Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive273

User:Ashtul reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Withdrawn, sent to AE)

Page

Community settlement (Israel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "/* History and today */ after new rewrite is redundant"
2. 12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ Passage I transferred earlier but seem redundant"

Previous block notice for 1RR violation

[1]

Comments:

Violation of 1RR on ARBPIA -- removes the same passage twice in less than 24 hours, the second time after it had been restored by a different editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Ashtul respond

I suggest Nomoskedasticity will spend his time better editing then trying to eliminate other users whose edits he wp:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

The first sentence about Neve Monosson appears already at the very top and thus is redundant. The second repeats arguements the are already in the article which was recently had tons of material added and Beitar Illit isn't even a community settlement anymore. A massive revert of multiple changes from earlier eliminated this change. It has 0 significance. You can ask Nishidani and with all our disagreements, I'm certain he will agree.

It will be usefull if you were involved in the details before accusing me with such nonsense.

Nice try but move on. Ashtul (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I was indeed mistaken by the time at the gignature as the time as my computer was at 0GMT instead of +2GMT. I have change the settings in order to prevent this from happening in the future. Ashtul (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Again today at Karmei Tzur

• Ist revert at 17:37, 22 February 2015‎

This was restored by User:Nableezy

• 2nd revert 18:35, 23 February 2015‎

What's the excuse/explanation this time round? Nishidani (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Waiting until exactly 24 hours is still edit warring and gaming. Especially with no discussion on the talk page in the mean time. This seems like a clear 1RR violation to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The second revert on Karmei Tzur is explained in my edit summery. deleted pic related to content eliminated by Nableezy. Too bad Nishidani failed to mention that. Ashtul (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've moved this report to WP:AE, as suggested by EvergreenFir. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:Amortias (Result: 1 week)

Page

Algerian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Do not deletre reliably sourced content"
2. 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Do not delete reliably sourced content"
3. 17:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Do not replace reliably sourced content. You've asked to provide your sour sources in the talk page."
4. 18:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Do not delete sourced content, use the talk page like I asked you numerous times"
5. 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "I cannot reach consensus with someone who refuse to discuss the issue. You will be reported if you keep replacing relaibly sourced content with unsourced one"
6. 18:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "I do not need consensus to provide reliably sourced content and delete unsourced one"
7. 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Do not replace reliable sourced content with unsourced BS"
8. 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Funny how anonymous IPs accuse others of vandalism while delting reliably sourced content"
9. 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Do not replace reliably sourced content with crap you haven't read"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Algerian War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Currently at 10 Reverts within 24 hours. No attempt to reach consensus at talk page. Amortias (T)(C) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm ^X 23:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Users Toghuchar, Mehmeett21, and Uniquark9 reported by User:3family6 (Result: users blocked 3 days, page protected 1 week)

Page: List of Turkic dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Toghuchar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Uniquark9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an ongoing RfC on the talk page, and all three users have been warned multiple times, and have been reported on this noticeboard before.

Comments: The article was protected for two weeks due to months-long pervasive edit warring. There is an RfC in progress, but there is no sign of any consensus being reached any time soon. After the protection on the article dropped, the edit war resumed once again. Right now I'm just trying to preserve the protected version, even though I disagree with some of the listings. I made few small changes for better clarity and in once instance to try and improve accuracy to help in resolving the dispute.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC) </ br>

I'm tagging Kansas Bear, Rajmaan, and Bishonen, since they've been involved in previous disputes regarding these editors and this page.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time to look into this later. In the meantime, I'll ping Future Perfect at Sunrise and EdJohnston, who are well aware of recent issues, compare this section on my talkpage. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

It appears Uniquark9, who was previously reported for edit warring has now decided to edit war[2][3] on this article as well. Is it time to end this nonsense? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

[4][5][6] Users on both sides of the edit war need to be dealt with for edit warring and refusing to discuss on the talk page. They've been warned repeatedly to stop it when they edit warred before page protection was added and then just started doing it again after the page protection lifted. Madyas was helping Mehmeett21 edit war before he got blocked for a week.Rajmaan (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Each user Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've also reinstated the full page protection for an additional 1 week. Swarm ^X 03:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The page was restored to the contentious edit warred version by the banned User:Madyas. Is there any reason why you can't revert it to the January 18th version before the edit warring started?Rajmaan (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, done. Swarm ^X 04:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sevvyan reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Protected)

Page: Boris Kalamanos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sevvyan

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] (user is warned about edit warning) [14] (user is informed of a request for third opinion)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] (dispute on talk page is initiated)

Comments:

• This is nonsense. There has been no more than 1-2 reverts in this "dispute" that's going on for mere 2-3 days. The other party filed this report in bad faith, as a precaution after I warned him I would file one myself. On the "dispute": the other party is the sole opinion, and he never sought consensus to overturn my good-faith synthesis of two published works which, according to Jimbo Wales, is part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia.Sevvyan (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  

• "1-2 reverts"? I count the word "Undid" in edit summaries 7 times in the last 3 days. Both sides are guilty of failing to follow WP:BRD here, and so perhaps they can agree to something on the talk page for the week in which the article will not be editable. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Chemsdine-badouri (Result: Nominating editor blocked)

Page: List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Omar-toons (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. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19] 14:55, 24 February 2015

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

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

Comments:
Edit warring and POV pushing since 5 February 2015. Currently at 4 Reverts within less than 24 hours. No attempt to reach consensus. Chemsdine-badouri (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• A couple of hours ago, Drmies semi-protected this article for 14 days because of persistent sock-puppetry (and blocking Sidihmed (talk · contribs) per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student/Archive). And now we have someone on their very first edit to Wikipedia reporting someone here? What are the chances of that? Bencherlite^Talk 19:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Name corrected in the original report (should be "-toons", not "-Toons"). See also WP:ANI#Wikihounded by "newcomers". Bencherlite^Talk 19:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• The edits also appear to fall into the WP:3RR#EXEMPT for vandalism I'm also hearing a faint quacking noise getting louder .Amortias (T)(C) 19:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• What are your thoughts on his edit warring? Chemsdine-badouri (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As I think you're a sockpuppet, let's see what happens with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historian Student. Bencherlite^Talk 19:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked, a clear case of WP:NOTTHERE, nothing wrong with Omar-toons edits. Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Blocked)

Page: 24 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jimthing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Since February 21, he has reverted 12 times, despite being reverted by five editors, and basically had to be forced to the talk page.

Diff of first edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of second edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Editor has also been warned by User:The Rambling Man: [27], with rather heated discussion following.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
Jimthing feels he is right, that only the policy he favors applies, and that allows him to edit war and ignore other policy endlessly. He's been reverted by three editors, warned more than once, and the article has been page protected; nothing helps. He's determined that the one policy he wants to apply allows him the absolute right to ignore others, edit disruptively, ignore WP:3RR along with a number of other policies and generally WP:OWN the article. For an editor as experienced as he is, he demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of policies and practice, beginning with WP:BRD, WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS. Drmargi (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

You on the other hand are snow white. You continually edited against WP policy which I went to the trouble of quoting to you A NUMBER OF TIMES that negates the use of "U.S." on the page concerned, and haven't even bothered to comment on the DRN I opened accordingly. While also slandering me because another IP address user had left a comment, somehow giving you some right to accuse me of puppetry (with no evidence to back it up whatsoever!), saying rude comments like this "Sadly, the Brits never bother to understand how we us U.S. versus USA, then presume to tell us how to abbreviate the name of our own country." And then go on to delete comments that went against what you said, which is also in clear violation of WP policy on doing so. Pot calling kettle black? Jimthing (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimthing has made about 13 reverts on 'US' vs 'U.S.' at 24 (TV series) since 21 February. The *policy* on edit warring takes precedence over any guideline concerns, no matter who is right about the underlying issue. In my opinion Jimthing might be able to avoid a block for edit warring if he will promise to make no reverts on style questions (like U.S. vs US) for the next two weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ed, you may want to look at Jimthing's 12 reverts in fewer than 24 hours (February 21, leading to a PP and, incredibly, no block by Sarek of Vulcan) at Better Call Saul, including his exchanges on its talk page and that of User:Drovethrughosts [29] (see also the next edit, where Drovethrughosts asks him to stop harassment), the edit warring on my own talk page beginning here, and particularly the exchange with The Rambling Man linked above to see how he justifies the extensive edit warring for which he's been allowed to coast, and responds to previous efforts by multiple editors to stop his edit warring. He's out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and policy beyond the one lone guideline he's trying to push is simply an inconvenience to be ignored. --Drmargi (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My observation is that in this dispute, Drmargi has been less than kind and collegial toward Jimthing, engaging in ad hominem personal attacks that include accusing Jimthing of sock- and meat-puppetry as well as making prejudiced comments about British editors (which Jimthing is). Not to mention some of her snide edit summaries in Jimthing's direction. All of this, along with her own participation in edit warring over the article in question, has just put more fuel on the fire. Drmargi is far from innocent in this dispute. If any kind of sanctions or blocks result from this report, I think a boomerang just might be applicable. But, that's me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi those discussions were perfectly civil on my end, so trying to colour them bad is appalling behaviour yet again. "Harassment" as you call it, means removing my explanations from their talk pages in the middle of discussions, as a typical WP methodology of hiding previous conversation; hence why I added them back in order to at least attempt a civil discussion but instead being accused needlessly of "harassment" as an easy get out of discussing anything further. Just the same as you do on your talk page (and others), by selectively removing the parts of the conversation you feel don't suit your argument [30] [31] [32] et several more. And not forgetting your exuberant pronouncements on what "I'm out to do" (i.e. ad hominem) rather than what I was actually doing, which was quite clearly editing according to the rules I listed clearly over and over, against which you simply ignored over and over again, to instead go with ad hominem comments like "the Brits never bother to understand how we us U.S. versus USA, then presume to tell us how to abbreviate the name of our own country." (clearly you see some nationalistic xenophobic pride here, or something equally ridiculous), and "restored his attack post this AM, which I've removed again, and will continue to remove it. Too bad he lacks the courage to discuss without attacking, much less to avoid logging on as an IP to level such a crass one. Meanwhile, he remains blinkered to WP:NOTUSA in his effort to make American English articles British" ('he' supposedly being me, despite words like "jerk" being used by that IP-only address user, a word a Brit would likely never use!), et al. I could go on, but I think I've made the point quite clear enough as to your appalling behaviour in the face of other users explanations as to exactly what they are editing and why. Jimthing (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. To avoid a block, Jimthing could have agreed not to revert any style changes for two weeks but didn't respond to my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Knowledgekid87 reported by User:Inks.LWC (Result: No action)

