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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [5] (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
2. [6] (note EtienneDolet's lack of participation in that discussion)
3. [7] (only one off handed comment in that discussion)

Comments:

Yes, this is just 3 reverts rather than 4 in 24 hrs. However, EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules. Indeed, they've filed 3RR reports based on that very argument [8]. They have also tip-toed up to the 3RR bright line several times in the past, making this repeated behavior [9] and [10], [11], [[12]. The fact that ED regularly will make three reverts then wait for the clock to expire, while at the same time failing to participate in talk page discussion AND reporting OTHERS for making 3 reverts pretty clearly indicates that this is indeed an instance of gaming the rules and definite edit warring.

In light of the nature of the disruption, a 1RR restriction or a topic ban may be more suitable than a straight up block, for preventive reasons.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, I haven't broken 3RR in any of these cases. The first case was with a single-edit IP account, who is likely a sock of this account, add a lot of information to the lead. I've already explained why I disapproved of such material concerning his wealth and assets being added to the body, let alone the lead. Also, the whole unsourced bit about "[Putin made $200 billion dollars of] money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years" being placed in the lead is also concerning and in my view is OR and a violation of BLP (should've mentioned that in the edit-summary though come to think of it). As for the other edits, both of them were followed up with an explanation on the TP explaining them: [13][14][15][16]. Therefore, it can be easily characterized as WP:BRD. Also, there's an overwhelming amount of support to exclude that material not just by me, but of most users on the TP as well ([17][18][19][20][21] and more recently [22][23][24]). This is really my first time I've been reported at 3RRN, and I would hope that I would have received an advisory after 25 February. That's nearly two months ago, and concerning an entirely different issue. So this came to me as a surprise. As for the 1RR suggestion, there's a lot of edit-warring going on from every side and this is gravely concerning. I'd suggest making the article itself restricted to a 1RR, as is the case concerning many EE topics such as Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. It'll encourage much more discussion on the talk page. In fact, from what I see, it should be temporarily page protected as well. As you can see in the revision history, there's a lot of additions/removals/reverts happening in which an average of 3,000+ characters of information is being added/removed/reverted...and its ongoing. Some of it is a cluster of different information packaged into one edit making it very difficult for editors to assess each of their particular grievances over them at the TP. In other words, that brings instability to the article, and a page protection would encourage all parties to sit around and talk about it at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I sent the article to page-protection. I would like admins to see for themselves if it requires PP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, under normal circumstances that would be fine. But the fact that you have a tendency to try and use noticeboards, including this one (diff above) against other people for EXACTLY the same thing you're doing here, makes this look like a clear instance of WP:GAME. "Three reverts for me but not for thee". And despite your claims *you have* been warned about edit warring before (diffs above). It's just that you always tip toe right up to 3RR never actually break it. Which is why this is disruptive and why *some* kind of action needs to be taken.

(and if you think that IP is a sock puppet then file an SPI - I don't see it, there's no obvious person that that IP would belong to).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"EtienneDolet is very well aware that 3 reverts is not an entitlement and that repeatedly making 3 reverts than just stopping short of the fourth one constitutes gaming of the rules." - that's exactly what you and your pals have been doing for years (at least since the Ukrainian crisis began). Dorpater (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making false and vague WP:ASPERSIONS. Who are these "your pals"? Generic accusations such as these are simply personal attacks and nothing more. Do I need to file another report here?Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even just a look at the page version history of Aleksandr Dugin [25] reveals you are constantly revert warring against many others to keep your preferred version with edits with absolutely meaningless edit summaries like this [26], [27]. This is just an obscure corner, but you're doing the same in articles like Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War or just anything related to Russia. Why is that? Dorpater (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Aleksandr Dugin article happens to be a page which is subject to lots of IP, WP:SPA and sock puppetry edits (I think something like three different sock farms got banned as a result of editing there). And there is a long standing WP:CONSENSUS version. But have I broken 3RR or even 2RR there? If I did, feel free to file a report, otherwise quit trying to hijack this thread with irrelevancies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

92.3.12.19 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is Sayerslle, so the first revert is a 3RR exemption. See SPI. Erlbaeko (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One IP is from UK the other from Florida. So I sort of doubt it. And what are you doing here Erlbaeko? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the first revert you listed. This one. That is a revert of IP 92.3.12.19, which obviously is Sayerslle. Compare the IP-address with the IP addresses in the SPI (starting from 15 April 2015 (Skip the first one). Erlbaeko (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert listed here is well within the policy. The phrase "money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years." has nothing to do in the lead and is, indeed, tantamount to WP:VANDALISM. Listing this edit here as supporting the claim that the editor reported is breaking rules is in itself an act of bad faith. Dorpater (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call legitimate edits - however much you disagree with them - "vandalism". It's a perfectly valid edit, and ED is edit warring over it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way a neutral user could call an addition of the unsourced phrase "money that he has taken from the Russian economy over the years" into a world leading politicians bio "perfectly valid edit". It is completely contrary to our BLP policy, too. Dorpater (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haberstr (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. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] (note multiple warnings on the user's talk page about edit warring also on other articles)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] (the discussion is spread out across several sections, Haberstr hasn't really participated much in any of them)

Comments:

A straight forward violation of 3RR on a contentious article that has been plagued by edit warring. Numerous warnings on the talk page about etc. Not much wiggle room for making excuses here.

I am reorganizing the obviously disorganized Putin 'Public Image' section (note how polls are discussed, then individuals' assessments, then polls again). Instead of participating and helping, Volunteer Marek is mass reverting and, now, taking up time putting up a groundless edit warring complaint. I strongly suggest he participate in the welcoming and generous 'talk' section I have created [34] concerning that section. Give discussion and good faith a chance!Haberstr (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're "reorganizing" anything, but I do know that you are edit warring, as the four reverts in less than 24 hrs clearly show. I didn't "mass revert" either and I have participated on talk (a ton) - you're welcome to file an edit warring complaint against me if you wish (for making one revert in 24 hrs I guess), but otherwise, you're just making excuses.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's easy to see [35] that I have successfully reorganized one messy and disorderly subsections into two logically organized subsections. Why has this edit been stable for a couple days? Perhaps because it is obvious to NPOV editors that it balances the 'pro' and 'anti' sides of Putin assessment, and fronts the mainstream points of view, in contrast to the previous version, which fronted the 'Putin is a dictator!' allegation by an opposition politician. As I've said repeatedly, the 'Assessments' subsection can be improved (especially the 'anti' Putin paragraph) and I will try to do so if others do not.Haberstr (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "reorganization" it's removal of stuff you don't like, i.e. a revert. It hasn't "been stable", it's just that other editors aren't edit warring like you so they don't revert as much as you. To call that "stable" is disingenuous ("I reverted four times, others reverted only twice, so it's a "stable version", ha!") Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: Specific content being reverted to is attribution of 'pedophilia apologist' description of Rapp to Walton

The bullshit detector is going off. [36]. It was removed immediately after you said it. Replaced with a ource with quote. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. DHeyward initially adds content attributing description of Rapp as pedophilia apologist to Walton
2. After being reverted by Strongjam, DHeyward adds content again
3. After being reverted by me (PeterTheFourth), DHeyward adds content again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Fairly old notice of 1RR by me. DHeyward is aware the page is under 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Latest comment in section I made about this specific issue, before DHeyward made his second revert.

