Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Aragorn8354 reported by User:XXX8906 (Result: )

Page: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) season 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Aragorn8354 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has changed the title of an episode to something that is not found in the sources. The user believes that the source used is not a reliable source, even though it is. XXX8906 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know if Wikipedia considers Zap2It a reliable source because I will then know for certain nothing in Wikipedia is reliable. I can cite hundreds of instances of Zap2It information being way off reality. Show listings, show airing times, episode titles-season#-episode# wrong, listing an hour long episode in a half hour time slot, etc,etc. Seriously, Zap2It gets thier info from the TV station airing the show not any truely reliable source. Aragorn8354 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There was never any attempt by XXX8906 to discuss this as evidence the talk page associated with this silliness where I attempted to discuss this with no response whatsoever from XXX8906. Aragorn8354 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User XXX8906 continues to revert edits for which I have not only provided a reference for but have physical proof for in my posession. I don't know what needs to be done to resolve this but I will continue to monitor this situation closely. Aragorn8354 (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Aragorn8354: - This report is in danger of being archived for lack of interest. I would like to encourage admins to take a look here. User XXX8906 has a history of disruptive edits based on their talk page history. They've been warned numerous times against submitting unsourced or inappropriately sourced content[7][8][9][10][11][12], they've been warned numerous times against refactoring other users' comments [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], they've been warned against blanking [22], they've been warned against edit warring [23][24][25][26] and were previously dragged through 3RR though Elockid didn't at that time agree with the reported violation, I think it's clear that XXX8906 is the slow-edit-war type. They've also been warned against general disruptions [27][28]. While minor mistakes are expected for new users, this account has been active for nine months, and has demonstrated little interest in collaborative editing, and seems intent to disrupt. Barring any mentorship or stall-'em-out project, I'm not confident this user is here to contribute constructively. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Nasa-verve (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:

@Werieth: have discussed the article in depth about the use of WP:NFCC. I posted and am attempting to get a 3rd opinion on it, but Werieth will not wait until that opinion comes in. I believe he broke the 3RR rule by completely gutting the article and not interested in building any type of consensus on the issue first. Apparently he believes that WP has an immediate deadline. My request for 3rd opinion was requested here 5 days ago and only has one request in front of it. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I am at 3RR which is the same point you are, and neither of us have violated it yet. I pruned an article to meet wikipedia policies. Werieth (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at just a 24-hour window gives a narrow view of what is going on here. This article has been at over 24,000 bytes since December 2008. Then with these edits Werieth thinks he has more insight than five and a half years of editors experience by chopping the article down to ~5,200 bytes. Our talk page conversation started discussing the use of NFCC media, but then ended with Werieth deciding that he needed to gut the article in order to what really needed to be done. In my opinion he was letting the ends justify the means: forcing the issue on removing valid use of Non-free media (with valid use rationales and everything) by removing all the surrounding text as well. Please do not dismiss because this is not technically 3RR, because it will escalate into that soon. I have tried for 5 days of talk page discussion to build consensus, but it seems Werieth is not interested in that.

Data:

• 19:45, 23 March 2014: Stable article
• 23:19, 3 May 2014: Werieth removes Non-free media with rationales
• 15:23, 22 May 2014: nasa-verve adds back in media with edit summary: (Re-add images that I proposed per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finder_(software)#Fair-use_images_on_Finder_.28software.29 both of which have acceptible WP:FUR)]
• 15:25, 22 May 2014: Werieth removes 18,000 bytes from article, gutting it, without building any consensus at all