Page: January 2015 North American blizzard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
There has been some back and forth reverting between three editors on the article in question as to whether the phrase " by The Weather Channel," should be included in the lead section. As of now, Knowledgekid87 is the only editor of the three who has violated 3RR. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This may be a technical violation, but the specific revert Knowledgekid87 reverted as the fourth revert listed by Inks.LWC above was by Calidum with whom it appears there was some sort of mutual agreement to remove. I understand that this was just between those two, but I still think this is nothing worthy of much more than a notice in my opinion (at least yet, on the part of Knowledgekid87). Dustin (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We reached an agreement on the talk-page [40] and the bit that was contested was removed by me. Per WP:BRD the status quo should have been kept intact, since this report was done another editor has undone the weather channel bit as being WP:UNDUE, and WP:PROMOTION [41] and this whole thing was a misunderstanding on what was removed in the first place. [42] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the thread at Talk:January 2015 North American blizzard#The use of the TWC name in the first line is an endorsement of TWC. it seems that an agreement has been reached. The name 'Juno' will be kept in the lead but The Weather Channel will not be mentioned. If anyone believes there are still unresolved issues, consider opening an RfC or a DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Mrs_E_Nigma reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. That's...strange. Possibly a vandal but I'll assume good faith for now. If the problem persists let us know. Swarm ^X 22:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CSWP1 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 2 days)

Page

Talk:Juliano Mer-Khamis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CSWP1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books: Removing the baseless accusations of a now-banned user"
2. 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC) "(Undid revision 644350594 by Nableezy (talk) bullys gonna bully)"
3. 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books: I'll leave Sean's comment. It seems you guys want it for weight. But his mudslinging has no place here, especially since he's been topic banned for exactly this kind of behavior"
4. 05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647661917 by Nableezy (talk) His accusation is being taken out. He speaks it as if it is fact, when it is merely his mudslinging."
5. 01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
2. 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
3. 09:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
4. 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Link to User Page

Comments:

This editor has repeatedly deleted another editor's talk page comments. Depite the editor's repeated claims, the editor whose comments s/he has been removing, who has retired from Wikipedia, is neither banned nor topic-banned. Editor has been warned about this several times, yet continues, and has again removed the comment since this investigation has opened. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

*Sigh*, even after being warned by RolandR and various other users, CSWP1 still continues to edit other editors' comments. This seems to be a clear example of WP:NOTHERE. AcidSnow (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Please let us know if the problem persists. Swarm ^X 22:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Kraainem reported by User:ChamithN (Result: Warned about personal attacks)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648433805 by Wuerzele (talk)What makes a source about business in general and market platforms in general an unreliable source. Please discuss on Talk Page and quote WP policy."
2. 15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648479663 by Aoidh (talk)Surely consensus is required to delete? All new edits only enter after previous consensus? Nothing (blank space) cannot be status quo."
3. 16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648489411 by ChamithN (talk)You revert my reliable reference and then state I give no reference. Very strange. Plse dont remove referenced input."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
2. 15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
3. "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bitcoin."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

You have to ignore the revert of the proposer of this ban ChamnithN´s edit where he or she deleted my edit that had a reliable source with the comment from her or him that I had no source. This is what he/ she reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=648500433&oldid=648493044

You can all see the reference. Are you all now going to say no, ChamithN did not revert a reliable reference? He or she did revert a reliable reference and then to add insult to injury, he or she stated that I had no source and went to great lengths giving me instructions how to edit with a reliable source. Are you all going to ignore ChamithN´s mistake. I told him or her on his or her talk page that I forgive him or her for the mistake. Surely you cannot count that revert of his or her honest mistake for the purposes of your ban that is just wasting your and my time: I have given up on improving the article regarding bitcoin in Russia. it is very clear that you are not interested in that. Now ban me quickly, although ChamithN lied about me not having given a source. I know all of you are going to say you cannot see that: that you are temporarily blinded for this purpose. Obviously you cannot delete a reference and then tell someone: hey, you have no reference and then round up people to ban this person who supplied a reliable reference but will not accept to be told that the reliable reference that is now still there in the history, never existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraainem (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)*Comment - I'm not sure about this apparent 180° out of nowhere on the talk page, but they haven't violated WP:3RR and apparently have stopped after being warned and instead went to the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Look ChamithN, If you want to ban me because you made the mistake of reverting my fully referenced edit on top of which you had the gall to lie - for everyone to see in the article history - lying that I had no reference (when I have/had one), then ban me. If that is how you operate here on WP, then, go for it. There is absolutely nothing under the sun I can do for you if that is how you operate. Go ahead, ban me for life and really enjoy your cheap thrill. I was gracious to you and forgave you a few times for the mistake you made. That had absolutely no effect on you. So, do me a really, really good favour and ban me for life from Wikipedia - for your mistake. Kraainem (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to see someone getting blocked who is here to make constructive edits. But as far as I (and some other editors) can see most of your edits does not reflect Wikipedia policies. And in fact here you have violated one of the most important rule, which is 3RR. 3RR is common to all editors so no it's not just you. You can report me if you see me violating 3RR. User:Aoidh warned you about the 3RR when you were close to trigger it. Either you didn't care about it or you didn't notice it. Anyhow Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please read guidlines and other policies before making a significant change. And no it wouldn't be a lifetime ban. Probably a day or two. Blocking you is solely an administrator decision. I'm not an administrator. I have no intention of banning you preventing you from editing Wikipedia. I do not own Wikipedia. I reported you to 3RR noticeboard simply because you have violated 3RR. Best--Chamith (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

ChamithN, you lack character. You lie a lot. You are still very young. You have a long way to go. We all pass the way you are passing now. Remember, only what is honest and good are worth it/make the grade. You are now still very dishonest. Good luck on your life journey. Kraainem (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I'm looking into this. Back soon. Bishonen | talk 20:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC).

• Warned. Kraainem has violated 3RR on Bitcoin, and shows a poor understanding of the edit warring policy in their comments above, even after being told about it on their page. Please read the linked edit warring policy, Kraainem. On the other hand, as Aoidh points out, Kraainem didn't continue to revert once they had been warned. Therefore, I'm not blocking for edit warring at this time, and letting them off with a strong warning about making personal attacks, as their comments about ChamithN above are completely unacceptable. Completely. If they weren't such a new user, they'd be blocked now. Bishonen | talk 21:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Bishonen: - did you block Kraainem after all? I'm a neutral party in this, coming by the bitcoin page. He was in good faith trying to CORRECT the incorrect information. The information now is absolutely false to the point it is laughable, and does not even match what is in the source. I don't approve of his comment above about ChamithN but I can see why he would be frustrated. I also don't understand why he was told Business Wire is an unreliable source because of a purported "conflict of interest" (never explained) - this whole situation was very shady. This is not the way to treat new editors. Wikimandia (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for commenting, Wikimandia, but that's getting a bit off-topic for this board, so I'll reply on your page. Bishonen | talk 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: )

Page: South Bound Brook, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]

On other articles...

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58]
7. [59]
8. [60]
9. [61]
10. [62]
11. [63]
12. [64]
13. [65]
14. [66] reverted on Feb. 24th, 2015, after being asked for an explanation on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

On the South Bound Brook, New Jersey article, I had made 4 distinct edits in a row. I provided edit summaries for each edit. Instead of picking those edits he disagreed with, he rolled back all 4 edits. I believe all of the edits I made were in keeping with policy, and no consensus has been reached in many discussions to the contrary. In particular, WP:USCITIES states : "if a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section. There should be only one coordinate relating to the article present." That's what I did at this edit. After rolling back all 4 edits--including that one--I reverted that edit and left the edit summary "please pay attention to what you revert; do you really want to add the geo-coordinates that are also in the infobox? Pay attention or go to bed friend." It was no use; he reverted all 4 edits again. I have had nothing but frustration with this editor while trying to make edits to New Jersey articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677 is back to some sick, passive-aggressive "gotcha" game where he feels confident that he will drag me into some sort of punishment in revenge for some long lost crime perpetrated against him. Among many other manufactured battles, he challenged the use of a see also linking to a category more than two full months ago and was told here that "My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles." He started an RfC in the article in question and a review of the responses here demonstrates consensus rebutting his concerns and supporting the practice. In response, Magnolia677 refused to respect this consensus and started yet another one of his edit wars at [68], [69] and [70] in direct contravention of the results of the RfC he started. Simply put, anyone who is here to perpetually pick fights and manufacture provocations is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. No one should have to put up with this shameless abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

"Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link" I'm still trying to figure that one out, because I completely disagree with it. As for the RfC, I tried that in the hope of getting other opinions, but the only one who showed up to comment was another editor who edits in lockstep with Alansohn. This is all smoke and mirrors, and play the victim. This person is a relentless edit warrior, who seems to target me. He must have it his way at all costs. Again, thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

In addition to several other idiosyncratic interpretations of policy, Magnolia677 has waged repeated edit wars (see his list above) over the past several months in which he has fought to remove a "see also" link to a category, arguing that this is an improper use of categories and insisting that I am the only editor to use this method. This issue was discussed at WT:CLN a few months ago, where Magnolia677 was told here that there was no problem. After a few weeks of quiet, he was edit warring again on this subject. After starting an RfC on the matter here, he was told that the practice is appropriate and is widely used in several hundred articles for places around the world; No user supported his stance. After a few more days of quiet he is back to picking fights over this issue, editing articles he has never edited before to create provocations, which are apparently intended to create an edit war. This is an editor with a terrible case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT who keeps on ignoring feedback from third parties telling him that he is incorrect, who proceeds to find new excuses for why the practice is wrong and who keeps on fighting a war that he's already lost just for the sake of fighting. Any suggestions as to how to end this warfare by Magnolia677 will be appreciated, as he seems unwilling to walk away from this petty battling. Alansohn (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I was asking the same question at WP:CAT recently for how to handle a link to alumni from schools. I was told to add the category with colon in front, which I had not thought of before. My problem is not knowing if the category exists already, since it is not usually visible from the parent page. It is a clever way to solve the problem that I had not thought of. This needs to be discussed on a broader scale at the category talk page. I was skeptical of it when it was first introduced, and now I see the utility of it. The category needs to be visible from the parent page, otherwise you will not be aware it exists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Denver Stevenson reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result:blocked)

Page

User talk:Denver Stevenson (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Denver Stevenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826617 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
2. 19:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826665 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826769 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
4. 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826872 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
5. 19:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648826943 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
6. 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827024 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
7. 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827091 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
8. 19:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827178 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
9. 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827211 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
10. 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648827271 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps misusing talk page since he was blocked from editing elsewhere. I had taken this to ANI but I'm not seem to gain consensus so I decided to do such here. ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Patience. Your ANI report is less than 20 minutes old. As soon as an admin wakes up, it'll be dealt with rather quickly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of hours Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: Blocked)

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (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: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73] - user begins shouting, while reverting a 1st editor who removed a bad CSD tag
3. [74] - still shouting, reverted a 2nd editor removing the CSD tag
4. [75] - doesn't say it in the edit summary but is reverting a good faith edit
5. [76] - still shouting, reverted myself (a 3rd editor) removing the CSD tag

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] - which was removed by the user moments later [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Horror Story: Hotel#Contested deletion - discussion was started but LLArrow continued shouting at other editors and reverting to get his way despite being reverted by four other editors about a bad CSD tag.

Comments:
This is the third time LLArrow has been brought to this noticeboard. The user is well aware of the edit warring and 3RR policies.

• [79] - the user seemed to acknowledge they were wrong just after they reverted 9 times and were about to face a block.
• [80] - user once again admitted to being in the wrong, thus being let off the hook again.