Comments:
None are reverts. Each edit is incremental based on feedback. I've replaced reverts with sources and wording based on talk page comments. Even the diffs above acknowledge content added (to address concerns). The reverts by PtF have no attribution and are vague, BLP violations with negative tone implying the subject 'stripped.' The reverts are the disruptive edits. Wording can be changed as I've done, but removing Jamie Walton is not supported. There is no edit warring by me as every concern has been addressed with either sourcing or wording. The boomerang should be flying as the the only reverts are by PtF. --DHeyward (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is under 1RR- I believe DHeyward has reverted twice. Normally I would ask editors to self-revert, but in the past it has not been my experience that this has been helpful in dealing with this editor. Pinging Strongjam as he was also involved. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original paragraph was new and vague. As you noted, each edit I made was incremental with sourcing. You can continue to revert or work on consensus. Ignoring 6 reliable sources that mention the antagonist is not okay, nor is mischaracterizing edits with improvements as "edit warring." --DHeyward (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest where I replaced wording you objected to with language used by the source. It removes the "pedophilia apologist" language you objected to immediately after you identified it. If you revert without proper explanation, it can't be anticipated especially when the quote are stronger than the paraphrased language. No, it's not edit warring to fix issues identified on talk with sourcing and new wording. Why is there an issue if the language identified had been removed many revisions ago? Gaming the system is frowned upon. --DHeyward (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of gaming the system, isn't it remarkable how an activist's opinion of a harassment target's student assignment merits so much encyclopedic attention, while things embarrassing to Gamerrgate-- Obama's rose garden speech -- are rigorously opposed by the same editor and their customary cadre? And somehow that cadre of gamergate fans escapes sanction while here, once more, using Wikipedia to punish a product manager for her imagined opposition to letting gamers vary the breast size of a player character? 'Cause that's what's happening here. MarkBernstein (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Administrators are advised that the comment above is made in violation of a topic ban; see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate 2 - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I wouldn't have even mentioned Alison Rapp at all. Secondly, the parts I edited were to remove inferred views and replace them with attributed views (Obama doesn't mention GG and opposition is directly due to inferences that needed to be made). It made no sense to say that the same group simultaneously opposed and supported sexualized game characters. Indeed, when we examine the sources we find they are not the same and attribution clears up that confusing narrative. The activist that took issue with the essay in no way supports varying the breast size of children depicted in games no matter how many times you try to word it that way and you should stop trying. It takes only a few minutes of reading to learn that Rapp is a young women who shouldn't be memorialized on Wikipedia for being fired for something completely unrelated to gamergate and using her experience to score anti-GG talking points is rather disgusting. --DHeyward (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits PTF complains of are not full reversions, they are partial reversions at worst and in any event they are responsive to concerns raised by PTF and others on the talk page. No action is needed here. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1RR is intended as a bright-line. Changing your edit slightly to fit with something raised does not make it not a revert if you are still reinserting the rest of the content that is disputed. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to see here. PetertheFourth objected on the talk page that DHeyward was "specifically attributing that to Walton" and said "I really don't think we can to this at this phase." So DHeyward went back and found ample sources, all from reliable sources, to support the Walton attribution. And now the PetertheFourth attempts to wikilawyer 1RR, which was never meant to punish people for fixing specific objections with better sourcing or serving as a pretext for WP:JDLI

Also worth nothing that once again, Mark Bernstein refuses to WP:AGF in this very discussion by characterizing people who disagree with him as a cadre committing acts of bad faith, behavior that has been repeated in practically every comment he's made recently on this page, now that I look hp the history. I think a boomerang is in order, and a particularly large one that takes out Bernstein as well given that editor's extensive block log and continued refusal to WP:AGF. And for the record, the only thing I ever contributed on the Gamergate issue was happening onto a hashtag advocacy argument in which I added a very *negative* citation on GamerGate. Let's clean up this article before it ends up back in AE. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, when I say "practically every comment he's made recently on this page," I'm referring to the Gamergate controversy talk page, not the edit warring noticeboard. Sorry for the unclear wording. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support boomerang against PetertheFourth and MarkBernstein. I have no idea how MarkBernstein's comment above is relevant, and this isn't the first time (or the 20th time) that I've felt this way after reading something he wrote. The ownership of the Gamergate article topics and the attacks against good faith editors trying to make improvements need to stop now. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a violation. The witch hunts by Mark Bernstein and meatpuppets such as PeterTheFourth grew old long ago.--MONGO 20:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That DHeyward's edits aren't identical and progressively add more sources isn't really relevant. What is relevant is that he reinserted the bulk of text that Strongjam removed (the only alteration being changing "a second" to "an") and all of the text that PeterTheFourth removed. I don't see how that is anything but a full revert of their edits. Torven (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No action against DHeyward. It is difficult to see this as anything other than a bad faith effort to remove a perceived "opponent" in a content dispute. In the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page", PetertheFourth requests DHeyward provide additional sourcing for a particular piece of information; DHeyward does so. To suggest that DHeyward's action is anything other than good faith working towards consensus is bizarre. PetertheFourth's absence of substantial contributions outside the WP:ARBGG discretionary sanctions topic space should also be noted. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need more information. Here's what I can see so far:

The topic area is indeed under an Arbcom-mandated 1RR.

DHeyward (talk · contribs) made more than one edit which was substantially a revert of the same content

DHeyward specifically cited BLP in his reverts

The edit warring was concerning one person accusing another of being a "pedophile apologist", and how it should be mentioned, if at all