Nasa-verve (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I did cite several reasons for the removal of the content, The material that Im removing is poorly sourced, non-relevant change log. We dont include trivial information about a product. I removed the cruft and promotional materiel that is unencyclopedic. Werieth (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• What is your excuse for repeatedly (4 times now) removing 20k / 80% of text content from this article? You have yet to give even a relevant edit summary for this. NFC, your usual excuse, is no reason for deleting this much text. Nor is there any excuse for your threat to block another editor under NFCC for restoring this text. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see this outcome by @Magog the Ogre: where Werieth was warned, its a very similar case. If the images stay removed through Werieth's edit war, they "immediately become speedyable as orphaned fair use" (quote from Magog link). Nasa-verve (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Werieth might have been able to justify edit warring over removing just the images, but over massive blocks of content? And the claim the content is unsourced, when we are talking about a major component of a significant operating system, meaning that it's a matter of cleanup to find those sources (We're not talking about a significant amount of OR). Of course, Nasa-verve edit warred as much, it shouldn't have gotten to this point, but to be clear that there's no way that Werieth could use the NFC exemption allowance for 3RR to justify this behavior. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Masem: My primary issue was the excessive non-free files which where not discussed. I explained the issue several times, and that the article needed a lot of work before we could justify additional non-free media. Nasa-verve seemed to think that because the article referenced the other versions that we need to include an image. I tried to explain the issues with the article but Nasa-verve didnt listen. I told Nasa-verve that if they wanted to re-add the files I would go through and clean up the cruft from the article instead of just leaving it to be fixed by someone else, I also stated that Nasa-verve wouldnt like the result as the article was in poor shape. Nasa-verve agreed to that, re-added the the files, and I proceeded to tag/remove material as needed. Werieth (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I never agreed to you gutting the article. I was accepting that which I was powerless over: you doing whatever you had already decided and you would not address the points I raised. Please do not forget that these images have proper fair use rational. Nasa-verve (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As I have said, fair use has no meaning on wikipedia, we are limited by WP:NFCC which is far more strict than fair use. I addressed the root issues. Citing WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt valid, and citing anything other than WP:NFCC is pointless as WP:NFCC supersedes any other policy in regards to usage of non-free media. If a file doesnt meet WP:NFCC it cannot meet any other policy you quoted. I did address the issues you just dont like the response so you have attempted to wikilawyer your way to ignoring the real issues. Werieth (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The point, though, is that while going through and removing cruft and in the effort to handle NFC problems, and doing so BOLDly is fine, editing warring over the text content that you removed is by no means acceptable; there is no such excemption for that under 3RR. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: And I never claimed that there was an exception for the associated cruft that I removed. What I stated was that NFCC enforcement has a exemption clause from 3RR, and that if Nasa-verve refused to abide by it, it was an option. I also noted that neither of us had violated 3RR, and that Nasa-verve would be the first one to do so if they pushed it. Had that happened I was just going to throw a report here and have them blocked. All I actually stated was that it was a road I would rather not go down, but that was there. Werieth (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Example: File:Finder.png (one of the files you are edit warring to re-add) is almost identical to File:Finder Lion.png. If the files are that close to each other we dont need both. Especially since there is no critical commentary on the visual elements and differences . Werieth (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: my specific proposal that I wrote here stated that I only proposed to keep File:Finder10.png and File:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png. I never intended to keep File:Finder.png Nasa-verve (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There is zero critical commentary about File:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png and just a very short bit of text about the v9. No where close to meeting WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: The image illustrates exactly what is stated in the text "Finder 9 was the last major update to the classic Mac OS Finder." That screen shot illustrates the finder window, as the next version (10.x) looked completely different. If this is not satisfactory Werieth, please explain to me in detail what type of details would be necessary to provide "critical commentary" and secondly, please provide text which establishes this anywhere in policy (specifically that an article with NFCC requires enough critical commentary on it), because I read all of WP:NFCC over again, and did not get that out of it, in the way that you state it. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: This proposal was an attempt I made at a compromise to keeping all 4 historical screen captures of the Finder (software). I believe all 4 conform to WP:NFCC. But in a spirit of WP:compromise, I said that keeping only 2 would be satisfactory (see comment immediately preceding.) But Werieth made no such consolation, instead removing 80% of the textual content of the article to support his entrenched position. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The important fact that both he and yourself did more than one cycle, which while not exactly 3RR, is still going in the wrong direction with neither side "right" here. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree Masem. hangs head Okay, lets get serious here. I made some strides to offer details where Werieth had difficulty (and perhaps others would as well), by employing the {{Non-free use rationale software screenshot}} template in these edits here. (Perhaps you could suggest this to folks not familiar in the future Werieth?) Does this help us move in the right direction? Nasa-verve (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nasa-verve: Ill repeat myself for at least the third time, its not about the text on the file description page, it is about the content of the article. As I said before improve the article content and then the issue of non-free media can be discussed. According to WP:NFCC Finder 9 was the last major update to the classic Mac OS Finder. does not support the usage of any non-free media. Just because something exists doesnt mean that we need a picture. NFCC#1 states that if an image can be replaced it should be. There is nothing tying the image to the text and the only purpose of the image is to establish that Finder 9 existed. Thus the image can be replaced with text. I could continue with each failure point again, but Ive already done it. Werieth (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed both. Nasa-verve (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