This user continues edit warring and getting let off the hook. It's clear they have no intent to stop edit warring because they see they can get out of it just by apologizing once a 3RRN post about them is put up. Also notice the five reverts from today were within an hour's time, not just one day. I'm pinging @EdJohnston: as the closer of the most recent edit warring case on LLArrow. Gloss 18:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Administrator(s), I may not have approached the situation correctly, but I have the right intention. The article needs to be deleted. Editor Gloss has a personal vendetta against me, therefore their comments should be taken with a plump grain of salt. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing against you, I have something against your edit warring, which I've now come across for a third time. You don't have the right intention if you think yelling at other editors and reverting to get your way even during a discussion when 4 editors were reverting you is the right thing. Gloss 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't assume the worst. I am not yelling (which is literally impossible to do digitally), merely enforcing my actions or statements when they are constantly being ignored by reckless editors. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:SHOUTING as I've linked to you already. Gloss 20:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you I've read anything you have, as far regulations and guidelines go. LLArrow (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

So then you must agree you were unnecessarily shouting. I'll not comment further until an admin has taken a look here. Gloss 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Arcobelina reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: Blocked)

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

Last good version: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, with further message on user's talkpage: [86]

Comments: Arcobelina (talk · contribs) is attempting to add the equivalent of the Obama birther conspiracy theories to our article on Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister of Australia. The addition of such material has been discussed on multiple occasions, most recently through September–November last year, with an absolute consensus to not include the material in any form. Arcobelina was likely unaware of this when they made their first edits, but having been alerted to this has continued to add the material. I've engaged Arcobelina on their talk page and also warned them for edit warring, and it's clear that they've read my edit summaries, yet still continued to edit war. I'm conscious that I myself have violating 3RR in reverting Arcobelina's edits, but given they are (1) against consensus, (2) a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, (3) sourced mainly using blogs, and (4) a violation of WP:BLP (and potentially defamatory, in stating that Abbott has deliberately concealed a violation of the constitution), I believe I am fully justified in doing so. This user has shown no interest in engaging with other editors, so I believe a block is in order to prevent further disruptive editing. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ignorantarmies (talk · contribs) is refusing to read what I am posting, I am not starting a racist Tea Party conspiracy theory, I am adding documentation from Tony Abbots own Department of Prime Minsiter and Cabinet that show he has not renounced his British citizenship, which is illegal in Australasia for members of parliament. is the main document which stated very clearly that the renunciation papers do not exist. I want you to reverse all changes made by ignorant armies to my inclusion int he abbott wiki, and stop him or any others from changing factual documentation and citations. His petty complaints and party political allegiances are against what wiki is supposed to be about. Please stop him/her and allow the truth to be on wiki. Arcobelina (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. - Bilby (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

References

User:K7L reported by User:IJBall (Result: Page protected)

Page: Motel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K7L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87] (already there, currently)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1 14:13, February 21, 2015
2. diff2 10:07, February 22, 2015 (notice the completely unprompted removal of {{Use American English}} tag)
3. diff3 11:10, February 22, 2015
4. diff4 06:51, February 23, 2015
5. diff5 08:29, February 24, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (this was actually a WP:ENGVAR warning rather than an WP:Edit warring warning, but the former is the origin of the edit warring)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (this is an old discussion, but it shows how long this has been going on!)

Comments:

There has been a long-running slow-burn edit war going on at the article Motel – I'd say it's been going on for months (diff)... actually years (diff)!

The context is that the article Motel was originally written in American English (e.g. [88]) and by both WP:RETAIN, and based on the original WP:TIES, the article should remain in American English. The {{Use American English}} article tag was added back in 2012 by Chris the Speller (diff), and was restored after discussion and consensus in November 2013, again by Chris the Speller (diff), after it was removed without discussion in September 2012 (diff). Since about July 2013, editor K7L has been Tendentious editing for seemingly years, arguing variously that the article shouldn't be in American English, or that only "British English" is "real English". (Oddly, I've haven't seen evidence that K7L has taken this perspective at any other article...) This recently included trying to remove the {{Use American English}} article tag without discussion (see diff2, above). In any case, this has gone on long enough, and either a warning from an Admin, or a block, seems warranted in this case. --IJBall (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was originally written in British English, most of it by one anon-IP. The topic is not about the United States (which would be the usual reason for tagging something {{use American English}}) but is about motels worldwide. U.S. Route 66 has WP:TIES and, if it turns into a mess of Americanisms, so be it. Motel does not. There is no reason to favour US spelling over English spelling in this instance. There was also no consensus on the question of favouring one dialect over another. Most of the edit warring has been carried out by users who have contributed absolutely nothing to Wikipedia's understanding of motels, except to edit-war US spelling or tags into the page. Unfortunately, at least one of these editors has been repeatedly removing valid contributions to the article just because they weren't in his preferred variant of language. This, more than merely the agenda pushing to turn this article into Motels in the United States, is harming the project as it's interfering with valid attempts to contribute constructively to the topic. Based on the article history, User:‎Oknazevad has been particularly problematic in this regard. ("Chris the Speller" hasn't touched the page in years.) The appearance of "Oknazevad" and "IJBall" WP:RIGHTTHERE at the same time spouting exactly the same line is WP:CANVASSing, as can be seen at User_talk:Oknazevad#Motel. They're not the same user, but the collusion is clear. They've added nothing of value to the article, yet Oknazevad repeatedly reverts valid contributions by others, an ongoing issue for some time now, occasionally making sockpuppet allegations in an attempt to intimidate users into not editing - so the article needs work, but no one can fix it without becoming collateral damage to this ridiculous edit war. K7L (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick rebuttal: Your interpretation on this has been opposed by three long-standing editors over the years: Chris the speller, BarrelProof, and ‎Oknazevad – that is rather hard to ignore. --IJBall (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The article was not written in British English first, as clearly seen in the edit history. It was written in American English first, and that is why the article should remain in it. There is absolutely no requirement of WP:TIES to the US for a article to be in American English, And the dismissive attitude towards American English (calling the valid dialect that is in no way inferior to British English a "mess of Americanisms" is just the latest in a long line of insults) is unacceptable. K7L is the only one insisting on changing the ENGVAR despite having the proper reading of WP:RETAIN explained to them multiple times, by multiple editors. User:Chris the speller told them outright on their and the article's talk page, and instead of remotely listening Chris was insulted and contrib-stalked until he just said to hell with it and walked away. (For those watching along, see here for background.) Yes, the article needs work, but most of the recent additions have been trivial detail at best. But none of it is in remotely good faith if they will not abide by a proper reading of WP:RETAIN, showing actual respect for all national varieties, especially when it has been explained repeatedly. PS, Hate to tell you this, but that was a sock, confirmed by checkuser, and he's been blocked, so there was nothing false there at all. oknazevad (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You're taking content that is being submitted in British English and reverting it outright (removing content, not just spelling) for no better reason than that you like American spelling. This is disruptive. This has been ongoing, for years, and the other users you name have nothing to do with the problem as they haven't touched the page in years. You are disrupting Wikipedia and wilfully interfering with legitimate contribution. I've tried removing some of the trivial detail, including (most recently) a planned for 2012 "Motels of Route 66" documentary that never materialised. That trivia has been put back into the article just to make a WP:POINT of preventing me from contributing to the article, which is abusive. This needs to stop. K7L (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If your contributions were to actually respect the consensus and properly interpret the guideline, I would have no trouble with them. The issue is that a) some of your edits, such as the first one cited here, serve only to change the ENGVAR in contravention of the consensus and the proper interpretation of the guideline, and are blatant violations of consensus and RETAIN, and b) the ones that are not just inapporpiate spelling changes are so trivial that I have a hard time believing that their purpose is anything other that more of the same. After some of these edits, I have no good faith left for this situation. oknazevad (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, I've made substantial changes over the last few years, only to have you arbitrarily revert every one in an attempt to chase me away from contributing to the topic. This is WP:OWN and inexcusable given that your own contributions to Motel, except to edit-war spelling, are zero. Check the edit history. K7L (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Bottom line: You have made no recent efforts to build consensus for your position, and have attempted to remove the {{Use American English}} without discussion, and attempted no discussion when you were reverted by other editors, instead continuing to re-revert. That's pretty much the definition of edit warring. --IJBall (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected until 28 Feb 2015 by User:Ymblanter, so a block is not particularly warranted at this point. However, reviewing the situation, it seems pretty clear that the article was originally written in American English, which remained unchanged as it was slowly developed over the years. K7L is clearly engaged in an edit war in order to alter the variety of English, in clear contrast to WP:RETAIN's "An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another." K7L is warned that, right or wrong, continuation of long-term edit-warring may very well result in a block, but particularly if you're in the wrong. Using American English isn't what makes an article Americentric, and changing the variety of English does not alleviate the problem of bias in an article. I don't see any particular valid reason for your actions. Swarm ^X 01:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Aqlpswkodejifrhugty reported by User:Dcbanners (Result: both editors blocked )

Page

List of The Daily Show episodes (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648970457 by Dcbanners (talk) How about you stop until you actually give a reason why ratings should be here. Look at all the other late night shows. It is not needed."
2. 18:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Yes, every ACTUAL TV SHOW has ratings. This is a late night show. Where the show is on 4 or 5 days a week and the show doesn't ride on 22 episodes and it's ratings to get another season. Look at my user page at the other late night shows."
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) to 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648855387 by Dcbanners (talk) Stop putting ambiguous/no edit summaries in your edits. I have put a clear reason why I don't think this should be here."
   2. 07:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "/* February */"
4. 22:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "Can you read my edit summaries? This is a show that is on 4 days a week. This isn't a regular TV show where that would matter at all (22 episodes where the next season rides on the ratings)."
5. 20:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC) "/* February */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Ratings */ new section"
2. 18:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of The Daily Show episodes (2015). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removing ratings without sufficient reason. Reasons such as "not being an actual TV show" and "Who cares about an outdated system when people mostly watch it on their website or on YouTube". User says uncivil things like "Fuck off with your "Welcome to Wikipedia" and bot bullshit". Dcbanners (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: I've blocked both editors for pretty over-the-top edit warring, and zero use of the talk page. Aqlpswkodejifrhugty for 2 days (first offense, but egregious, and after a warning), Dcbanners for 10 days (previous 1 and 3 day blocks for the same thing haven't registered). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Amandalee222 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: No action)

Page

Yeruham Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amandalee222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "The ENTIRE post was false. A lie. The direct source from which it came, is about a LAKE. It is NOT a dam. The person who made this today, did so, for political reasons and this article is NOT ACCURATE."
2. 00:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Yeruham is a small town situated in the northern Negev, 15 km from Dimona, 520 meters above sea level.'"
3. 00:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "My edit is due to the fact that the original post was FALSE. Not only do I live next to this town, for my whole life of 32 years, but it is not true what was written here. It was CLEARLY edited YESTERDAY as noted in the edit history by somebody."
4. 00:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "again, this is NOT a water area. Why are people who are NOT from Israel allowed to edit this website on what MY TOWN looks like??"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Yeruham Dam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user apparently insists in keeping their removal of content ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not blocked per WP:BITE and WP:AGF. The user explained their edits yet they were reverted without any attempt to communicate with them. Swarm ^X 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Of note as well, if you check my talk, the user apologized for the mistake and explained they perceived the article as being created yesterday to support Palestinian claims of flooding.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome. Hopefully she'll keep contributing! Swarm ^X 21:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:A M R Sydney reported by User:Mo7838 (Result: 24h)