WP:BLP specifically includes an exemption from 3RR and related rules

What I need in order to be more informed on this topic is for DHeyward to go into a bit more detail as to why he believes his edits fall within the BLP exemption. I would also like for PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs) to expand upon why he believes they are not exempt. That would seem to be the core of the issue here, and the only factor that should decide whether or not sanctions are warranted. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: It was 9 days ago. The BLP issue was not properly attributing views to living people about living people. I have since deleted the entire paragraph (over the objection on the talk page, but didn't edit war on the removal. A second editor re-removed the entire paragraph) and it's on the talk page[37]. This is very stale and very out of date. You can read the discussion there. The filing was vexatious considering the comments above. --DHeyward (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 --DHeyward (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the first edit cited by PtF[38], please note, I added attribution - I did not add "pedophilia apologist." That was already there added by other editor. Attribution is one of the first sentences in WP:BLP. reverting to unattributed accusations is a BLP violation and fixing attribution is not. The edit summary of this revert by PtF[39] is misleading as he claims "pedophelia apologist" is too strong but he actually leaves it in because reverting me only removed sources and attribution, not the language he objects to.[40]. --DHeyward (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you. Once PtF explains his reasoning, we'll be able to move on. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The Wordsmith. I do not believe these edits were BLP exempt because they did not move to remove the negative content directed at Rapp. In all edits by DHeyward that I've given diffs for, 'pedophilia apologist' is still there. They attributed it to Watson instead, who we later agreed did not describe Rapp in this way. I believe both states were pretty bad (that is, without proper sourcing and with false attribution), but attributing a heavily negative description of a person to somebody who did not give that description is worse than attributing it to an anonymous mob where sourcing could possible be found for it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46] (misleading edit summary - it's not deletion of repetition, it's straight up deletion of sourced material)
2. [47] (misleading edit summary - it's not a "reorganization", it's deletion of sourced material, hidden by moving some paragraphs around)
3. [48] (misleading edit summary - it's not a "BLP violation", it's deletion of sourced material, in fact, this hardly has anything to do with BLP which is just being used as an excuse to edit war)
4. [49] (bad faithed edit summary - the user requests BRD but has failed to participate in any of the relevant discussions)
5. [50] (ditto - user demands BRD but is not discussing anything with anyone, just edit warring)
6. [51] (misleading edit summary - it's not "grammar", it's removal of well sourced information)
7. [52] (misleading edit summary - ref works just fine, and if it didn't the proper thing to do is to fix it. This is just being used as an excuse to edit war)

There's several additional reverts made just outside the 24 hour period, but 7RR in 24 hrs are sufficient.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

The user is clearly aware of 3RR [53], and has reported others for less before [54]. He has also, ironically enough, left a 3RR warning on User:Nomoskedasticity's page [55], even though that user did not come close to breaking 3RR. As User:Jolly Janner said "(the warning) establishes your own awareness of the rule"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] - note the user made only single comment, and not a particularly relevant one at that. There are also one or two other sections on talk page which are related, which the user also failed to comment in.

Comments:
(restoring edit conflict deletion SaintAviator lets talk 05:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Even a short block would be a huge help. The number of edits being made to Panama Papers is staggering, so this user's disruptive edits are often lost. This is made worse by their attempts to conceal removal of content as "grammar" in edit summaries. Jolly Ω Janner 05:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's seven reverts in 24 hrs. Non-consecutive. Reverting multiple users. It's edit warring, straight up. Additionally, the misuse of edit summaries to make the edits seem like something other than what they are indicates that this being done in bad faith.

The user has also made 3 reverts on a related article [57], [58], [59]. This one is not a 3RR violation per se, but it does show the proclivity to edit war (across multiple articles simultaneously). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)

Hello. Panama Papers (PP): I created the Russia section, The Ukrainian President section, and another which I just noticed was moved entirely to Russia by MVBWs with no discuss. On the PP TP on the 'Craig Murray' section, there were mass reverts in the PP article in the related section, during BRD discussions, including reverts by Jolly Janner. I thought the reverts mean spirited as the editor who made it was still explaining himself. I tried to get it stopped. My BRD edit summary message was ignored and reverted so I took a tea break, then went to discuss. It resolved OK after that. I did not See VM there but this notice may be spill over tension from Putin. Which has deep history as we all know, and has involved its share of noticeboards, 3 against VM I think. I believe Editors can often work stuff out. So Im disappointed by this complaint and also about on the Vladamir Putin article that some editors are breaking the week long discussion agreement on Not adding new material to the Putin Personal Wealth section, namely The Panama Papers.

I got no warning of this problem listed here, until I came back on after gardening and saw 2 alerts. It was suggested to us all by an admin, to reduce the Vladimir Putin article as it too big. I took up the suggestion. On my head I know. Its been a success, (but painfully slow), this is ongoing. VM has objected to this reduction, recently on the admins page.

I put a tag up on the Russia section in Panama Papers explaining its a developing story and that changes may be ongoing as things evolve. Someone removed it. Which is a pity because its useful in new articles like this. I think in summary Panama Papers is a developing story, its fluid. I have made positive contributions. Im not there to war, but the POV in the Russia section needs collaborative fixing. Im ready to discuss. So I'm starting a thread there.

BTW there was an odd anomaly which is explored on Nomoskedasticity page. Hence it appeared he went 3RR, But Im happy he did not, now. SaintAviator lets talk 05:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of what you're trying to say above. Except for the part where you say you started a thread. Yes you did - after this report was filed. And you ignored several relevant discussions about the topic prior to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine. These were not bad faith edits. Thats a personal attack. As for brief edit summaries, here are 5 or so undiscussed mass deletions of yours [60] SaintAviator lets talk 09:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Jolly Janner here [61] reverted a BRD in the discussion phase. [62] I'm feeling like this complaint is a tactic being employed. SaintAviator lets talk 01:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of BRD is that the status quo (i.e. without the added content) remains while the discussion is taking place. Anyway, BRD is just a recommendation from a few editors. If you want to avoid a block, my advice is to appologise and say you won't edit war again. Being defensive and blaming others won't help. Jolly Ω Janner 01:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BRD promotes discussion, its a good tool. The quote was Boldly taken out I Reverted it back and Discussed. BRD. You reverted Again SaintAviator lets talk 02:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And then you continued with your edit war [63]. Seriously there's seven reverts in less than 24 hrs, then a continuation of the edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What can I tell? SainAviator started this thread for discussion after being reported here. As one can see, he did not suggest anything specific. I asked to explain. He responded: That you discuss edits like this. You are not abiding by BRD. What BRD? I did not make any edits per BRD. This is not a good faith discussion by SainAviator. In addition, he apparently continue edit warring during standing 3RR request about him [64]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[65] [66] There was no discuss for these reverts from you. Saying Im not Good Faith is a personal Attack. I get new articles have high flows and recentism. I started the Russia discuss during editing, prompted by this no warning complaint. Thats not a crime. SaintAviator lets talk 03:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made seven reverts in less than 24 hrs. And then, rather than self-reverting, or saying "ok, I'll stop now", you waited a few hours and then resumed your edit war [67]. If there ever was a case for preventive block, this is it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I resumed editing VM, in the same different topics. Not all were reverts. One a ref didnt work, went to home page. Another read badly. Another shuffled the text. Just ordinary edits. One was an error, Sergei Roldugin did have a section, I made it. The whole section was moved without discuss to 'Russia' by MVBW. Now being discussed here [68]. I thought it was repitition when I saw it in Russia. The two in defence of Der Golem were discussion BRD related. I helped resolve it. SaintAviator lets talk 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jolly Janner This is very uncivil. [69] SaintAviator lets talk 04:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW VM heres the response to your 7 mass deletes in 50 minutes. [[70]] made without any discuss [71]. And your having a go at me?