3O Outcome

Okay, here is the outcome of the 3O. I am okay with leaving the article the way it is under material gets added back in with proper sources; and I'm okay with images expiring and getting deleted. Nasa-verve (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

3O Quote:

werieth and Nasa-verve Reading the above discussion and comparing the two given versions, I feel that the main reason those Fair use images don't fulfil WP:NFCC, is because most of the content it originally was supported by, is unsourced in the first place; this is the main problem here. If this article can be expanded with good references, and if these images are relevant to it, then they can be uploaded again. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC) @Ugog Nizdast:

User:69.196.171.23 reported by User:Obiwankenobi (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Jodie Foster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC) "Violates WP:BLPCAT, which is enshrined in a policy and thus overrides a discussion on the talk page. Sorry Binksternet."
2. 14:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610354288 by Obiwankenobi (talk) You can't overrule a policy."
3. 14:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610354830 by Obiwankenobi (talk) Sorry, but I'm simply enforcing policy. Until Foster says she is gay or bi or a member of the LGBT community, the categories stay off."
4. 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610357041 by Obiwankenobi (talk) Local consensus does not and can not overrule policy. Also, there was no such consensus - look again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jodie Foster. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring after close of a community-wide RFC on the topic which had plenty of participation, but this one IP doesn't agree, so they edit war. I suggest a block, since warnings have been given and they continue to revert. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad Block The IP is actually correct. BLPCAT does actually say what he says it does, and no rfc can change that as it's policy. Please overturn. Kosh Vorlon    18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the three RfCs on the talk page, Foster should be in the 'LGBT' categories but should not be described as a lesbian. So the IP who is reverting to remove the LGBT categories is in the wrong and the block is correct. The language of WP:BLPCAT does not contradict this. According to the RfC, Foster is married to a woman. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw the RFC's, but the RFC's can't be used to over-ride policy, especially on BLP's. The IP's still correct Kosh Vorlon    20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, the RFC's aren't over-riding policy, they're interpreting policy in a grey area. Now one could disagree with how they've interpreted it, but that isn't the same as saying an RFC is invalid because it interprets it differently than you do, and it certainly can't mean that anyone can edit war to ignore an RFC because they interpret BLP more strictly than the RFC does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SumerianPrince reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SumerianPrince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 10 Dec 2013 (by IP 117.194.x.x, self admitted by the user that this is his IP)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19 May (by IP)
2. 26 May
3. 27 May
4. 27 May (by IP)
5. 28 May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning, EW block

Comments:
Persistently edit warring using IP and registered account to restore POV content. Since this article is in the domain of WP:ARBIP discretionary sanction, I would like the closing admin to please at least inform the user about this. -- SMS ^Talk 15:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

My response to the charge above

This is in response to your message on my Talk. I have used exclusively one user-account to edit which is this that I have made those edits with and am using now. As to my alleged use of sock-puppetry with IP's I did make a couple of edits when I was logged out (I do not keep myself constantly logged into WIKI) in a bit of haste. Every edit that you will see in the revision page is from IP's 117.194*. That is on account of my Net connection having a moving IP and not a fixed one. (As this is a large city and so is the network there will be many more users with edits made from 117.194* on various pages of WIKI. The IPs keep moving each time for each user when he/she logs onto the Net and its almost never the same except for the first two numbers.) However those made from those IPs on the two concerned pages are mine I concede. By definition, I have not indulged in sock-puppetry, the reason being that I know for a fact that what I have been claiming on that page is correct. My apologies if that were to be still considered sock-puppetry.

