'm not sure where countertenor came from in this silliness - a countertenor is not the same as a man singing in falsetto. Fourth, regardless of anything else, how on earth did this editor determine that this piece of trivia belongs in the lead? Frankly, WP:CIR is more applicable here than edit-warring (fwiw, she didn't breach 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, you're right. I assumed this was a revert from the edit summary. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. http://www.instagram.com/ryanjkirkland. violetnese 23:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Look what Ryan just saw on Wikipedia! They can't take it off!" Ryan didn't get a response from https://www.instagram.com/p/6kZl_BkSRA. violetnese 23:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but me, I only saw/want the falsetto/Anthony Green meets Adam Levine from Maroon 5 one! violetnese 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is not only an edit war, it's a BLP-vio and also borderline vandalism. Not sure what this editor's deal is, but they've gotten three warnings for vandalism/disruptive editing in the past 6.5 weeks. Softlavender (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to know what the deal is with the Instagram links. clpo13_(talk) 19:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: User talk:70.124.133.228 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 3primetime3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]
8. [35]
9. [36]
10. [37]
11. [38]
12. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #1: [40] (the user being reported made 9 reversions after this warning)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning #2: [41] (the user being reported made 5 reversions after this warning)

After this report was first posted and the user was notified, the user continued reverting my talk page:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]
6. [47]
7. [48]

70.124.133.228 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Report is for the reversion of warnings on the IP's talk page. While his edits were in violation of 3RR, our conversation on my talk page here seems to show that he didn't know that users are allowed to remove warnings from their own talk pages. He understands this now, and hasn't made further reversions. I recommend siding with good faith and perhaps giving him a reminder about 3RR and talk page guidelines as opposed to blocking. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has stopped, which is a good outcome. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned Editor was warned and ceased the edit warring. No further action needed at present. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Timothy Leary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:46, 1 May 2016
2. 03:40, 1 May 2016
3. 03:34, 1 May 2016
4. 03:21, 1 May 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] (can't give diff as edit created page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started this RfC nearly a week ago, IP is reverting application of consensus and is aware of and involved in discussion.

Comments:

IP editor is reverting several changes:

• Keeps restoring category "Philosophers of mind" despite consensus against it.
• Keeps changing "stand-up philosopher" (sourced) to "performing philosopher" (unsourced)
• Keeps reverting implementation of RfC consensus.

Skyerise (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The IP has been disruptive in numerous different ways. It has repeatedly made edits without explanations or edit summaries, most recently here. This is behavior which unfortunately suggests an absence of interest in discussing issues or reaching consensus. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an enormous amount of hypocrisy and ignorance.2605:A000:1200:4020:BDC2:282A:6C52:766B (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skyrise appears to misstate several facts. There is no clear consensus on the philosophers of mind category. Rather, he and FKC have insisted on their position and several others have disagreed but tired of the WP:BATTLEFIELD. I personally think Leary does belong in this category but concede I have not yet found a source that states it clearly in one sentence. Re: the stand-up versus performing philosopher description, the editor that the IP reverted was me. But having searched for new sources, e.g., [51], I think he's right: Leary did call himself a "performing philosopher", not a "stand-up philoopher", the latter term apparently having been applied to him by others; this is why I didn't revert back. Re: the RfC "consensus", I concede the !votes to exclude outnumber those to include but the RfC has not been closed and proper procedure is for an uninvolved editor to do that. Skyrise announced[52] he intended to close his own RfC. When informed this was completely inappropriate [53], his response[54] was to insult all those who disagree with him as "uninformed", a clear and unambiguous personal attack. Msnicki (talk) 05:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there actually were an acceptable source calling Leary a philosopher of mind, such as a respected work of reference dealing with philosophy, I would probably not have any objection to the "philosophers of mind" category either. That does not alter the fact that there is no such source. You removed the category yourself at one stage, with the edit summary "rm Category:Philosophers of mind per talk page", and that does count toward consensus for keeping it out at least for now. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As we all know, 3RR has nothing to do with the content and only to do with a count of reverts. The IP has crossed the bright line. I only listed the most recent four. Others could be added. Skyerise (talk) 05:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Protected by KrakatoaKatie. Minima© (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Mahdi Al Tajir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Robertx123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 718073836 by Edwardx (talk)"
2. 09:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* Life */"
3. 20:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 717709333 by Mervyn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mahdi Al Tajir. (TW)"
2. 12:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Robertx123 is still continuing to edit war to re-add this material even after the latest revert mentioned in this report, for example with this revert today. The edits made by Robertx123 may also be in breach of WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Added variety of reliable references"
2. 13:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Move this warring to the article talk page please. This source is absolutely acceptable according to wikipedia rules. Undid revision 718088582 by David.moreno72 (talk)"
3. 13:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write ... Bruce is both."
4. 13:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Visit your talk page to mediate this instead of warring please. If you do not know Bruce, you should not be editing this page in the first place. Here's 260+ wiki other articles accepting him as reliable: site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ "Schneier, Bruce""
5. 02:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Industries most widely accepted expert in this field is the most reliable source possible. Refer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier or his dozen+ books. Do not revert without again without citation to back up your opinion."
6. 11:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "user offered their opinion, without any references as justification, for removing the reference to this industries most widely respected expert in this matter. multi-factor is not stopping breakins - pick up any IT newspaper."
7. 11:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "reference effectiveness"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:120.151.160.158&diff=718088083&oldid=718087902