Page: CBD and South East Light Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A M R Sydney (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. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Comments:

A seperate section was established on the article's talk page where the reasons not to include were explained. Four editors have now explained to the editor why his post is not appropriate, yet he continues to insist it be included. Editor would appear to have a conflict of interest given that he has an ongoing gripe with the subject article's proponents [95], has a POV that lies are being told [96] and has had direct meetings with government officials in some form of community representative role.[97]

Editor is making suggestions that other editors are 'apparent political apparatchiks'[98] when it is apparent his postings that are politically motivated. Mo7838 (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And now an editor is suspected of being an employee or consultant posting inside information, he does like his conspiracy theories. [99]. Mo7838 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I'll take a closer look when I get a moment just to make sure this block is sufficient. Swarm ^X 22:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Page protected)

Page: Quantum Leap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101] 00:23, 25 February 2015
2. [102] 01:19, 26 February 2015
3. [103] 01:24, 26 February 2015
4. as sock 145.118.111.106 [104] 02:20, 26 February 2015. (I've opened an SPI, but that's a separate issue.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:
2001:7e8:c6a0:9401:230:48ff:fed7:4cd7 was at the edge of 3RR at Quantum Leap, gaming the system by being just outside 24 hours, as shown below. He then made the exact same edit as 145.118.111.106 in a clear attempt to avoid 3RR sanction. (He also left an uncivil note when I tried to discuss his edit's WP:DATED vio at Talk:Quantum Leap.) Now, under his original IP address, he's back edit-warring.

• Page protected for a period of one month. Swarm ^X 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:101el capitan reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result:blocked)

Page: Qutb Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 101el capitan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]
5. [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113],[114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
User:101el capitan has been edit warring against other editors on Qutb Shah since 10 February 2015. Along with edit warring on Qutb Shah, User:101el capitan has received numerous warnings for edit warring/disruptive editing on at least 2 other articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see where he's ever responded to any of the warnings on his page or on the talk page listed above. He's been given enough warnings to where he should at least know that people are contesting his edits and there's enough content in the warnings to where he should know to communicate at this stage rather than remain quiet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• * Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:200.83.101.199 reported by Hafspajen (Result: IP blocked by Kww)

Page: Wilderness hut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.83.101.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: note there were TWO version removed [116] - [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123] Also - user has a previous historia of behaving aggressively - and on editwarring - before.

This IP started the whole exchange by telling me to that I am irritating and to grow up. What a good way to start a discussion, You provocative and annoying person grow up??? This was the beginning. IP doesn't want to listen to warning and to any arguments , the only thing is happening as soon I leave a message, in ten seconds - IP just goes and removes it. I don't know what kind of interaction was that but - this is not the way to act. That message he kept removing was not only a warning but an explanation about what I was doing. When you start reverting people you should discuss things with them and not remove each and every post non-stop like a machine. Because I was about rewriting the text in the article. IP removed a different text from the article that was first removed - maybe for a reason - that I tried to correct with my next edit. I was about to rewrite it to be less like a guidebook or a list. I was adding references too, I was working on the text and when I hit save three times the text was gone again and again and again - this while I was working on it, trying to add it again in a better form, plus references and all. That text was not so bad that it needed removed, with picture and altogether, when it it could have been easily rewritten. I hoped that by involving an other editor we can now discuss this, at his-her talk. I reverted to last stable version- with a note -do not revert but discuss - because I believe this is the way to proceed when there is an edit war - revert to stable version and then discuss - and was moving everything on this discussion to the talk page - trying to put up a draft, as the other editor -Yngvadottir advised me on IPs talk. Maybe that was wrong, I should have asked someone else from outside do that. And he reverts me again - how GREAT. Is this common sense, politeness, discussing and trying to reach a consensus? I tried to discuss and didn't get anywhere. So I might have not reverted to stable version but all the time I was trying to discuss with him on his talk he went on reverting my edits on his talk WHILE editing the article, so here we are, that's the situation. I am sorry about the revert for stable. I tried but failed to communicate - and might made the mistake to revert to stable, but to be sincere I have no idea how to cope here. He is editing it as we speak now, he never stopped, never discussed. Hafspajen (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Might have poste one twice. I was an extensive introverted monologue going on on the IP page, interrupted by a periodic removals of my posts and comments - well, maybe except for= one comment addressed to me ... You and your ilk cause immense damage to Wikipedia. Witch I really didn't know how to respond. My ilk causing damage, in what way? Hafspajen (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• 200.83.101.199 aka Best known for IP is doing the same thing for which he was blocked a few times earlier. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, trying to make articles comply with core policies is extremely unpopular. The long term War On Quality continues.

Please note that:

• Hafspajen has posted the same diff twice to falsely accuse me of breaking the 3RR

• I see they replaced the duplicated diff with one showing an unrelated edit. I get very bored of this kind of constant low level dishonesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.101.199 (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• They have posted an unrelated edit made by J 1982, who has nothing to do with this discussion, for reasons which remain unclear
• There is extensive ongoing discussion on the talk page. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest both get blocked for clueless edit-warring (the talk page discussion was only started after the fourth round of reverts and after this request here was filed).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As you wish. I haven't been blocked last six years, and when I was blocked it was because false accusation of sock-puppetry. I had nothing to do with that user user. But the talk page discussion didn't only started after the fourth round of reverts and definitely not after this request here was filed. Please check my edits and you will see. Sorry, but be fair. I do want to say before anybody blocks me that the talk page discussion did started long time ago, - after the [124]first revert - (you must be only looking at the article talk page). Also the article talk post was way before this rapport - and there was discussion both on my talk and IPs talk. And also he constantly removed my posts from his talk. So about the non-communicating - I don't think that was my fault. Hafspajen (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I have checked their edits and 200.83's version is seemingly better. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me but I stopped editing, so my version is not there. He was the one who never stopped editing, while editwarring. MY version could have been different but I was sitting on the article talk page waiting for him to show up to discuss things with me, and I never got anywhere editing. We could have had a discussion - BUT NOBODY WANTED TO DISCUSS ANYTHING WITH ME. It was not my version, it was just a previous version. I added the pictures to article. Isn't all this matters? I tried to discuss while he was editing and kicked me out off his talk... all the time - while he did what he wanted with the article, alone . Hafspajen (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reason for edit warring and for refusal to discuss anything. Only vandalism and obvious BLP violations are exempt. Wikipedia should be a collaborative project, not a battleground.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely. And I am one of the most collaborative editors in this project EVER. Ask any editor with whom I was, I am or were collaborating.

• Why this is wrong is because:
• 1) - He - not me - was calling me names and told me that I need to grow up, that I am irritating and so on. He - not me. Point me to the part I was name-calling towards him. - You will not be able to find such a thing.
• 2) - He was ignoring all my efforts to communicate with him removing my post circa three minutes from his talk after I posted them. I was trying to discuss things with him. He was continuing to edit the article and never cared to discussed content with me. I did what I should have done - reverted once. I tried to reformulate content and discuss it with him. He IGNORED ME all the time and just went on insulting me saying I am damaging the project.

• 3)- I stopped editing the article - after my first revert and my first attempt to rewrite content. I went from his talk to article talk and waited for him to discuss things with me. In the main while he went on editing the article and in the top of everything. - he removed 50% of the pictures I added to that article in response. No discussion, nothing. I was still doing nothing to the article, waiting to discuss things.

• 4) - Four - if anybody knows me they will know that the worst thing to do against me is starting to remove images - without discussion. We had NO CONSENSUS removing images. In the middle of the edit war he does that- like I was a non-existing person. I what way is this a collaborative editing from his side?

• 5) Reverted - and posted this. THIS is what happened. Hafspajen (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 5b) (edit conflict) - And - also - wilderness hut is not only architecture - it is a lifestyle. If there should be any editor involved on this who genuinely knows about hiking - anyone could tell you that these huts are intimately bound together with - a lifestyle around them. I agree that it could have been written differently - and IF anyone should have cared to talk to me I might had a chance even explaining it - before all my pictures were ripped off with no consensus. And just for the record - this editor is a blocked editor who was unblocked, here high up. Two admins, Drmies and Yngvadottir, have unblocked with a WP:0RR restriction. Looks to me that he was on called 1RR (one-revert rule) or 0RR (zero-revert rule). That means he should never been reverting anything at all - ever, he was under restrictions. Hafspajen (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no hair to pull out, or dust to rub in my clothes, and I'm closing this nonetheless, by way of Administrative Powerplay, because these are two editors who have Wikipedia's best interest at heart. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HanSangYoon reported by User:ColonialGrid (Result: No action)

Page: Busan Metro Line 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HanSangYoon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

HanSangYoon is edit warring for the inclusion of a template they made. It has previously been removed for being malformed, but has now been inserted again. Both SarekOfVulcan and I have reverted this templates addition, being reverted each time. This is what the article looked like before the template was added, so its inclusion is very fresh. HanSangYoon's poor understanding of the BRD cycle means he is trying to war it in, then discuss why it should stay, not accept it's removal and discuss why it should be included. There are other serious WP:CIR issues with this editor that have been brought up at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for WP:BOOMERANG sanction. Thank you for considering this issue. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]

Comments:
Oppose and Defend. This is an absurd filing, immediate reactivity. I have reason to explain of why I am innocent, and why this user is corruptively filing against me:

ColonialGrid has criticized me (right now as you can see) of going against the Bold, Revert, Discuss Cycle (WP:BRD) on the page of Busan Metro Line 1. But, as you see right now, it is ColonialGrid who's actually stating his own problem, as he put up an inaccurate route map image (Bold), then I reverted this (Revert), then I placed a message on the talk page of ColonialGrid and SarekOfVulcan (Discuss), explaining throughly of why I reverted their edits, and of what issue they were committing by doing their image uploading (inaccurate editing (WP:V) (WP:Editing policy states, "on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information". To this end, potential inaccuracy is a consideration for each and every source brought to an article."), and therefore becomes an issue of WP:WONTWORK). ColonialGrid added the image saying that the route map was 'unneccessary', and I reverted his image (1st time), replying that there wasn't as much functionality, which was what most train pages had. As I placed my discussion thread on his talk page, SarekOfVulcan came to revert my edit, stating of geographical accuracy and size. I reverted his edit (2nd time), stating that the map was inaccurate, lack aboveground/underground information, and also lacked functionality, resulting in article degradation. I had no problem until when ColonialGrid reverted my revertion, resulting in his starting of breaking the Bold, Revert, and Discuss Policy. I had no problem with SarekOfVulcan, and leaving the edit I left for my second revertion could've left ColonialGrid safe from the BRD policy. However, his second revertion broke the BRD policy against him. I did a temporary 3rd revertion (currently not there anymore), stating for him to stop editing, to check his own talk page. This user claimed edit warring, in which it is completely wrong.