Fellow editors you have all either personally attacked me or been uncivil. The Panama Papers, has that mood in parts too. I think we can do better, also I got no warning. The Panama Papers also has had incredible turnovers, with less than full discussion. My attempt to reduce the reversion of Der Golems work was done in Good Faith / BRD dispute resolution and was helpful. Those two edits were not edit war reverts. The situation resolved. Of the other 5 VM lists 3 were ordinary edits, one was a mistake. Acknowledged. That leaves one revert in a BRD cycle. SaintAviator lets talk 05:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem. Not only you edit war on this page, but you refuse to discuss anything. Here are your most recent comments on this article talk page: [72], [73],[74],[75]. You are not really discuss anything of substance, but disrupt editing by other people. Yes, I know, you do the same on other pages [76].My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heres you MVBWs being chastised for not discussing moving an entire section. [77] I quote " but in this case, it wasn't discussed in a relevant section of this vast Talk page, and if I remember rightly, it wasn't up for more than 10 or 12 hours or so before you changed it. That's not a long time, my friend. Boscaswell talk 08:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)' And by the way the discussion proceeds well. [[78] Its very uncivil to say, 'you refuse to discuss anything'. Is it because they agreed with me? SaintAviator lets talk 00:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made seven reverts in less than 24 hours, then the report was filed. You waited a few hours and resumed your edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW MVBWs Editors have other lives to live too, we do this part time. Discussion can take days. Just cool it a bit SaintAviator lets talk 07:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments:
User has repeatedly inserted WP:POV and WP:UNDUE content to this BLP and was also warned multiple times of requirements for editing BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note how CFredkin changed his comment above about 24 hours after it was already responded to.[86] So instead of just crossing it out and adding his new comment, he completely replaced the old one to make his allegation against me sound more damaging. But what's laughable about that claim - about the content violating POV and UNDUE - is that his version and mine are virtually the same, except for CFredkin removing some info and adding an unsourced accusation about Jolly's spokesperson, Bascom. Read the two versions for yourself. It's the last paragraph of the "Political career" section; compare CFredkin's version[87] to my version.[88] What CFredkin also fails to mention is that the sources (provided below in this comment) provide much more detail to this entire story, yet my version uses just three sentences to summarize it. Also, CFredkin is actually the one who has egregiously violated the rules of BLP by repeatedly inserting content that claimed Jolly's spokesperson herself committed the improper act of whitewashing Jolly's Wikipedia article ("Sarah Bascom confirmed that she had made edits to his Wikipedia page to remove information about Jolly"),[89][90][91] when none of the sources say she did that.[92][93][94][95] CFredkin was told mutliple times not only by myself,[96][97] but also by another editor.[98][99] that no sources say Bascom did that. Yet, CFredkin kept re-adding the defamatory content about the woman. The bottom line is that CFredkin's version is remarkably similar to mine, but his not only removed important context for readers, it also clearly violated the BLP rules by inserting a false, unsourced claim about a living person. Dirroli (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that CFredkin also posted a comment on the Jolly talk page a few hours ago, right before he came here to post it, that my alleged POV violation was changing the word "confirmed" to "admitted",[100] even though that is precisely what the Jolly campaign did: admit it. What makes CFredkin's assertion even more mind-boggling is that the headline used by the primary source for all the content is "Florida Senate Campaign Admits To Scrubbing Candidate’s Wikipedia Page".[101] So, yes, they most certainly did admit it. Obviously, when someone is accused of doing something improper and then they "confirm" they did it, that is called an admission. This (calling the word "admitted" a POV violation) is a perfect example of CFredkin's intransigence regarding this matter. Dirroli (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that in the primary source for this content, Jolly's spokesperson, Bascom, accused CFredkin of working for a rival campaign. She said, "Asked by BuzzFeed News which Wikipedia users were associated with a rival campaign, Bascom pointed to two users named 'CFredkin' and “Champaign Supernova.'"[102] I have no idea if that is true or not (I don't believe it is), but CFredkin is certainly a part of this story, so perhaps that is why he is so insistent about saying that Bascom actually made the edits herself, even though the sources do not say that. Dirroli (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps CFredkin has forgotten about his own edit warring.[103][104][105] The problem is that his changes are based on an illogical argument; that my verision is undue but theirs isn't, even though both versions are extremely similar. Another editor even told CFredkin this on the talk page.[106] Also, CFredkin's version injects an egregious violation of an article about a living person by stating that a particular woman (Bascom) committed the improper act herself, even though no sources actually say that. The other editor told CFredkin this, as well. Also, please note that CFredkin had an edit summary that said to discuss on the talk page, even though his first comment on the talk page wasn't until over two hours later, after I had already commented in the thread multiple times. Dirroli (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I offered to withdraw this complaint if Dirroli would self-revert to remove his edit from the article and agree to wait for consensus in Talk before restoring. Dirroli's response.CFredkin (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I self-revert when your version violates BLP by making a false claim against a living person and removes important context for readers? So far, no one has supported your position, and another editor has also told you that your version is virtually the same as mine, except without the proper context. So, instead of discussing it on the talk page (until hours later, after I've already commented), what you chose to do was start an edit war, issue multiple warnings to an editor with whom you're in a content dispute, inject defamatory information about a living person into an article, and file a report at a noticeboard. And then, to top it off, you present an obviously self-serving offer in which you essentially attempt to blackmail me. Right. Dirroli (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the edit history of the article and the Talk page will confirm that the above statement is complete rubbish. Unfortunately Dirroli's behavior following warnings regarding WP:3rr and WP:BLP and his/her statements here indicate that the behavior is likely to continue.CFredkin (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the history will show everything I'm saying is true, which probably explains why you made a blanket statement rather than being specific about what you claim to be "complete rubbish". Also, it appears that you are the one whose edit warring behavior is likely to continue, since you've been blocked for it multiple times in the past[107] and are again doing it today. Are you using any other accounts to edit the Jolly article, because I noticed you were previously caught using other accounts?[108] Dirroli (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No violation in my opinion. This was more an edit than a "revert". --Roy Howard Mills (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the above statement is not factually correct (from WP:3rr): "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."CFredkin (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC) All the edits cited above deal with changes to the same core content.CFredkin (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the subject of this complaint has chosen to engage in personal attacks rather than make any kind of recognition of the applicability of WP:3rr here.CFredkin (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's been clearly explained that not only did you edit war as well, but that my reversions removed your clear BLP violation of accusing a living person of wrong-doing when no sources say that. My reading of the BLP and edit warring rules is that if contentious, unsourced info about a living person is inserted into an article, it can be removed immediately. Therefore, I'm not even sure if I actually violated the edit warring rules. And, as Howard Mills alluded to above, one of my edits may not even count as a revert.[109] Also, you have been blocked for edit warring multiple times previously, so you were already very familiar with the rules on that. Finally, your version, in terms of the general content, is virtually the same as mine. What's most interesting is that you have yet to address the multiple inquiries by myself and FuriouslySerene, pointing out the clear similarity between our two versions, and your unsourced claim about Jolly's spokesperson. Dirroli (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually neither FuriouslySerene nor any other editor has made any statements in Talk to support your most recent edit. In fact, FuriouslySerene has made a specific statement indicating that he/she disagrees with your most recent edit.CFredkin (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you completely divert from the real issues and try to change the focus by cherry-picking one unrelated issue, and of course spinning it so that it's completely out of context. FuriouslySerene and I simply disagree about whether Bascom's name even needs to be mentioned, or if we just need to refer to her as Jolly's spokesperson. But what we agree on completely is the fact that you improperly inserted content that said Bascom was the person who made the edits to Jolly's Wikipedia article, and that our two versions are practically the same. Ever since the two of us brought up your BLP violation yesterday on the talk page and via edit summaries, you have completely ignored our concern about it. One must wonder why. So, instead of trying to create an imaginary beef between FuriouslySerene and I, editors can read the entire conversation for themselves to get the proper context of everything that's happened. Finally, please at least get the basic facts correct; that was far from my "most recent edit", as the talk page thread will show. That was over 24 hours ago and I've posted about a half dozen other comments since then. Dirroli (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps CFredkin should be reminded of this revert FuriouslySerene made of one of his improper edits. It's clear evidence of CFredkin's BLP and POV violations. And he has yet to provide any diffs that prove I violated POV, UNDUE, or BLP, even though he keeps saying I did. He can't, because my three-sentence version comes straight from the sources, does not remove any context, and provides complete balance (the campaign's admission, the specific violations, and the apology quote from Jolly). Dirroli (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin has now started an RfC on the Jolly article talk page, in which he presents two options: my version (option A) and his (option B). Amazingly, though, he doesn't say one word about any BLP, POV, or UNDUE violations with my version that he so emphatically alleged here on this noticeboard. And in the RfC, yet another editor (Jytdog) tells CFredkin that the two versions are practically the same. You'll also see that CFredkin, in his B version in the Rfc, removes his BLP violation of saying the spokeswoman was the one who scrubbed the article. It would've been nice if he had acknowledged that error to begin with, instead of ignoring multiple editors and refusing to address it the entire time. Dirroli (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article protected two weeks, on a version from April 7 that was prior to the edit war. If the RfC on the talk page reaches a result, protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be on the record that more than 24 hours after CFredkin filed this compalint against me, he secretly went behind the backs of editors in an attempt to persuade an administrator (EdJohnston) to take his side in this matter.[110] I don't know what the rules are on that, but perhaps it's the type of behavior that should warrant a block. Maybe it will be moot, though, because I see that CFredkin has been reported at the sockpuppet noticeboard.[111] Dirroli (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.196.150.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=714023469