Furthermore, please look at this message I left on the Talk of User:VSmith, an admin I have interacted with prior, long before I was reported and you conveyed the same to me. I have clearly mentioned there that a couple of my edits have appeared under 117.194*. I reported User:Smsarmad and the other user User:Maharashtra1 (to User:VSmith) along with a London-based IP 81.157* for repeated vandalism, removal of reliable references, and sock-puppetry. You can see for yourself from that edit that I did concede on my own that those edits were made by me without logging into that account.

These nationalists insert all kinds of BS in the analogous India articles and yet remove reliable references from those like the two in contention here. My issue was primarily with the Gallup poll at http://www.gallup.com/poll/161159/americans-least-favorable-toward-iran.aspx which shows pakistan as a heavily 'unfavored' nation in the US. I put up that as a reference for that pakistan is disliked (along with an article from huffingtonpost.com). The user keeps deleting them from two different usernames and one IP.

I again apologize that I did not show the patience in logging in and making the edits that I wanted to every time. Looking back at the revision history of the page [[35]] its been reverted again and again. I would not have been making those edits in the first place if a well-referenced claim like that was not being repeatedly deleted which I hope you shall appreciate. Moreover I am pretty sure that Ssarmad and Maharashtra1 are the same user editing from 81.157*.

SumerianPrince (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Whichever admin closes this might also look at User talk:EdJohnston#Then kindly advise for the editor's responses. It appears that a conventional block may be justified, which they might avoid by promising to behave better, assuming that they do. I must not be the only one to think that SumerianPrince's comment above isn't much of a defence against an edit warring charge. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Having read your response to my message on your Talk I again reiterate that I am not going to 'edit-war' on India/Pakistan/SouthAsian pages/articles. Not just for the next 14 days but for as long as I edit on WIKI. I must also say this again - that every time I might have been involved in 'edit-wars' - I was cornered for 3RR/warring and not pushing POV or OR or not using RS. TBF sometimes it gets difficult on WIKI when somebody reverts righteous claims with appropriate references. HOWEVER, eventually if at the end of the exercise, I find that what I think is right does not materialize, AS WELL AS that I am blocked, obviously it makes little sense to carry on. So again I do not intend to edit directly on that or ANY page in that category. SumerianPrince (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not necessary to promise to ban yourself completely from articles that are in your area of interest. You should simply read WP:BRD (essentially 1RR) and promise to abide by it, using the article's talk page after you have been reverted to explain how your edit improves the article. You don't use article talk pages much at all, but you should be using them all the time when you find yourself in a dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, Sir, and you are right in that I seldom use the Talk Page. Probably 90% of the time I refrain from using iffy refs (and in the first place the claims I make are well-supported by these usually solid refs). Here it is clear that the person does not want to see what he does not like. I mean a Gallup poll says that over 80% Americans dislike pakistan while only 14% do not. The site is authentic. Having been in the US as a student, and possibly returning there next year, I know its well-known. Somewhat I feel a discussion on the Talk would only serve the purpose of such people from prevaricating any chance of allowing the appropriate edit to materialize. As you have said, in future I shall open a discussion on the Talk page abiding by 1RR, but in the face of weak/flimsy/vacuous arguments there, I shall approach Admins like yourself and EdJohnston, who I believe shall do justice. SumerianPrince (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As admins can see the above user is a sock he conveniently "forgets" to log in when reverting stuff and is simply deluded on the meaning of authenticity he claims a poll explains some sort of anti-Pakistan sentiment and the source clearly does not explain anything there are hundreds of polls carried out and they do not help explain not verify the utter ridiculous pov of our Indian pov pusher above. Being a student abroad I have experienced blah blah should give an indication of what school of thought this user was brought up on sadly Indians are so obsessed with there hatred for Pakistan they spread this phobia on wikipedia and pollute it his intention is obviously "Americans like Indians more" idea has no place on wikipedia sadly this view is part and parcel of Indian culture and they have been brainwashed into thinking this is a worldwide view he bases his garbage on his personal "experience" and a poll its far far to weak to have an inclusion of a pov pusher in this article. Maharashtra1 (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Anti-Pakistan sentiment. The user doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia policy and is resistant to learning it. The unconvincing excuses above are making things worse for him. ("Somewhat I feel a discussion on the Talk would only serve the purpose of such people from prevaricating any chance of allowing the appropriate edit to materialize.") People on the other side are offering "weak/flimsy/vacuous arguments". He has a previous block for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:92.226.89.115 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: Warned)