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Multi-factor_authentication#Obsolescence_Warring

Comments:

Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, but the IP continues to edit war about this adjective in the opening sentence. McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide different sources. I did. Why are you calling this a war, and blaming me for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.151.160.158 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia uses the term "edit war" to refer to editors repeatedly overriding one another's edits. It's explained at WP:EDITWAR. --McGeddon (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours IP was warned repeatedly and persisted. Katie^talk 14:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: UFC 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greg440 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version before it all began Version updated by the user with the same edits he's reverting now

Diffs of the user's reverts: -First wave of reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

-Second wave of reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Same as below Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User's talk page

Comments:
The user keeps reverting edits as it was shown above. I approached him via edit summary and his talk page, but he was never open to communication. He had one argument at the beginning, backed by no source. When I kept pressuring him regarding his methods, he started deviating the conversation including what someone might see as xenophobia, as he argued that I don't understand stuff because English is not my first language and I should edit the Portuguese version of the Wikipedia, even though I have almost three years of experience with such articles. I even adjusted the article to a version that appeals to the similarity of other articles and is still correct, with sources to back it up. The funny thing is that even this user had a identical edit earlier as shown in the second link at the top of this report. Now he's just reverting the page, nothing else to argue from his part. I'd like to report this to avoid a bigger edit war. I've restrained myself from entering this thing and even waited a day to perform a different edit to try to resolve this issue, yet he keeps edit warring and flinging with the 3RR. I do not come here with the intention of seeing him blocked whatsoever. I just wanted to have administrators telling him how this is supposed to work. Specially because he says we have to be "professionals" here. He lost himself with that word and ends up contradicting exactly what he mentioned early in our discussion at this talk page. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: UFC 200 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gsfelipe94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version before it all began Version updated by the user with the same edits he's reverting now

Diffs of my reverts: -First wave of reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

-Second wave of reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Same as below Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User's talk page

Comments:
User keeps reverting my edits, starts personally insulting and insinuating me by calling me "xenophobic" over Wikipedia editing. User fails to acknowledge other articles that use proper lingo and instead has decided to throw a tantrum. Users first language isn't English and fails to recognize examples I've provided. Claims I'm edit warring when it takes more than one for there to be a war. After the first initial edit reversions he then proceeded to decide the term we were arguing over and how it should be presented wasn't even valid just to further complicate the situation and prolong the back and forth.Greg440 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what I've said earlier here and in your talk page can speak for myself. Totally opposite to everything you mentioned here. You even copied my entire report... I'll refrain from further commentary on this section. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally opposite of everything I mentioned here? Everything I just stated was entirely factual. There's zero room for interpretation. Greg440 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Anti-Arabism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Patrick1425 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:35, 1 May 2016‎ (UTC) "/* United States */"
2. 22:27, 1 May 2016‎ (UTC) "/* United States */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC) to 22:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 22:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
   2. 22:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
   3. 22:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) to 21:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
   2. 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
   3. 21:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) to 21:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
   1. 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "definition of Arab https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs"
   2. 21:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */ media reports of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting"
6. Consecutive edits made from 01:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) to 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 01:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */ 2015 Chattanooga shootings prompted further expressions of anti Arabism in the media"
   2. 01:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "Definition of Arab is a person whose native language is Arabic."
   3. 01:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
7. 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */ references to media reporting of the 2015 Chattanooga shooting and anti Arabism"
8. 23:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "/* United States */"
9. 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC) "references to Arab American Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazziz in Chattanooga. His murder of five U.S. service members on July 16, 2015, generated media reporting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Anti-Arabism. (TW)"
2. 21:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anti-Arabism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has repeatedly tried to add the Chatanooga, TN shootings to the article, despite being reverted by myself, Srich32977, 24.57.54.196, and Grayfell. This is the same material added by IP editors previously (e.g., see this revert by IronGargoyle). The material being added is COATRACK and OR (none of the sources given even mention the word "Arab" let alone "Anti-Arabism" or any synonym). This is long-term edit warring with block evasion (see 98.204.183.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS - please ping me in any replies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I started a SPI a while ago (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick1425) for what it's worth. Grayfell (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Durand Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Haqiqat510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [56]
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
5. [60]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is engaged in edit warring. Mona778 (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Charles Algernon Parsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.100.18.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Simple brightline 4RR, reverted against multiple editors.