• "Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required." - WP:EW This was what I have done towards ColonialGrid. His image was inaccurate. "Libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism should be completely removed, as should material that violates copyright and material for which no reliable source that supports it has ever been published." - WP:WONTWORK
• The three-revert-rule stated that the maximum legal amount of time you could revert an article is three. "(The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.)" (WP:3RR) Since this was my only revertions during the past 24 hours, I am safe from that issue.

Therefore, his statement that I have committed edit warring is completely false. And with him getting reactive onto the editing of Busan Metro Line 1, I'd like to note, this user is committing WP:DSAN for ignoring my discussion notification, and continuing on to break the rules of WP:BRD. Check here for what I have sent to ColonialGrid, and notice the timing of when ColonialGrid decided to revert (after I sent him the talk page thread). Even as I explained of him of why the pictures needed to be reverted, he didn't give a proper response, only repeating bold discussions (in which it was ironic), confirming that his revertion on uploading the inaccurate image meant WP:DE; he kept trying to upload a false image without an attempted consent.

ALSO, we gave in an accurate route map of the Busan Metro Line 1 (Terramorphous, Sawol, Niceguyedc, and me) edited, nothing 'malformed' as ColonialGrid (I don't know about SarekOfVulcan) claims. HanSangYoon (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I have performed major edits on the template. ColonialGrid, I don't understand why it was removed there is 1 thing that is not showing properly but everything else is fine. HSY's original template was really sloppy, unprofessional and should not be posted. However I believed that I have remedied most if not all these issues. So can you explain to me why it was removed?Terramorphous (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. Both parties are equally guilty of edit-warring, but HSY was the one to self-revert thus I see no reason to block them. HSY is appears to be trying to communicate regarding the content, whereas colonial's argument seems to be more or less "I don't like it", start citing policy, and attempting to have the editor who they're involved in a minor dispute with blocked. This is simply unproductive and ignores their own contribution to the edit war. At the end of the day I trust all parties to cool off a bit and discuss which map would be best to use without continuing to edit war. Swarm ^X 22:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:DD2K reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: No action)

Page

Democratic Party (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Renewable energy and fossil fuels */ Restore wording prior to POV removal"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Several editors are trying to include new content by force of majoritarian edit-war, rather than through discussion and consensus. Several warnings were given through the edit summaries. TBSchemer (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pshh....Smfh. Dave Dial (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@TBSchemer: You have reverted three times while the person you reported, User:DD2K, has only reverted once. Plus, you haven't used the talk page. Can you explain why DD2K should be blocked instead of you? EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@TBSchemer: I agree with EdJohnston... TBSchemer has been explicitly POV in a highly partisan way. If the article states with RS that the Democratic Party position is XYZ he erases it saying the Dems are misleading us & adds unsourced allegations in his edit summary. He won't discuss it, only erases. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me. But the discussion began 18:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC) and as of right now TBSchemer still hasn't participated in that discussion. AlexanderLevian (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You're trying to turn this around on me? I have only reverted to the last stable version. The last stable version DID NOT include the content in question. While maintaining the last stable version (within my 3RR limits), I have encouraged the other editors to use the talk page to hash out new content, rather than edit-warring over it. When @Rjensen: finally DID go to the talk page, he/she titled the thread "POV edits by TBSchemer," rather than creating a thread focused on the content they were trying to add. This is entirely inappropriate harassment. Additionally, this is not the first time @DD2K: has engaged in this sort of behavior. Dave Dial has engaged in a wikihounding campaign of overly-personal reversions and unprovoked personal attacks against me and other editors, with a long history of failing to discuss his edits. [128] [129] [130] [131] He has been warned for this behavior directly by Jimbo Wales himself. [132] I have tried to maintain civility with this editor, but he seems determined to blow it up. In his current state of mind, I do not believe Dave Dial is capable of editing constructively. I think if he were temporarily blocked, it would give him some time to think about how to carry out more civil discussions of edits. TBSchemer (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. If you believe there's a behavioral problem on the part of this user that requires administrator intervention, you're encouraged to start a discussion at WP:ANI, the appropriate forum for something like this. However the links you have provided have not demonstrated a problem with edit warring. Swarm ^X 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Understood. I have done so here. However, for my own knowledge, would you please explain to me why this is not considered edit-warring? It is my understanding that edit-warring is not necessarily characterized by the number of edits by a particular user, but by the behavior itself. In this case, several users have ganged up to try to include new content by outnumbering the opposition, rather than following the BRD cycle. When I have been on the other side of this, it has been considered edit-warring. Why is this now no longer considered edit-warring? TBSchemer (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Additionally, it is my understanding that, during the BRD cycle, pages are supposed to be restored to their last stable version until consensus has been achieved on the change, and I have seen administrators do this in response to edit-warring reports. Why is this not being done here? TBSchemer (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Users Spumuq and Zozs reported by User:Pishcal (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: Communist State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zozs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Spumuq (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. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]
5. [137]
6. [138]
7. [139]
8. [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141] [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See [143]

Comments:

User:Spumuq has for a long time followed me from article to article reverting my edits for no reason, a troll-like reason (e.g. he adds original research then when someone removes it he reverts with a summary like "no original research"), never participating in talk pages, and edit warring to meanwhile get the version he wants to be displayed. A quick view of his edit history will show that. It is this reason that, given that Spumuq never makes an argument or brings sources to the table, I have decided to simply keep reverting his nonsensical reverts against me, when these have no apparent reasoning other than harassing me - when something is reverted for no reason, it can be reverted back for no reason. Note that I have not broken 3RR. Zozs (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Spumuq Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. I've reviewed the situation and while I'm not particularly worried about this individual edit war, it appears to be part of a larger ongoing problem and I think there's serious cause for concern with Spumuq's behavior here. It is evident that the above assertion of hounding on the part of spumuq is indeed accurate; they've reverted Zozs on a wide variety of different articles over a continuing period, with either no explanation or with an edit summary such as "Zozs must stop." For the most part Zozs appears to have refrained from responding to these incidents with similar behavior. This is in my view a disruptive and highly-unproductive behavior that is not tolerated here. As far as I can tell Zozs is an established editor in good standing and thus not subject to the supervision of a user with an apparent battleground mentality. This is further demonstrated by their hardheaded responses and unfounded accusations of harassment in this discussion. And, finally, they were recently warned about edit-warring by a sysop on their page[144], a reminder they have obviously ignored. Based on my review of their behavior I'm blocking spumq for two weeks and will consider a longer block if it continues. Swarm ^X 22:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Nikova Kalish reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: indef)

Page

Albert Langer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nikova Kalish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor claims to be the daughter of Albert Langer and keeps placing unsourced or badly sourced information about Mr. Langer's family into the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Its not merely a claim. It is a fact. I have the marriage certificate, the birth certificate, and documents from ASIC. Please let me know to which location you would like me to have the documents uploaded in order to have my claim verified.

Thanks. -- Nikova Kalish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikova Kalish (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• No, that's not going to happen: we are not in the business of verifying anything--other than by way of secondary sources. I'm looking into this. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• For now, we're done: blocked indefinitely. See their talk page for more of my verbiage. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely. Drmies is on it! Swarm ^X 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2015newbie reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Tim Stephens (karateka) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2015newbie (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. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]
5. [149]
6. [150]
7. [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments:

The editor in question claims to not know how talk page works, has ignored requests to cease editwarring by multiple other parties. Appears committed to editwarring. Simonm223 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User is removing content and cites because "Distress is being caused with this page, respectfully ask for deletion and thanks from those affected" (see contributions history). ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And I can understand when a notable person is convicted of a serious crime some sensitivity is required. But as I mentioned in talk, it appears the quote inserted from the BBC was quite restrained and fell within acceptable practice for WP:BLP Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100% - I was just providing more information on the matter (you and others kept beating me to the reverts), namely that it is content removal, with the irrelevant justification provided. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected so the user can contribute to DR. Looking at the article I can quite clearly see why someone might have a concern with it in its current state. Going to start a discussion at BLPN. Standby. Swarm ^X 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Stephens (karateka). Swarm ^X 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Anonymous8201981 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

Page: George Stinney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anonymous8201981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]
4. [158]

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

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

Comments:
This user has violated 3RR, removing sourced content without proper justification. They were warned about it on their talk page, but continued to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Actually, no warning of edit warring was ever given that I can see. Given that it's a brand new account, I might not have blocked just for that, but Dreamyshade went to a fair amount of trouble to explain to the user how to handle the user's concerns, and was ignored. Finally, there was a quasi legal threat in an edit summary by the user that, even though it didn't merit an indefinite block, was disturbing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:YahwehSaves reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: Declined)

Page

Jim Landis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Changed MLB history to major-league history; reference, "big-league history"."
2. 02:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Improved introduction ...."
3. 06:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "Removed MLB career section to Major League career..."
4. 03:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "Somemore changes ..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jim Landis. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same issues as previous blocks, well chronicled on his talk page history. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Declined. There's been no breach of WP:3RR. Two of the diffs listed are consecutive and therefore count as one, and it would be outside the 24-hour window as well. The editor hasn't been blocked since July 2014.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand. I find that I just can't work with this editor. I haven't really experienced that with anyone else before, and it looks like I lost perspective and made a premature report. I appreciated your calm consideration though. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ShaneH1990 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

Daniel Bryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ShaneH1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
2. 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
3. 18:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
4. 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
5. 19:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"
   2. 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC) "/* In wrestling */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He's already been warned several times on his talk page about disruptive editing on other Wiki pages, he obviously hasn't learned. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:JapanerRusse reported by User:Mozad655 (Result: Blocked)

I want to report a new editor who has broken the 1RR several times (without source) and who has been warned.