• User being reported: 92.226.89.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pages in dispute: Anno Mundi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ,

• Civil calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and others

User is making a series of edits that, within a picture caption, falsely equate Civil calendar with Anno Domini and falsely indicates London does not observe Anno Domini year numbering:[36], [37]. Also defies WP:ERA. Correction reverted: [38]. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Rolltheblunt reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:40, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 19:41, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 06:04, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
4. 06:07, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
5. 06:09, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
6. 08:51, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
7. 08:52, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
8. 09:38, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
9. 15:47, 28 May 2014 (edit summary: "")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:

One of Rolltheblunt’s colleagues, 83.237.225.85 (talk), made a series of analogous reverts at Right Sector:

1. 16:33, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
2. 16:53, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
3. 17:42, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")
4. 18:22, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "")

83.237.225.85 was blocked by Ëzhiki at 19:33, 27 May 2014.[42]
Rolltheblunt made his first contribution to Right Sector at 19:40, 27 May 2014.
--Dervorguilla (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I should note that the edits themselves are a POV push that have failed source verification, making the warring attempt doubleplus bad --Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for edit warring as well as POV pushing. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Relapse of edit warring since 25 May at Crimean status referendum, 2014:

  Edit being reverted: [43]

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47] (after block expiration)

Petr Matas 11:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HurluGumene reported by User:Spike Wilbury (Result: Blocked)

Page: 14 On Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HurluGumene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:50, May 27, 2014‎
2. 12:59, May 28, 2014‎
3. 19:46, May 28, 2014‎
4. 20:19, May 28, 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]

Comments: This user insists on adding exhaustive setlists for each show to this and other articles. Despite no fewer than three other editors disputing the additions and consensus on the article talk page that they don't belong, HurluGumene continues to edit war. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks by Hahc21.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:72.50.87.238 reported by User:Mercy11 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Luis A. Ferré (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.50.87.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

This anonymous IP engaged in edit warring with identical claims and reverts at 7 other biographies as well as follows:

1. Luis Muñoz Marín
2. Pedro Pierluisi (Puerto Rican Congressman)
3. Carlos Romero Barceló
4. Rafael Hernández Colón
5. Pedro Rosselló
6. Sila María Calderón
7. Aníbal Acevedo Vilá
8. Luis Fortuño

End. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

As per the text utilized above, "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." As Wikipedia's logs will show, there has not yet been a violation of the 3RR by this profile. Furthermore, the 3RR is applicable in the context of one article. There are no rules on the edition of multiple articles. Furthermore, as the logs will also show, Mercy's invitation to discuss the contested edits have been answered. As of yet, Mercy has preferred to serve notification of this procedure instead of offering good faith discussion. This is likely, because the actual letter of the law support my edits, and he cannot muster an argument refuting said legal sources. Therefore, Mercy resorts to censorship instead of ceding the point, as he is obviously wrong. 72.50.87.238 (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bigidilijak reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Blocked for 72h)