This is a politically contentious issue, but so well-sourced that there is just no space left for a "content dispute". See past Talk:

Various POV editors, with such obvious names as "Edith Waring" and today an IP, and who may or may not be the same person, don't like Parsons being described as Anglo-Irish and would prefer British. They present this as a minor technical quibble of, "Anglo-Irish can't be presented as a nationality within the limited parameters of an infobox", but when they're also deleting 1K of text to make their POV, then that's no longer about infobox parameters.

Only attempt at discussion was on their user talk:, where they admit "He was Anglo-Irish".

If someone wants to make infobox behaviour more subtle, then go for it. It would make describing Trevithick as Cornish a bit easier too. But edit-warring to remove sourced description of him as Anglo-Irish in the body is not the way to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The editor is going about this in the wrong way but in my opinion, he is completely correct in wanting to change the social class of Anglo-Irish (see Anglo-Irish people) to an actual nationality which would seem to be most appropriately British in this case. Anglo-Irish is manifestly not a nationality and is included in the Biography section. Dabbler (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So do you support stripping out 1k of sourced text from the lead, as is being done here? This isn't about the infobox, it's about a block of text with references to back it up.

I don't dispute that both English and Irish would come under "United Kingdom" in terms of nationality here (although "British" would not encompass Ireland), but we work by sources here and the RS sources that give support to Parsons being notable and belonging here in the first place describe him as Anglo-Irish, not British or English. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is both British and Anglo-Irish and if you described him as an "aristocratic engineer" in the lede with a reference to Debretts to show that he was aristocratic, would that really be appropriate? The place for the Anglo-Irish RS is in the Biography section where his background and family is described, not in the lede. Dabbler (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Yisrael Katz (politician born 1955) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Caseeart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68][69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74][75]

Comments:

I've added important, useful views information into the page backed up by citations from reliable news websites as well as splitting the page into appropriate headings to make it easier to navigate. This information is being discussed on the talk page and various other users such as User:Nishidani, User:Pluto2012, User:Oncenawhile, User:Makeandtoss and User:Tanbircdq have objected that undue argument can't be made and the information is permissible.

But aside from the ongoing discussion this had lead to repeated wholesale reverts by the user against the WP:1RR restriction on the particular page in an attempt to enforce their preferred version of the page. I've made the user aware of this which they ignored and continued to revert all of my contributions without responding to any of the points I made on the talk page claiming that 'warring does not apply here'. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As an admin who has this page on their watchlist and has also previously reverted the IP, I would strongly recommend a boomerang block here. The IP is clearly an SPA dedicated to stacking Katz's article with negative material. They have repeatedly canvassed pro-Palestinian editors on the article's talk page, at Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions and here again. I also strongly suspect that they are either a sock or meatpuppet of the editors who tried to force this material into the article last year, as their first edit was to readd it in identical fashion. Applogies for the lack of diffs (am currently on a train) but a quick check of the IP's contributions will confirm all this quite easily. Cheers, Number 57 16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a) is Wikipedia censored? b) you're clearly biased admin or not, and pulling rank is really underhand. You've made uncivilised comments such "go and have a rant on an internet forum about it"[76], and calling other users the "anti-Israel posse" [77] as User:Huldra pointed out. c) the reasons backing up the information being on the page are clearly stated in the talk page. d) I only went on that BDS talk page for involvement of other users not to canvass and I notified a few editors once but then didn't do it again after being warned. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After I added the information I left a clear message here explaining its justification [78] and left the user a message to avoid warring [79]. But they ignored removed it without discussing [80]. Continously removing information especially without discussing isn't good and if that isn't warring I don't know what is. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost not rule that ip 86.154.254.204 has not broken here.