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714214362&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714389635&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714395074&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714398719&oldid=714023469 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714400596&oldid=714023469

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:117.196.150.216

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASaint_Thomas_Christians&type=revision&diff=714399524&oldid=686196494

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Josslined (talk • contribs)

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. There are a number of IPs who are all reverting one another, making it hard to figure out what is happening. Anonymous editors should use the talk page to argue for the changes they would like to see. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Greek genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "The "edit war" was started by two contributors sharing the same POV and derailing a more balanced discussion"
2. 19:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714436102 by Dr.K. This is supposedly a NPOV encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", not a platform for nationalist propaganda. Please keep an academic tone and proper epistemology."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC) to 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Map is incorrect"
   2. 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714432844 by Alexikoua: No removal of sourced content, only removal of POV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Greek genocide. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite warnings from multiple editors, the IP editor has not contributed to the article talk page. clpo13_(talk) 21:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. Edit warring about the topic of genocide by a new IP with six edits. Please use the talk page to get consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Distilled beverage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1010:B113:BFD1:4B4:6D4:A361:9472 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "/* History of distillation */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pompeii. (TW)"
2. 22:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Distilled beverage. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:ERA warrior William Avery (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 31 hours by User:Smalljim for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Tiran Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JamesG5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714520844 by Tnafeh (talk) See notes on users talk page"
2. 08:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714520212 by Tnafeh (talk) Please start a section on the Talk page to work out any new material rather than adding POV unsourced material."
3. 07:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518827 by Tnafeh (talk) Please take any changes you want made to this page to its Talk page instead of adding NPOV material"
4. 07:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518636 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting persistent POV editing"
5. 07:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518276 by Tnafeh (talk)"
6. 07:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714518021 by Tnafeh (talk)"
7. 07:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714517416 by Tnafeh (talk)"
8. 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714517151 by Tnafeh (talk)"
9. 07:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714516715 by Tnafeh (talk) Please stop."
10. 07:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714516386 by Tnafeh (talk) Please stop inserting point of view material here."
11. 06:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714514478 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting POV edits"
12. 06:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714513132 by Tnafeh (talk) Please stop adding this material."
13. 06:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714512694 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting NPOV comments, please stop adding these."
14. 06:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714511715 by Tnafeh (talk) Reverting unsourced NPOV comments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Hi, I believe my actions fall under one of the 3RR exemptions. I was checking new user contributions and saw @Tnafeh:'s initial edit to Tiran Island which added several unsourced POV comments with a clear political bias (first edits from new account). The material was quickly re-added despite a warning on his user page, and his edit summaries showed more evidence of advocacy editing. Another editor, @Jim1138: joined me in protecting the page. I reported the issue at WP:AIV to request intervention, which was endorsed by Jim1138 and another editor who also placed warnings on his page. I posted to Tnafeh's talk page politely pointing out some of the policy issues involved and requesting that he take the issue to the article's talk page to seek consensus on changes, and made the same request in my edit summaries. Given the contents of the edits I reverted, the edit summaries by Tnafeh, the comments on his user page that he would insist on Wikipedia removing the entry completely if it did not change to fit his view, and the fact that this was a new account created for this single use I believe my actions were justified. JamesG5 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Uninvolved comment As a completely uninvolved user with no previous contact with either of the users involved nor with the topic, I'd tend to agree with JamesG5. The content added by the new SPA was so obviously non-encyclopedic and biased that I'd lean towards agreeing that JamesG5 performed a clean-up, not edit warring. Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Declined. I agree with User:JamesG5 that his reverts of the very stubborn new user were justified, see also below. Bishonen | talk 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Obviously. The 3RR exemption claimed is for obvious vandalism (bolding in original). Not my issue though. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Tiran Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 07:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 07:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 07:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 07:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 07:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
8. 07:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
9. 07:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
10. 07:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 07:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "The editor of original article is engaged in deliberate whitewashing of a historic even, and revisionism of the worst kind,counting on the lack of knowledge of many readers of recnt events associted with.. This article MUST be edited or removed altogether"
12. 07:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
13. 07:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
14. 07:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
15. 06:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
16. 06:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ""
17. 06:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "shedding light onto a recent historic events deliberately omitted in the article"
18. 06:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC) "recent sale of Egyptian islands to Saudi Arabia in exchange of financial handouts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I agree with User:JamesG5 that his reverts of the very stubborn new user were justified, see the section above. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Soviet–Afghan War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qbek16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Qbek16 objects to a change in the inbox to "Mujahideen victory" from "Military stalemate".[112]

Diffs of the user's reverts showing edit summaries:

1. 15:46, 9 April 2016 (Undid revision 713266652 by CÖBS19 (talk))]
2. 12:14, 10 April 2016 (Undid revision 714489716 by CÖBS19 (talk) Vietnam war ended with Fall of Saigon in 1975, but this war ended with Soviet withdrawal. It is different cases)
3. 12:34, 10 April 2016 (Undid revision 714549145 by Toddy1 (talk) POW)
4. 15:46, 10 April 2016 (Undid revision 714558826 by Toddy1 (talk) Situation has not changed until Soviet withdrawal. Rebels was unable to defeat DRA and capture Kabul and other big cities, and Soviets unable to quell rebels)]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 14:09, 10 April 2016

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Soviet–Afghan War#"Stalemate"?