Page

Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

09:25, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649207115&oldid=649150787

14:45, 28 February 2015‎: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649233119&oldid=649229788

22:35, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649292071&oldid=649290716 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozad655 (talk • contribs)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JapanerRusse&diff=648642720&oldid=648633446

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=648643177&oldid=647304408

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JapanerRusse&diff=648633446&oldid=519265622

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648968947&oldid=648962437

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648114901&oldid=648095669

Comments:

I also believe that this user has two accounts and is using both to make reverts on the same page. Note that reverts of this user and the other (who I will report in a new section) are minutes apart every time and the same reverts are done by both. Mozad655 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours pursuant to community sanctions. Mozad655, next time please notify the editor of this report as required in the instructions at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alan Genco reported by User:Mozad655 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alan Genco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

09:30, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649207500&oldid=649207115

14:50, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649233606&oldid=649233119

18:57, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649263423&oldid=649235998

22:24, 28 February 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=649290716&oldid=649271646 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozad655 (talk • contribs)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648821972&oldid=648813210

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=648822686&oldid=648643177

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648226291&oldid=617331775

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648633558&oldid=648226795

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Genco&diff=648813210&oldid=648633558

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648968947&oldid=648962437

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map&diff=648114901&oldid=648095669

Comments:

This editor has also continiously broken the 1RR rule, and I believe it is the same person as the editor that I reported above which would make it a double breach (1RR + two accounts same editor). Mozad655 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours per community sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Tron reboot reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: 24h)

Page: List of University of Westminster alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tron reboot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [159]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]
5. [164]
6. [165]
7. [166] - this one AFTER the 3RR report was filed and the user notified and asked to self revert -which he did, but then immediately re-reverted.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [167]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [168]

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~Amatulić (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Huldra reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Declined)

Page: 'Anata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [170] removes "advocacy group", previosly added by me
2. [171]removes "advocacy group", again, as well as my changes to the lead, back to [[172]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] This user has been warned about 3RR mnay times, most recently: [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174]

Comments:
Page is subject to 1RR

Declined. I considered blocking both editors, one for 1RR, the other for NPOV disruption, and both for edit-warring in a 1RR article, but decided they more or less cancel out. The WP:BURDEN is on the person who added content to support it, and that burden was not met, therefore the removal of a seemingly contentious WP:NPOV-violating phrase that was added twice seems warranted since its addition was not supported. I also don't see the discussion to resolve the dispute referencing the removal of "advocacy group" at all; that discussion is all about interpreting a map. Declining this request as somewhat malformed. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to closing this without action, as Huldra conceded the 1RR violation and self reverted. I do take issue with the claim that there was no relevant discussion - her second revert, in addition to removing the "advocacy" title also reverted all my changes related to the map interpretations in the lead, as I noted in the report .I have discussed those map interpretations extensively and that is what I linked to. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk · contribs) also fails to mention that I was never warned about this report. Editors can check my talk-page to see for themselves. The above "warning" was for an unrelated offence, where I had reverted a notorious vandal, and as such: was not sanctioned. Huldra (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

23 editor 3rr violation (again) (Result: Malformed)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kolubara&action=history (I'm editing from a mobile phone so I can't post normally.)--VS6507 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Perhaps you should wait until you can edit "normally", post the required notice at the reported editor's Talk page, and then be embarrassed to be involved in this "nationalistic" battle about a battle. My god, who gets first billing? This belongs in Hollywood.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

23 editor also hasn't violated 3RR, VS6507: they've reverted 3 times, not 4, which is what a 3RR violation is: more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. Try to warn them before they add the fourth revert (and then we'll hope they won't). Bishonen | talk 17:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC).

User:DePiep reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Users alerted)

Page: Template:Largest cities of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [176]
2. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [179]

Comments:

Page is subject to 1RR restriction, USer acknowledges reading the warning by deleting it from his talk page I actually agree with this user, but don;t condone 1RR violations, even by people on "my side" — Preceding unsigned comment added by I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk • contribs) 23:58, February 28, 2015 (UTC)

1. See page Template:Largest cities of Israel: Three editors are acting in this against me within a short time span. I consider this single-editor acting (to the effect of conspiring), just relaying. The three editors are: I invented "it's not you, it's me", Gouncbeatduke, Flinders Petrie.

2. All three editors and I are involved in a talkpage discussion about the template. It even is an RfC. Sound editing says that this precludes any outcome injected in the article (template), but none did. What I did was restore the pre-RfC status.

3. The editors complaining are narrowing the topic to xRR only, without having a critical overview. I'd that is wikilawyering or nitpicking or so.

4. I request that the pre-EW situation be restored [180]. I planned to raise this xRR issue myself to the same target I can say. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

5. The complaining editor first reported me here, then reverted the page into what I would do so myself. So I don't see the point of this report, except for beancounting and bad faith. What is the request, baby? -DePiep (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why I have been brought into this and apparently implicated in edit-warring by DePiep, but I'll give some replies:

My only direct communication with Gouncbeatduke has been at-first sympathising with him after he received death threats from a deeply-troubled former editor, and then commiseration (nearer the bottom) after I received the same. In the case of the edit we're dealing with here, I just happened to agree with it, though I agree more with WarKosign's point raised on the resolution thread as I feel it's the best solution. I have never had any communication with I invented it's not you, it's me. There is no conspiring or anything else against you, but rather a disagreement that seems to have gotten out of hand.

You conflate my action regarding this specific edit with those of IIINYIM (sorry, not writing it out again) and Gouncbeatduke saying that you were violating 1RR when I have made no such claim nor have I tried to narrow it down to that or complain against you. I specifically said that I thought it did clarify things for people (and something else along those lines that got cut-off in the edit summary) and did not accuse you of anything and I did start a talkpage thread which has been linked here multiple times as per the suggestion in your edit summary. I felt that the RFC was about what we call Jerusalem here and so the details in the footnote—though briefly discussed between myself and WarKosign in a now-collapsed section—could be treated as a separate matter.

Also, even if he has made a serious accusation like this towards you, you should not call IIINYIM a "baby" as above and in the edit summary of the blanking of his notice, or a "nuisance" in your edit summary here as the former is very rude and the latter is a deeply insulting term as it implies the target has no value beyond being an annoyance.

Anyway, I would be happy to edit with you on more civil terms, but your current conduct towards me makes this difficult. I have asked you multiple times to stop assuming bad faith about me and I would prefer it if you were to deal with and explain our differences (as I truly don't understand them) on our user talkpages rather than tossing out unfounded accusations on the template talk page and edit-warring noticeboard. Also, sorry about all the links, but they were necessary. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Adar 5775 15:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Contrary to what DePiep wrote, pre-EW article did not contain the statement that the user requests to "restore".“WarKosign” 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Incomprehensile. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would say that WarKosign's point is easily understood. He's saying that the diff you put in your first reply made it look as if the statement about Jerusalem being disputed had been there all along until IIINYIM removed it and you wanted it put back, whereas the diff WK posted showed Gouncbeatduke's bold original addition which became the bone of contention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Adar 5775 17:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The diff given here about where the attempt to resolve the dispute took place is very dishonest, just like in the recently closed report (#User:Huldra reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (Result: Declined)) filed by the same user. The discussion took place at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote. The filer of the report actually didn't even write there but he just reverted, which he has done several times on other articles too. As the introduction here says: "your own behavior will also be scrutinized".

It is also dishonest to portray this as something in which I invented "it's not you, it's me" reports DePiep despite them agreeing and are on the same side, when DePiep has a different stance on the actual issue (including on the RfC on that page). --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with DePiep on many issues, including the fundamental one re:Jerusalem, but on this issue, of whether or not we need an additional footnote on the template, I happen to agree with him. Nonetheless, he violated 1RR (note that he does not deny this in his lengthy response), and needs to be sanctioned, Re: "The filer of the report actually didn't even write there " - is belied by the diff I provided. Here is what I wrote there: "Interesting that you bring that up, as the Wikipedia article on ISIL lists Mosul as its largest city, with absolutely no qualifications of the kid being contemplated here for Jerusalem. Some consistency , please" I don't take kindly to liars, and neither should admins. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I was clear that I talked about Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote so don't call me a "liar". It was only after I pointed out this here that you wrote in that section (around ten minutes are you wrote this answer above). --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you don;t get to pick and choose which subsection of the dispute you're going to refer to. I am an active participant in the discussion over there, and was active there long before this undisputed 1RR violation. I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that the link in "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute" is not correct. It wasn't discussed there but rather later, at Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote. This is the diff of where the attempt to resolve the dispute is. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"you don;t get to pick and choose which subsection of the dispute you're going to refer to", what? How does that even work? He was clearly talking about Template talk:Largest cities of Israel#Temporary addition to the footnote as he clearly states it as so in his original reply to you. So it's quite foolish to call him a "lair". AcidSnow (talk)

re I invented "it's not you, it's me" who writes: "note that he [=DePiep] does not deny this in his lengthy response)". I did and do deny that. You are beancounting, I did "make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary".

And while I am here, I do not see how your "even by people on "my side"" observation would or could matter. And I don't see how you qualification "lengthy answer" matters. You claiming to know all and writings suggestions as undisputable facts is getting a nuisance. -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment DePiep says above "I don't see the point of this report, except for beancounting and bad faith." I would have to agree. This issue has already been resolve via talk pages with a POV tag on the section and an agreement to leave the template alone until the RFC is finished. There was no need for a Administrators' noticeboard report. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note Sent {{Alert}}s to involved users. I strongly recommend everyone take this to the template's talk page as this point. --slakr^\ talk / 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Binvoiler reported by User:Random86 (Result: 24h)

Page

Jessica Jung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "'dismiss' and 'kick out' are not synonyms."
2. 01:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "she used 'forced out' but that's too spicy for the people who sided with the label+group who are still in denial"
3. 05:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "there is a source source to check out icym"
4. 06:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "corrected misquoting, added new source"
5. 06:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "quote the phrase"
6. Consecutive edits made from 06:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) to 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649339255 by Random86 (talk) it's a different source for the first sns ost, not the official statement"
   2. 06:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "it's a well know grammar rule that a phrase should be quoted as a whole if it's reproduced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jessica Jung. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user continues to edit war with their preferred wording even after being warned. He/she will not start a discussion on the article's talk page and the discussion on my talk page (User talk:Random86#jessica forced out of snsd) didn't help. I have already reverted several times so I don't want to keep doing it, but he/she has since added questionable sources and inaccurate quotes to the article. Random86 (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakr^\ talk / 18:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "rv per long-standing consensus and sources provided"
2. 21:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "there is no consensus for this"
3. 21:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "rv to last good version; vandalism"
4. 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649272502 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) that's not a citation, that's a wikilink"
5. 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649262283 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) I see no citations, plus consensus is still against you"
6. 18:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649259937 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) that's not my job, and please respect WP:BRD if you want to make changes to this Featured List"
7. 18:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649258295 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) there is a long-standing consensus not to include runners-up"
8. 18:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649257851 by 62.253.57.164 (talk) please don't add content that is not approved by consensus"
9. 18:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "no thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Far too many reverts without discussion. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is ongoing on the talk page of the anon who keeps reverting me. Furthermore, my edits are supported by consensus, as you will see I have continually attempted to tell the anon. Still further, the anon has not provided any sources for their edits, nor are their edits supported by any existing sources in the article, which is prima facie grounds for reversion. – PeeJay 19:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks. You'd think with the editor's extensive block log for edit-warring, they would actually understand policy, but apparently not. The length of the block is directly related to the previous blocks and their durations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:62.253.57.164 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: IP and registered account blocked)

Page

List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Please do not remove factual and relevant information; it is classed as vandalism. Thanks. Undid revision 649393496 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
2. 22:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not remove factual and relevant information; it is classed as vandalism. Thanks. Undid revision 649286867 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
3. 21:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not remove factual and relevant information; it is classed as vandalism. Thanks. Undid revision 649280576 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
4. 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please kindly see the articles provided, as per all 'Honours'. Undid revision 649274648 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
5. 20:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "The second placed articles are linked, as in the same way the first place articles are. Undid revision 649265036 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
6. 18:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "I see no eason why you should object to factual and cited information being listed. The article is open to the addition of such information. Undid revision 649260274 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
7. 18:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Runners-up medals are included for most other teams. Can you direct to this consensus please? Undid revision 649259051 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
8. 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Open a discussion if you object. Thanks. Undid revision 649258085 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
9. 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not vandalise. Undid revision 649256253 by PeeJay2K3 (talk)"
10. Consecutive edits made from 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) to 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* European */"
    2. 17:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "/* League */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Far too many reverts without either discussing the edits. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the IP account of Bbx118, who is also reverting edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk • contribs)

• Blocked the IP and Bbx118 for one week each. RealDealBillMcNeal, you should have notified not just the IP but also Bbx118 of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I only found out about Bbx118 after I'd made the reports, chief ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand it was an addition, but once you added the user, you should have notified them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ramdiesel reported by User:Justlettersandnumbers (Result: Blocked)

Page

Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649309618 by Huon (talk)"
2. 16:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Does not reflect what was disscused on the talk page"
3. 18:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Actual article include reliable links"
4. 23:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "According the talk page, rewrite the article to reflect the truth"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica. (TW)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Edit-warring
2. – n, where n is a very large number: innumerable attempts, particularly by Huon and WikiDan61, to reason with this and other similar, though differently-named, editors.