IP was warned twice that they are not allowed to edit pages with 1RR[81][82] [[WP:ARBPIA3#500/30] (which recommends at least 30 days) and then continued edit warring. their edits are allowed to by undone. IP also misrepresented sources and thus adding libel material on BLP subject - (I could show exactly what was done).

Regardless of whether the page is 1RR - ip 86.154.254.204 (who is likely an experienced editor sock-puppet) has been edit warring [83][84][85], (one minute after the page protection expired to stop his/her disruptive editing[86]) [87][88] (24h and 7 Min)[89], and disruply editing the article [90] (- two admins), repeated canvasing (and meatpupetry) [91] after multiple warnings, IP played around with material in sources in order to portray the BLP subject like an extreme ridiculous person. IP attempting to convert article to attack style with about 80% attack material. IP called me a acolyte of the subject. Caseeart (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are not entirely about the Arab-Israel conflict. Caseeart made wholesale removed of contributions including headings, a High Court of Justice response to Mr Katz, Mr Katz's response to the Brussels bombings etc. None of thhat has anything to do with Arab-Israel conflict.

Where have I 'played around with material in sources in order to portray the BLP subject like an extreme ridiculous person'? You've not addressed that once on the talk page and now you're bringing that up here. I've added useful information to improve the page from coverage he's received in mainstream media and I've given you a clear explanation on the talk page[92] which you didn't respond to and simply removed the information. Wikipedia isn't censored, go on Naz Shah's page and you'll find 85% of what you call 'negative material' there. Can you show me where I called you an 'acolyte of the subject'? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I see now that your edits were in fact about the Arab Israeli conflict) The first of playing around with sources is this edit [93] totally misrepresenting this [94] source which states his words as a warning (not a statement) and is about the reasoning behind the warning, and misrepresented this [95] source which is all about the reason for the statement - and then coatracking and adding a totally different reason from other articles. I mentioned this problem in edit summaries - and I will not go through every example now. Here [96] IP called me a acolyte of the subject. I will give ip last word.Caseeart (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well you accused me of manipulating and misrepresenting the point of the sources, I invited you here [97] to change any inaccuracies, my quote was "If you don't like the information, then provide the balance. If you think the sources are manipulated then, amend them but don't wholesale delete them." So why didn't you change the text rather than wholesale deleting them? That's the issue here! YOUR FAILURE TO ENGAGE AND COLLABORATE, WHICH IS UNHELPFUL AND VERY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO IMPROVING THE PAGE OR BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA.

My quote[98] was "This isn't the ICC, so it'd be good for people to change the broken record with third rate lawyerisms. I think it's time to stop the narcissism, lift the censorship life jacket and unleash the beast! I have added some information to try and balance the page up, hopefully one of his acolytes don't delete it." Where is your name mentioned? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.154.254.204: you really need to step down here. There are some fixed rules on Wikipedia; one is that IP´s DO NOT edit in the Israel/Palestine area. Get yourself an account, and play by the rules....or anyone can (and eventually will) block you. Huldra (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  [reply]

Page: Google Translate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abrahamic Faiths (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]
3. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Note that User:188.32.107.172 virtually instantly reverted me [102] when I attempted to restore to the stable version [103]. I had not even had time to finish posting on his talk page. I've done so to the .172 talk page and to the .152 talk page. Since both IPs edit warring appear to be from Moscow and from the same provider, it would appear they are one and the same person. I recommend no action with regards to User:Abrahamic Faiths, and perhaps a boomerang to the IPs, though that may have little effect as they are obviously IP hopping. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Julie Bindel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: TJD2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: 18:11, 1 March: "She also avocated [sic] locking males up in Internment camps."