-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Comment. 24 hours exactly for the "4th" revert is too near the knife edge to say that it was a blatant abuse. Also the editor has made changes and modifications to his original position so at this point, I recommend continued dialogue and you'll get to the bottom of the problem. Roy Howard Mills (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: CKDU-FM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.224.251.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]
5. [118]
6. [119]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User_talk:24.224.251.89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:CKDU-FM]

Comments:
Thank you for your review… WayeMason (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Observations. 3RR was not breached inside any 24-hour period, the reporter WayeMason is party to the conflict. --Roy Howard Mills (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP is warring to add unsourced information. The participation of Phil Walling (Phollop Willing) can't be confirmed even from the radio station's own web site. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Nondualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obe19900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]
5. [135]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Nondualism#A Course in Miracles
• User talk Obe19900 diff

NB: repetition of 2008: User talk:Obe19900##Nondualism and User talk:Obe19900#Nondualism (Response to Graymornings). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• The edit warring by @Obe19900 is not constructive, and continues, even after @Obe19900 has implicitly acknowledged the 3RR notice. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bishonen | talk 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aftabbanoori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aftabbanoori took a photo, File:Silver ghost.jpg, not a good photo or a rare photo, and added it to articles across seven international Wikipedias.

• en (2014)
• de (2015)
• es
• it
• fr
• ru

An active editor for vintage car articles, Eddaido, recently questioned the use of this image, and two others. Although this was not the first time they had been removed. We don't need this image, it has problems, we have a number of better images for the same subject.

• Talk:Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost#Superfluous images 1
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Inappropriate images Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost

Aftabbanoori has not responded here, although they have issued warnings to other editors Talk:Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost#Stop Vandalism, User_talk:Andy Dingley#edit war

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137] (First addition)

1. [138] 39.43.100.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Pakistan Telecommuication company limited

1. [139] (Aftabbanoori)
2. [140]
3. [141] (9 April)
4. [142]
5. [143]
6. [144] (11 April)
7. [145]
8. [146]

• Blocked – 48 hours. I count seven reverts at Rolls Royce Silver Ghost over four days. The user seems determined to promote his own work, including one image where a man is in the picture in front of the car. EdJohnston (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's possibly himself in the picture, which explains why he wants it on wiki. The picture should be tagged for deletion. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tag it for speedy deletion. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tal (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Schlatance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Schlatance01 (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. [147]
2. [148]
3. [149]
4. [150]

Hello, First, sorry for my english (and sorry if I don't post in in the right place)
I request for blocking the accounts Schlatance and Schlatance01 for vandalism. Basically he suppresses the fact that the French singer Tal is also a songwriter but the website of the SACEM (a kind of RIAA) indicates she has written 12 songs [151]). This two accounts are (surely) sockpuppets created by BillieKing. I asked for a SPI.

Comments:

• Result: Schlatance and Schlatance01 are both blocked indef as socks. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive310#User:BillieKing reported by User:Sebk (Result: Blocks) as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BillieKing. The filer of this report, User:Sebk, is an administrator on the French Wikipedia. User:BillieKing was indef blocked in March by User:Swarm. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Tennessee Titans roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 12.204.217.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153] 11 April 2016‎
2. [154] 8 April 2016‎
3. [155] 8 April 2016‎
4. [156] 7 April 2016
5. [157] 7 April 2016‎
6. [158] 6 April 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160] (No discussion, simply repeated warnings which have been ignored)

Comments:
This is a slow-motion war, no reverts by the IP, just re-making the same changes again and again. No response to either talk page or edit comments, we need some way to get this editor's attention - enough of an edit ban that the user will notice it the next time he attempts to make the changes. Page protection would also probably serve, but User:Ymblanter on WP:RPP suggested AN3 was more appropriate. The user only edits on week-days, presumably at work or at school.

My best guess is that the user has a motivation for wanting to be able to claim particular numbers against particular players - there seem to be parallel problems with the Matt Cassel page, where he is being assigned the numbers 12, 16 and 20 at various times by various editors. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: The roster template and the Matt Cassel article are each semiprotected three months. A variety of IPs have been making unsourced changes to player numbers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that should do it. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [161] (note the edit summary warns to not break 1RR)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164] (again specifically warns of 1RR)

Comments:

Articles related to ISIL are subject to a one revert per 24 hour rule. Jolly Ω Janner 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of this, also editor Jolly reverted against consensus and then claimed consensus exist. Jolly if you are accusing me of being disruptive I will take you to ANI. The fact you came here instead of my talk page is a sign of bad faith editing. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note editor did not mention I had discussed these changes here and have support from User:Rmhermen and User:Erlbaeko. This seems like an attempt to apply 1RR to override consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring isn't helpful, regardless of whether you think there is consensus or not. Jolly Ω Janner 18:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring fall under 3RR I reverted twice after you claimed consensus exists. If this page fall under special sanctions I am not aware. Also creating a false rationale to revert can be seen as disruptive as you did here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is it shown that the article is subject to a 1RR restriction? There is nothing on the article talk page and I'm not clear that terrorism or Belgium are under discretionary sanctions at this time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR (I think ISIL militants would almost definitely be under its scope). There is also a tag at the top of the discussion page, Talk:2016 Brussels bombings, which Valoem has contributed to. That talk page was also the origin of the discussion that caused the merges and where Legacypac reminded editors of the 1RR. Jolly Ω Janner 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the short story:

• On 9 April 2016 at 16:37 UTC: Parsley Man suggested to merge the Mohamed Abrini article into the 2016 Brussels bombings article, ref. diff. (The merge discussion is still ongoing.)
• On 10 April 2016 at 03:02 UTC, Legacypac merged the page despite of a merge discussion with no consensus to merge, ref. diff and old revision.
• On 10 April 2016 at 06:36 UTC, I reverted Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 10 April 2016 at 19:58 UTC, Jolly Janner reverted my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 02:09 UTC, Valoem reverted Jolly Janners revert of my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 03:03 UTC, Parsley Man reverted Valoems revert of Jolly Janners revert of my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 16:09 UTC, Valoem reverted Parsley Man revert of Valoems revert of Jolly Janners revert of my revert of Legacypacs merge, ref. diff.
• On 11 April 2016 at 18:20 UTC, Jolly Janner reported Valoem for Edit warring, ref. diff.