Comments:

This editor shows no sign of being here to build an encyclopaedia, but rather to promote a particular view of a questionable Costa Rican university, a view widely different from that reported in the few available sources. Interminable talk page explanation and discussion has got exactly nowhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Yagmurlukorfez reported by User:Kasparjust (Result: No action)

Page

Pan-Turkism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

this user is making many edits without any real reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasparjust (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:07, 17 February 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
2. 19:13, 17 February 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
3. 19:15, 18 February 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
4. 10:28, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...
5. 19:50, 1 March 2015‎ (UTC) deleted sentences,Turkic nationalist historiography and ideology :Various non-Turkic groups and states including Parthians, Tocharians, Scythians...

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:

• I think this user's acting in good faith and I'm sure they have a "reason" for what they're adding to the article, please assume good faith and be accepting of other editors' efforts. That being said, they were given a warning on their talk page and continued to edit war, and they haven't made any real effort to discuss their proposed change on the talk page, so a block for that is warranted. Swarm ^X 19:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oops. I totally got this report mixed up with the one below. My mistake. No violation. Report appears to have been made in bad faith. Swarm ^X 20:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kasparjust reported by User:Yagmurlukorfez (Result: 24h)

Page: Pan-Turkism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kasparjust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Violation of 3RR. User keep reverting the old revision of the page with no reason. User restoring non-english sourced content that removed by me. Sources are in Russian internet sites which is not even reliable. Therefore it's been removed. The issue is explained in the article's talk page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User reverted the page again after his report about me.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=649509222&oldid=649346904
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=649401216&oldid=649372296
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=649509222&oldid=649420709

and same revert first made by IP 89.165.96.162 probably related with user Kasparjust:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Turkism&diff=647728152&oldid=647609453

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 20:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:d:a500:2a1:d93b:a427:b670:6bbf reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: 24h)

Page: Minnie Miñoso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:d:a500:2a1:d93b:a427:b670:6bbf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [182]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]
4. [186]
5. [187]

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

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

Comments: This is a dispute about Minnie Miñoso's year of birth. It's given in most sources as 1925, but may indeed have been 1922, as Miñoso may have attempted to shave off three years to appear a better prospect. However, all obits posted following his death yesterday go by 1925 as the year of birth, and we should follow suit. Verifiability, not truth. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 20:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Spearmind reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: Locked)

• Page: General Motors streetcar conspiracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Spearmind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [190]
2. [191]
3. [192]

As you will see, this followed on my reverts, of his reverts, going back to reverts which are still open for discussion on the talk page, or on a noticeboard. The page has undergone a great many changes recently, but some of the changes were, IMO, not for the better. This has not gone to three reverts, BTW; I felt it best to bring it up here rather than join or start an edit war.

This was, and is being discussed both on the talk page [[193]] and forward, on the RSN page [[194]] and forward, and in a now dormant DRN discussion [[195]]

Discussions seldom speak for themselves, certainly some of the other interaction on the GM Streetcar page has not, but I think you'll see that the above do.

I will notify Spearmind immediately after this edit.

Please excuse the template selection, it was all I could find; and forgive the ugly editing, it was the best I could do.Anmccaff (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

No violation, in my opinion. Note that we have only just concluded a DRN discussion that I brought (see Archive 109 'talk:General Motors streetcar conspiracy') and I am in discussion with the volunteer for that case, user:Bejnar and Spearmind with a view to bringing Anmccaff to the administrators board, see this section of Bejnar's talk page for details . I have also discussed Anmccaff's behaviour on Anmccaff's talk page in the past few days here and then here. Bejnar's time on WP is limited at present. I was awaiting his response but feel that we need to proceed without his input. Personally I would like to curtail extensive discussion on this board so that I (with the support of Spearmind and also of user:Trackinfo I believe) can bring a case for a 'topic ban' of Anmccaff to the administrator's board. It should not go unnoticed also that Anmccaff has not managed to do the basic formatting of his report above correctly, and has failed to use place recommended ('subst:an3-notice') template on Spearmind's talk page or linked from his talk page to this page in a useful way. I have also just noticed that he has started a thread on the reliable sources board here that mentions me by name but he didn't ping me, or alert me to the discussion either on my talk page on clearly on the article's talk page. Personally I think he needs to be given time out really soon! PeterEastern (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• To note that a 3d party has kindly fixed two of the formatting errors I mention above with this edit. PeterEastern (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• A question: is bringing up such outside material here appropriate? I neither wish to leave something that will be taken as fact if not refuted unanswered, nor to clutter this board with matters not germane to it. I think even a quick glance at the article, and the changes in the article, suggests that there is still a great deal of controversy over fact and POV; removing the warnings that...well, warn the reader of this is extremely premature.Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I wished to bring the wider context of this report to the attention of people who will be responding to. I will now absent myself and let the process talk it's course. PeterEastern (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That looks a bit like preterition, especially after the DNR experience.Anmccaff (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the first diff that you refer to above links to an edit to the Space Patrol Delta article that neither you nor Spearmind appear to have edited? PeterEastern (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

None that I know of. It was copied and pasted off of the article history, and appeared to work, once. Is it worth checking and fixing?Anmccaff (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't mean to link to an irrelevant power rangers related article then I do think it would be a 'worth' fixing. I can assure you that the link has been wrong since you first placed the report. PeterEastern (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nahh, strictly Pokemon people, my kids. Fixed. The last digit was missing.Anmccaff (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I do concur that this issue is not an issue for this board. From what I have observed, Spearmind is making a diligent effort to try to sort through the sourcing and issues of the previously mentioned dispute. Not that there is any agreement on the content, but it seems most of us are aimed at a more neutral article, which the NOM seems to oppose. There is plenty of trouble with the article, but Spearmind does not seem to be the problem. Trackinfo (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you've effectively implied the exact opposite, though. If you describe a situation where there is a strong divide between some of the editors about what is fact and what is POV, and which are weak and which are strong sources, surely the warnings should stay in place.Anmccaff (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I guess I have. If there were one editor on this article who has fought against a collegial attitude and has forced POV into the article, it would be Anmccaff. I have personally stopped trying to make little edits into the article because of the immediate reverts and potential of edit warring brought on by Anmccaff. The apparent futility in trying to remove POV forcing text by Anmccaff is why I posted the initial {{Disputed}} tag on the article. Trackinfo (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have also stopped editing the article due to the impossibility of achieving progress with Anmaccaff involved. This most recent edit to the article is impossible to respond to and it typical of why Trackinfo and I retired. Anmccaff is certainly fighting a one man battle here, and is devoting huge effort to this subject - I would estimated that over 80% of his last 500 edits have related to this subject, and I can't honestly point to any useful progress he has made with the article. This is why I am keen to impose a topic ban for long enough for the rest of us to work on the article. Anmccaff, is there anyone else who will support you on this accusation of edit warring? PeterEastern (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Given that there only two, three people editing at all? What better case could you make for some outside inspection?Anmccaff (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I'd like to note that [[user:Spearmind:Spearmind}} did another mass reversion, without comment -or a chance to- on the talk page.Anmccaff (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of notice: I was pointing out where the editing changes began, not raising any issue with his edit. I would have expected my revert to be discussed, in the normal course of things, on the talk board. If this is wrong, please make any needed change.Anmccaff (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I misread which thread he was referring to. Won't a RSN mention automatically ping a user mentioned? Again, he was only mentioned in the context of being originally in the conversation, not as a participant in this part of it.Anmccaff (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. A brief question: Should the other stuff on this page be taken anywhere else in particular? As you probably saw, there are other issues.Anmccaff (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is WP:FORUMSHOP going on here? We have a DRN in progress, there is a ton of chaotic argument on the talk page. What we need is some coherence, rather than a chase. Trackinfo (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so familiar with things like FORUMSHOP and that they have their own shortcuts but it describes the situation very well. Sometimes it takes a certain amount of time to look through before able going back to work. What I can see is a one man dancing on many "marriages" the same time as we say. One or two days ago he started the case at the DRN board, shortly after the RSN Board and now we meet here not to count the subjects he started under far from neutral topic names "...not a good source" and so on, he even used user names in negative-touched topics. The "crowning event" today was that he added lots of dubious claims to several sentences in the article with no aim to discuss it on talk first. Delete first challenge later? A timeout for Anmccaff on this article would be helpful. It was like a ringing bell when he came up with terms like "conspiracy theorist" or variations against voices not representing his personal opinion. Also I did not see any constructive attempts by him making the article anything better. I'm open for constructive arguments in benefit of the article which is an interesting journey back in time but it makes me kind of angry when the articles "dinosaurs" lose their interest because one person overweighs his personal opinions in matters of content and also behaviour over majority.Spearmind (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

To be accurate, he didn't start a DRN case, he simply attempted add a new section to the existing DRN but missed the first '=' resulting in something that was treated by the system as a new DRN and wasn't archived with my original report. That has now been cleared up and his section has now also been archived correctly. It is not really helpful to this process that @Bejnar: (our DRN volunteer) has not been online since Feb24 and has therefore been unable to comment on the drama's for the past few days. I agree re Forumshopping. PeterEastern (talk) 06:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ayup, it's always nice to sit down here of an evening, soak up the collegial atmosphere, and feel the waves of assumed good faith radiating about...

Anmccaff (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• As the DRN volunteer, in my opinion the DRN here has gone as far as it can in bringing the parties together. Some content issues were resolved, but understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by some parties was insufficient. Often rather than address the issue Anmccaff would go off on another track, or try to bring in behavioural issues inappropriate at DRN. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Purely for the record, I'd like to observe that the other editors brought in almost nothing but what they saw as behavioral issues. (The only questions about sources were aimed at ones which one of them himself had added.) Viewing the early versions of the dispute will clearly show that, and that several requests for clarification about that were, frankly, ignored. It is rather much to expect someone to completely ignore a bunch of inappropriate, scurrilous commentary simply because it was placed before the moderator arrived; if it has no place, it should have been removed, and passed on to a different moderator.

That said, I think Bejnar was helpful in clarifying the possibility of equivocation with terms such as "conspiracy theorist," and going past that would be more a job for the editors rather than the moderator.