• 1st revert: 07:37, 30 April: added to the lead "Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
• 2nd revert: 04:14, 2 May: added to the lead "Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
• 3rd revert: 05:36, 2 May: added to the lead "Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."
• 4th revert: 14:22, 2 May: created a new "controversy" section with "In September 2015 she created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole."

Comments:
This is a report for edit warring at a BLP, rather than 3RR.

Bindel said in an interview in 2015 that she would put men in camps if she could, where they could drive quad bikes and white vans, but it was a joke, and it caused no controversy as the edit claims. Two of the refs TJD2 is using are not RS. Because he is engaged in wholesale reverting, he's also removing all the copy editing, including fixing refs, that has been done between his edits.

I asked him to stop at 05:33, 2 May on Talk:Julie Bindel, where FreeKnowledgeCreator agrees that his addition isn't appropriate. I also left a warning on his talk at 05:47, 2 May. He responded, then removed the exchange, and reverted again. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to break it to you, but edit warring is violating the 3RR. Also I am not edit warring in the slightest, but trying to put sourced, accurate information in an article. Just because she is a feminist does not mean that she is exempt from having negative quotes in the article. I have not been edit warring, but trying to come up with a compromise. First I reverted the whole article (wholesale rv or whatever you called it, I've never heard of it before...whatever), then I removed some questionable bias in the second sentence. After this you and FreeKnowledgeCreator still complained it was inappropriate for the lead, so I created a new section. NONE of this is copyediting, changing sources, or edit warring. I have been making constructive edits the entire time, and citing new sources to back up what she said. Both you and FreeKnowledgeCreator are open feminists, so I am of the opinion that you are just trying to censor negative information on the subject. I have seen many people do this in the past.

As for my talk page, I can do whatever the heck I want with it. It's mine, period. You are an administrator and should know this. I responded and deleted it because I felt the entire debacle was pointless. You gave me an empty threat of being reported and/or banned when you are an admin; meaning if I actually did something wrong you could just ban me outright. I did not, so you didn't. Nice try. The issue created a great deal of controversy, and I could cite many websites that covered that side of things too including infowars. I will reiterate this one last time. Just because it's a negative quote about feminism does not believe it doesn't deserve to be covered just as much as any other controversy.TJD2 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add above that TJD2 was reported here in January for "[r]epeatedly trying to make the same change over four months. Antagonistic attitude and refusal to work with other editors ...," but no action was taken for some reason.

TJD2, as I explained on your talk, edit-warring needn't involve a 3RR violation; see Wikipedia:Edit warring. The point is that what you're adding isn't really accurate, two of the sources are poor, this is a BLP, and you're removing other fixes for no reason. It just isn't helpful editing. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TJD2's comment that I am an "open feminist" is totally ridiculous and has nothing to do with anything I've ever said or any view I've ever expressed. One does not have to be a "feminist" to think his addition is inappropriate. The sources are poor, as SlimVirgin said. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: I Swear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wattsj528 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts (Note that it may be necessary to look at more than just these diffs since in some case he did cut and paste moves and in others he renamed the article and then created a DAB page out of the resulting redirect. Some of the resulting pages were deleted and do not show up in the history.):

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]
6. [110] and [111]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [112] (warning prior to first block for edit warring)
2. [113] (warning prior to second edit warring block)
3. [114] (disruptive edit warning 4 prior to second edit warring block mentioning that this is a continuation of the previous edit warring)
4. [115] Blocking editor User:Ultraexactzz's comments on edit warring after first block
5. [116] Blocking editor Ultraexactzz's comments after second edit warring block.

Given this recent history I did not bother to issue another warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:
User insists on renaming original version of article to I Swear (John Michael Montgomery song) and creating a DAB of the original title. No response to discussion of move on article's talk page, multiple attempts to engage user on his or her talk page, or two recent edit warring blocks. Less than 30 minutes after the latest edit warring block (two weeks) expired the user moved the file and created the DAB again. Meters (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of world snooker champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.135.111.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]
4. [122] (by 46.211.253.152)
5. [123] (by 95.135.111.186)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:
The IP has reverted two editors, myself and Nigej. The number of reverts isn't excessive—he has only violated 3RR by one edit which ordinarily I wouldn't consider block-worthy. However, the IP originates from the Ukraine and so does 46.211.253.152 (who conveninetly jumped in for the 4th revert), so there is a strong suggestion of IP hopping (to potentially circumvent a potential 3RR violation) or meat-puppetry.