Page

Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bigidilijak (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 09:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC) to 09:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 09:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610598965 by Freemesm (talk)"
   2. 09:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Activities in 2013 */"
2. 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC) "WP:DLR"
3. 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [62] by Freemesm.
• [63] by myself.
• [64] by Bbb23.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continues to add WP:COPYVIO from this blog. G S Palmer (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Finally I did not do WP:COPYVIO. Please see it: [65]. User:Freemesm continues to add WP:DPL. 2 days ago User:Freemesm was already blocked for 48 hours. Please see also the 3RR warning [66] [67]. He still started disprutive editing here: [68] Bigidilijak (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You still committed copyvio: that's just a diff of fixing it. And that's still Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. G S Palmer (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h - user clearly does not understand copyvio or sourcing after numerous warnings. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Freemesm reported by User:Bigidilijak (Result: Reporter blocked for 72h)

Page

Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & 2013 Operation at Motijheel Shapla Chattar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]
• [74]
• [75]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[76] [77]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is continuing to add WP:DPL.Two days ago User:Freemesm was already blocked for 48 hours. He still started disprutive editing here: [78] Bigidilijak (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Can you explain why some of Freemesm's reverts are removing material repeatedly added by you but sourced to a blog on two different pages and copyright violations added at least twice by yourself? I would suggest that if any editor needs a block here, it would be yourself for tendentious editing and copyright violation. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• I removed the copyright violationBigidilijak (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Look here [79] another user has written something about freemesmBigidilijak (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• No, you didn't. It's fairly clear that you haven't responded to the above concerns.
• Reporter blocked for 72h - see above. Black Kite kite (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Uishaki reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

Page: 1838 Druze attack on Safed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uishaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81]
2. [82]
3. [83]
4. [84]
5. [85]
6. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

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

Comments:

User was alerted to WP:ARBPIA sanctions [88] and recently was placed on 0RR for one week for violations thereof [89] (that week expired without incident). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User reverted once more [90] after being notified of this report. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. According to the article, the Druze were joined by Muslims in the anti-Jewish pogrom, which might explain why the IP user kept changing the category. Either way, the two editors should discuss the matter rather than continually revert each others changes. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

multiple users and multiple anonymous IPs reported by User:BMRR (Result: Locked)

Page: Return to Oz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: multiple users and multiple anonymous IPs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Edit warring since May 23... please view the page history to see what's happening. BMRR (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sonici reported by User:Dougweller (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC) "Don't delete the facts, or don't use our culturel instrument here..!"
2. 17:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC) "Source:Mehmet Bilgin's researchers,other sources: look at the Cumans in Byzantine,and Savafid(Iran) Turks in southern Caucasia..first time they've seen Turkic Cumans in Georgia,and met with Cumancha(Kemenche) OR don't write here our instrument, proudless."
3. 16:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC) "Source:Mehmet Bilgin's researchers,other sources: look at the Cumans in Byzantine,and Savefid(Iran) Turks in southern Caucasia..first time they've seen Turkic Cumans in Georgia,and met with Cumancha(Kemenche) OR don't write here our instrument, proudless."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Slow edit war at Kemenche - editor has been blocked 3 times for edit warring (twice by me) - see also [91]. 3 editors have now reverted him. This goes back to February[92] when he added similar material 3 times and was reverted by 3 different editors, only one being an editor who has reverted him this time - that led to a block by me. I also note [93] where he deleted material he didn't like from a talk page. Basically we seem to have a nationalist edit warrior here. One of his edit summaries states "I'm a Turkist-Turanist researcher " (see Turanism and all of his edits reflect this agenda. Maybe I should be taking this to AN or ANI to ask for a ban or indefinite block at this point as virtually all of his edits have been reverted? Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Soffredo#October 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Soffredo#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox of Elizabeth II; Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox; Talk:Elizabeth II#Number of realms

Comments:

User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP (Result: )

Page

Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of 3RR warning

• [99].
• [100].
• [101].
• [102].
• [103].
• [104].

Comments:
User:Srnec violated the rule of three reversions and this is not the first time that he do it.--EeuHP (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarks: In defense of Srnec , just check the history on Peter III of Aragón. I suspect that the IP 88.21.38 is the same as the party reporting this incident who is bent on imposing his criteria. See also discussion page of the respective article on an attempt to reach a consensus. --Maragm (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You can suspect all that you wish, but I know that I'm not the IP. And Srnec violated the rule by third time and it's time for him to be apperceived.--EeuHP (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)