So, yeah. Valoem did revert twice within a 24-hour period on a page related to Daesh. However, Legacypac did merge the page without consensus to do so, and both Jolly Janner and Parsley Man reverted to restore their preferred version. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see any sanctions on the talk page, I was not aware, I will not take further action and request administrative intervention if merged without consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion is not still ongoing - we reached 100% agreement and did the merge. User:Valoem incorrectly after the fact said there was no consensus and started an edit war. Legacypac (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Janner I assume this issue is resolved with no further action necessary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can assume good faith that Valoem was unaware of the 1RR. I wasn't aware that the purpose of this noticeboard is to get users blocked. I just wanted to inform administrators of the edit warring and let them decide what to do. Jolly Ω Janner 03:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: No action. The submitter doesn't recommend a block, and I don't see any reason for admin action. But if anyone feels that consensus for a merge can clearly be arrived at in such a short discussion they are an optimist. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mohamed Abrini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: few weeks ago

[168] (again specifically warns of 1RR)

Comments:
I think the user is aware of the 1RR and how disruptive edit warring is. Jolly Ω Janner 23:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?! I was agreeing with you on your stance on keeping Abrini as a section of the Brussels ISIL terror cell article! Parsley Man (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you can violate the 1RR? I genuinely did not see or know there were sanctions as I rarely edit ISIL pages. I came across this due to current events. Unfortunately, it looks like Jolly is more neutral than you thought regarding this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are really against the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, are you? Stop the hounding. Parsley Man (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I support the article, I am against the merge without consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still hounding. There is barely any material on Abrini proper to support an individual article. Parsley Man (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not hounding, you want your views to prevail without consensus. Merge debate is clearly open with even votes, what gives you the authority to merge and then accuse any editors who disagree as hounding? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Brussels ISIL terror cell article was a result of an agreement between all the participants at the time, even me, the one who started the proposal. After the article was created and all the content from Abrini and Krayem's articles were merged, THAT was when you butted into the discussion. A compromise counts as consensus too. Parsley Man (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Parsley, if you witness disputes like this, do not edit war. If you think consensus is formed and see a user violating that, be patient and request administrative assistance. Jolly Ω Janner 00:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Parsley Man and User:Jolly Janner - this is a 1RR topic because it is an ISIL topic. You two agree on the redirection of this page. User:Jolly Janner please withdraw the report. Legacypac (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What "report"? This is an admin noticeboard. I don't have some personal vendetta against Parsley. I'm just bringing it to the attention of an administrator and also giving him some advice for future occurrences. An admin will probably "close" this notice in less than a week. Jolly Ω Janner 01:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the second time in recent days that Parsley Man has been reported for violating 1RR, which he is certainly aware of. Unfortunately, the first report was archived before an administrator could respond to it, and hence the disruption continues. RGloucester — ☎ 02:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You post here is called a report. People report people to get the other people blocks usually. This is the first time I've seen a report where the reporting party supports the actions of the reported party. Just type Withdraw as I know Parsley now knows not to edit war and getting him blocked will just hurt everyone's ability to enforce the consensus we reached together. Legacypac (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known that I thought that 1RR thing applied to only the 2016 Brussels bombings article and I was unaware that it applied to everything related to ISIL. I also admit that I can be slow at times so I will unintentionally frustrate some people. Parsley Man (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my decision. Withdraw (I'm now curious as to what happens when I magically type that word). Jolly Ω Janner 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. I hope that User:Jolly Janner will clarify if he is also withdrawing his earlier complaint about User:Valoem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one gets blocked from editing :) Hugs all around. Legacypac (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

Comments: The user is continuously removing sources, details and making edits which are against WP:POV

Comment. It looks like the filing party has reverted three times as well. MPS1992 (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. I only reverted three times and then reported him. I didn't revert fourth time.Ferakp (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. So, you (the filing party) have been edit-warring too. And it does not appear that the reported party was warned about edit-warring before this report was filed. (They did have a level 1 warning from me, but that did not mention edit-warring.) MPS1992 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, he was not warned by Ferakp before filing this report. Both users should be blocked for edit warring.--92.107.193.198 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of LTE networks in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chaquchi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

/* Edit warring around the political state of the territory of Abkhazia obviously from an Georgian perspective. (Conflict to WP:NPOV) */

Previous version reverted to: [176]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [177]
2. [178]
3. [179]
4. [180]
5. [181]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Comments:

Commented on topic in edit summaries at first and also tried to initiate the opening of a discussion by the user at the article talk-page. Tried to adress the user's concerns with a minor improvement. On the other hand I see a strong violation of WP:NPOV by the changes the user made to the page that also suggests wrong facts. I sadly have the impression that the user does not react on any reasonable argumentation adressing the the topic in the context of WP:AGF. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined – You haven't notified the person you are reporting and there is nothing about this matter on the article talk page. If you try to start a real discussion but are not satisfied with the results, you might then file another report. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the explanation, will additionally open a topic and inform. Anyway: How can the issue be dealt with elsewise in the case the user does not react? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until you leave him an actual message, how can you tell? Discussions in edit summaries are unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so and also opened a talk page discussion myself. Hope that the issue can be solved soon. So far edit summaries worked out quite well to initiate discussions on the respective talk pages in similar situations without leading to WP:EW, what raised questions to me in this case. Anyway I'll take your advise into consideration for the future. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Doug Saunders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714894412 -- REFERENCE LINK IS TO OFFICIAL BIOGRAPHY ON GLOBE AND MAIL SITE. WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO BRING OUR WRITERS' WIKI ENTRIES INTO CONFORMITY WITH OUR STAFF BIOGRAPHIES. PLEASE DO NOT ALTER"
2. 13:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714893696, added reference to this text from official Globe biography"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC) to 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714730737 by FuriouslySerene (talk)"
   2. 13:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 714730497 as this copy adheres to Wiki standards as NPOV biographical information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Doug Saunders. (TW)"
2. 13:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Doug Saunders. (TW)"
3. 13:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Doug Saunders. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC) "/* Unreferenced information being added */ new section"

Comments:

Based on the most recent revert description, it appears the IP works for Saunder's employer, the Globe and Mail. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 3 days. User has a COI, is edit warring and is inserting copyright violations by copy-pasting text from the Globe and Mail's web site. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sudden infant death syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wpegden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments:

Hi: I am the complained against party. The first referenced "revert" above was not a revert. I was adding new material which had not previously appeared. The party complaining against me was actively reverting my material before actively engaging in the talk page discussion I was trying to foster. By my count, he reverted my 4 times, and I reverted him 3 times. I believe he is engaging constructively in the talk page now... I guess we will see? I am surprised to see him complain against me here. I am not sure how my edit behavior on this article and talk page look unfavorable compared to his. Maybe a third party can clarify for me. Thanks! Wpegden (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking in. I really am interested in feedback on my editing behavior (and that of the filing party). Thanks!! Wpegden (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wpegden either provide diffs for these four reverts you claim I made in 24 hrs or please cross out your claim above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, I believe the reported party is not claiming that you reverted them 4 times in 24 hours, they are merely claiming that you reverted them 4 times. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the rules -- or not! MPS1992 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wpegden your edits[190] were not WP CONSENSUS perTalk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome [191]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192] - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)
Previous version reverted to: [193] - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)
Previous version reverted to: [194] - Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)

1. [195]
2. [196]
3. [197]
4. [198]
5. [199]
6. [200]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [203]
4. [204]
5. [205]

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)

1. [206]
2. [207]
3. [208]
4. [209]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [211]

Comments:

Page: Osama Krayem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsley Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:58, 10 April 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Latest revision as of 22:58, 11 April 2016
2. Revision as of 22:56, 11 April 2016

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. See also: Talk:Proposal to merge and Talk:Post merger discussion.

Comments:
Note that he also was reported for a similar 1RR violations on the Mohamed Abrini page. That report was filled by a user who participated in the edit war on "Parsley Man's side", and was, for some reason, withdrawn...

I believe he has been given enough warnings.

Erlbaeko (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that there were two articles that were to be merged in the discussion, so this is basically the same issue as the previous post (the edit logs share the same time). Anyway, as before, I didn't feel confident in assessing Parsley's previous history to determine whether a block was sufficient and would rather it be left to the hands of an admin. Parsley said that he was unaware that the 1RR applied to all articles related to ISIL. However, following a recent turn of events and, what I thought was, a friendly compromise to the discussion, he accused a fellow editor of being ignorant. Now that doesn't sit right with me. I don't like collaborating with editors who have such little respect for others and welcome a block on these grounds. I would like to see an apology from him, so we can put this behind us. Jolly Ω Janner 08:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said the user (who happens to be Erlbaeko) was being ignorant because he/she believed that we were intending on merging the Abdelhamid Abaaoud and Salah Abdeslam articles into the Brussels ISIL terror cell article, even though there were clearly just plans to include a basic summary of them in their sections and keep the main articles. Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has been notified about the sanctions, ref. diff, warn about edit warring, asked to self-revert, and given 24-hours to do so, ref. diff. He should also be well aware of the one-revert rule, since it have been explained to him here. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ticket to Ride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [212]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [213]
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216]
5. [217]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218], [219], [220]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [221], also on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs

Comments:

User has a tendency to engage in edit wars in multiple articles with multiple users, had been previously given multiple 3RR warnings, and was blocked for edit warring [222]. The editor has also consistently refused to address the point raised in multiple articles, as well as in discussion on Wiki Project Song. Hzh (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "The 1959 decree that stated Iran and Persia are both acceptable was annulled following the 1979 revolution."
2. 23:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC) "Persia is the historical name for Iran; it's not official."
3. 22:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC) "Changed so it reflects facts. Calling Iran 'Persia' isn't really correct since it's not the name of the country. If you debate this, then you're living in another world."
4. 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC) "Removed sourced content; it is illogical since it does not come from an official context. Just because a prof. says Iran is Persia doesn't mean it's fact coz it's opinion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• October 2015, November 2015, February 2016, March 2016

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• 13 April 2016

Comments:

Discussion was opened on the article talk page yesterday; Vormeph has responded, but is still reverting the article lede (against four other editors). Vormeph has been warned and blocked for breaking 3RR on this article in the past. McGeddon (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: I'm acting according to what's right. Iran is historically known as Persia. You, although, randomly appeared out of nowhere and started reporting me for no reason. You haven't even got involved in the talk page discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vormeph (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 April 2016‎

@Vormeph: WP:EDITWAR plainly says in the opening paragraph that "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." --McGeddon (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: Even if I do get blocked, that's not going to change my stance nor will it change the state of things. Iran is historically known as Persia. But you'll be historically known as stupid if you persist in this futile attempt to disrupt reason. For what it's worth, the sources even state that Iran is historically known as Persia. You're failing to establish that because I know fully well you have a personal problem with me. Vormeph (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Vormeph is asking that McGeddon rescinds this complaint as a "condition" to accept a certain wording. This behavior does not belong in WP. UCaetano (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [223]
2. [224]
3. [225] (a partial revert of the previous restoration of status quo ante)
4. [226](a reversion directly stemming from Revert 3)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. From WP:3RR

Talk page discussion clearly showing that WP:BRD has not been followed: Wikipedia talk:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring Specifically Editwarring section and QEDK's assumption (even present objections) that BRD did not apply

Rude reactions actions after their viewpoint has been rejected: User_talk:QEDK#Cool_your_attitude_please, User_talk:QEDK#April 2016, User_talk:Hasteur#Can_you_not_blindly_revert_me. Hasteur (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha. I'll leave the editors to find out what's wrong with the last two diffs. Probably it's the timestamp I added with a table which had tabulated counts of the proposals but the table was later removed while the timestamp accidentally remained. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are taking responsibility that you have sailed over the bright line by undoing others actions in part 4 times. Open and shut case. Hasteur (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not restore the content under objection (which was not the timestamp definitely) more than twice and I repeatedly told Hasteur to see with his eyes before he keeps warning me and like, so there's a trouty thing for you. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 15:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You undid that signature line 4 times which was under contention since the first revert. You were invited to do the right thing by self reverting to take you below the WP:3RR which you rudely refused to do. You were scolded by other editors about making pointy reversions on the RFC's talk page. You were warned previously not to be so rude in your interactions with the editor who you initally reverted. You were counseled to WP:AGF on the faith of others but you decided to announce unilaterally that AGF was already burnt out. Before you want to pick the spec of dust out of my eye, look back at your actions and tell me you are without sin. Barring specific exceptions (such as BLP violations) edit wars go to status quo ante pending consensus being established. Hasteur (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not sinned, my lord. Also, my previous actions have no merit here, only the diffs you presented do. 2 reverts are never the reason for blocking or even scolding for that matter. That signature was not a signature but a timestamp (which I added in one of the first diffs during the first or second day of the RfC), it was also never a subject of contention. You're ignorant of the facts and you've wasted everyone's time by bringing me here. Knock yourself out. I've also not been uncivil (never, in fact) so I don't know what you're talking about. You've starting making baseless accusations like my friend, Legacypac is it. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 17:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was not "obvious vandalism". —Cryptic 19:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cryptic: Fine, I'll take the slap on the wrist, but to say nothing of sailing past 3RR and being completely unrepentent about it? It's clear QEDK's actions are on the edge of being WP:OWN (as evidenced by yet annother editor calling QEDK out on their actions here) and QEDK still misrepresenting the action? Hasteur (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking any action because I've both edited the page in question and already commented on the edit warring on talk. My comment in the comment section here is solely that: a comment. —Cryptic 19:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]