Anmccaff (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ubikwit reported by User:Collect (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: Project for the New American Century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196] et seq

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [197] long sequence ending 08:32 2 March started at 23:30 1 March with [198] and many intervening edits
2. [199] 08:52 2 March
3. [200] 12:08 2 March
4. [201] 12:14 2 March
5. [202] 16:28 2 March

Notice given after his response was "Aren't you playing it a little loose with the definition of a "revert"?The top diff is a copy edit.Are suggesting that the last edit was a revert because I took out a source that I put in and copy edited the text?" Note the "top diff" is a sequence of [203] [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210] etc. [211] comprising more than "I copy edited the text" indeed by a mile . Say by close to 10,000 characters of revert, and all of these are well under 24 hours (first was 23:30 on 1 March) Collect (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC).

Typo in notice fixed at [212] . Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214] (actually many messages within 24 hours) Notified at [215] his response: "Be my guest" Collect (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Offered him a chance to self-revert with warning. Note also an edit war notice on I/P [216] regarding his edits at Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its talk page from Precision123. [217] given an ArbCom DS notice from Robert McClenon on 17 Feb. Ubikwit is under an ArbCom Topic Ban on I/P except for seven articles. [218] notified by Callanecc Washington Institute is not on his allowed edit list, and if that article connects to I/P sanctions, then he may be in violation there as well. Just off an edit war warning [219] from Johnuniq

[220] just responding saying "these are not reverts." Problem is the first one was end of a sequence of many reverts amounting to many thousands of characters. Not a mere "copy edit" IMO. Telling him now. Collect (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• First response

First, one has to look at the edit history of the PNAC article and this Talk thread opened just today, because Collect has been deleting large amounts of text from the article, trying to transform it into a POV screed against 9/11 conspiracy theories because British MP Meacher was quoted. Almost all of the text I restored today had been removed by Collect, basically against consensus, at the very least without consensus as a BOLD edit. The only text I added to the article today was a copy edit to the lead after adding sources for the table and discovering in the processes that the lead only covered PNAC members that had served in an official capacity in the Bush administration, whereas there were also many that served in an advisory capacity.

Second, a content dispute related to the table that I restored had been through the processes of a BLP/N thread with consensus giong against Collect and him refusing to defend his position at the end of the thread. I linked that thread on the Talk page today when I posted the sources for the table[221].

I don't know if my understanding of a revert has gone awry, but I don't think that a couple of the diffs he presents represent reverts, as per my reply on my UT page[222]. And in fact, earlier in the day when I made a revert to leave a BRD message in an edit summary I worried that I might be getting into 3rr territory with this deletion, and self-reverted a minute later after a quick look over the days history for my edits.

As an aside, note that Collect has been opening redundant threads on the same topic keeping me busy, with one open thread at BLP/N to which he has not responded to the last comment, and two at NPOV/N on the same topic, basically. And he has been editing against consensus of all those threads with respect to the conspiracy theory angle he has been trying to push. In fact, I didn't even notice the "See also" and category he added for "9/11 conspiracy theories", which was against consensus. He added a slew of other categories a couple of days earlier that had been deleted[223], but I hadn't noticed the "9/11 conspiracy theories" addition. I see now that @Fyddlestix: didn't delete that category when he deleted the others, but it was added a day before he started editing the articlehere, and Fyddlestix subsequently opposed transforming the article into a conspiracy theory coatrack, basically.

• at any rate, when I finally got around to searching sources for the table from the already closed BLP/N thread, this other maelstrom was already newly underway, but as I said, I don't believe that two of the edits are reverts (I could be wrong), and one of the others I'd already self-reverted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have precisely a total of 19 edits out of the last 250 edits on the article. Ubikwit has 22 in one day. I presented him with a clear chance to self- revert - he not only declined, he asked for this report. And once again, he blames everyone else for his battleground mentality - for which he has a few current topic bans, a near-banning from WP:AN/I and a number of warnings from multiple editors and admins on his talk page. Cheers - but I think the problem might possibly lie with the person who was nearly banned, and who has multiple current topic bans. Collect (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Now you're adding a personal attack to the mix.

As I said above, twice already, I may be wrong about those edits of mine involving copy edits and additions, with the removal of a source I added myself, not being reverts.

Counting edits, considering that I added numerous sources one at a time, and then fixed refcite errors, etc., is not a meaningful statistic, and is irrelevant to the discussion. The content of the edits is, however, meaningful.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I provided a very polite warning, and asked you to self-revert. You took umbrage at doing any such thing. Any edit which affects edits made by others counts as a revert, as has now been explained to you a few times. Even if you only change a word or the like. In the case at hand, there is no way one can so count your edits that you did not reach 4RR, period. Nor can you assert "but my content was meaningful" as an excuse here. And I trust you will understand I have no personal animus here against you. Nor do the others who have posted on your talk page about your behaviour bear you personal ill-will. Please have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Diff 3 + 4 is followed by a self revert within a minute. So what's left?TMCk (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Am I allowed to talk here? I was summoned by Ubikwit's ping. I'm not exactly defending Ubikwit but it might be worth noting that Collect and him have a major ongoing argument that has spilled across multiple articles and noticeboards, and that Collect has basically been goading Ubikwit into making reverts with WP:POINTy edits like this and this, in which he's adding more of the material he opposes to the article. Neither editor is squeaky clean here. Sorry if I'm out of line to comment here, I'm pretty new to this stuff so please don't bite me! Fyddlestix (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• You're perfectly fine to comment here Fyddlestix and your input is appreciated. I've been reviewing the situation and have come to the same conclusion. Working on it. Standby. Swarm ^X 20:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

And I was polite is asking Ubikwit to self-revert, and I am one of about 20 editors who has had basically the same experience with him. I did not want a block for him, but I find his behaviour quite aggressive here and elsewhere (including filing an ArbCom case on Sam Harris (author) specifically directed at me) :(. Collect (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WRT the absurd claim that my edits adding material from the exact same source used by the other editors was "pointy" - they were not anything more than adding balancing material from the same source the others used. Period. That they did not like their own source was not my fault, and I intended the edits to be used as serious additions to the article. If I recall correctly, WP:NPOV requires us to use balancing material rather than only use cherry-picked quotes from any source. That cavil about my honest edits is ill-founded. Collect (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You added a 4-paragraph long blockquote from a person/source that you've repeatedly said shouldn't be in the article at all, Collect. I'll leave it to others to decide whether that constitutes "editing to make a point" or not, but I think the edits speak for themselves. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you were not the primary antagonist in the ArbCom case related to the Sam Harris article: that would be Xenophrenic.

@Fyddlestix: Thanks for commenting here, and contributing to the Talk page and article in general. Feel free to speak your mind. We're here because I didn't feel that a couple of the edits diffed here were reverts, including the last one I made based on what I presumed to be a basic consensus between you and me regarding the Meacher material and the "Global supremacy" section. I'm not sure how you feel about the additional sentence from Bolsche at the end, though. One should bear in mind that it does contain the phrase "American global domination", which is very close to the title of the section.--Ubikwit ^連絡 <sub見学/迷惑 21:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope my comment above didn't come across as a dis Ubikwit, you're right that the recent edit reflected a sort of emerging consensus between you and me and some others, although I still think that both you and Collect could have approached all of this with a bit more composure. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Alright. So I've just done a lot of reading. Here are my findings:

• Ubikwit is not in violation of his I/P editing restriction because he self-reverted.
• Ubikwit and Collect have a history of disputes with each other spanning many different areas of the project and enduring over the course of several years.
• Ubikwit and Collect have both been blocked for edit warring multiple times.
• Collect is heavily involved in the edit war he's reporting.
• On Project for the New American Century:

• Collect removed a table from the article on Feb 8.
• Ubikwit restored it on Feb 10.
• Ubikwit also added this paragraph on Feb 10.
• Collect removed both the table and paragraph shortly thereafter.
• Ubikwit restored the paragraph that was removed. Still Feb 10.
• Ubikwit adds another paragraph. Still Feb 10.
• Collect removes this paragraph on Feb 25.
• Collect makes several edits on Feb 26, which Ubikwit reverts that same day.
• Collect reverts back.
• Collect makes several edits on March 1, which Ubikwit reverts that same day.
• Ubikwit makes several edits to the article on March 2, which Collect reverts.
• Ubikwit reverts the reversion.
• Ubikwit removes a link.
• Collect reverts him.
• And finally Ubikwit again reverts him and then self-reverts.

• The above shows a severe and disruptive edit war between two users who really have no excuse at this point.

• I came across the ANI thread while investigating this and I may weigh in further there on what's clearly a long-term problem between these two editors. However, regarding this report, Both editors blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm ^X 21:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:82.6.30.221 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: 1 week)

Page

Love Me like You Do (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Love Me like You Do. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has engaged themselves in edit war by adding false content repeatedly despite warnings and reverts. Nine times already Callmemirela (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week...and now I have that song stuck in my head. :| Swarm ^X 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Johncenti reported by User:Palmiped (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Updated company information for Ink Wells."
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) to 18:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Update to trademark registration and company information for "Ink Wells""
   3. 18:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 18:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 05:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC) to 05:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649448561 by Palmiped (talk)"
   2. 05:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Update to trademark information for Ink Wells"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) to 23:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Added company information for Ink Wells to the page"
   2. 23:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC) "Added Ink Wells Site Reference"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Inkwell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

References

Comments:

keeps adding text to article that has nothing to do with subject and is possible advertising. --palmiped |  Talk  23:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as an advertising-only account. Swarm ^X 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:82.28.39.126 reported by User:Woodroar (Result: Page protected, final warning given)

Page: Goodgame Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.28.39.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goodgame_Studios&oldid=648017734

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 25 February
2. 20:58, 2 March 2015
3. 21:25, 2 March 2015
4. 22:30, 2 March 2015
5. 22:38, 2 March 2015
6. 22:48, 2 March 2015
7. 23:05, 2 March 2015
8. 23:24, 2 March 2015

All of these edits have been to add original research. In the earliest edits, this OR was worded differently. In the later edits, it is identical.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP editor was warned

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: templated with welcome message and original research messagetemplated about personal attacksmessage on my Talk page

In addition to my 2 reverts today, these edits have also been:

• reverted by User:Bilorv
• reverted and warned by User:Materialscientist
• revertedtwice and warnedtwice by User:Aronzak

In return, the IP editor has vandalized my User page, and twice indicated they won't stopedit warring to insert original research.

Comments:

• • Page protected for 3 days. IP given both a templated and personally-written final warning. Let me or another admin know if disruption of any kind continues. Swarm ^X 00:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ragtacoman reported by User:84.51.184.208 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: List of colors: A–F (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ragtacoman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors%3A_A%E2%80%93F&diff=649123301&oldid=649123273

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors:_A%E2%80%93F&diff=next&oldid=649615954
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors:_A%E2%80%93F&diff=next&oldid=649616072
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors:_A%E2%80%93F&diff=next&oldid=649616125
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors:_A%E2%80%93F&diff=next&oldid=649616514
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors%3A_A%E2%80%93F&diff=649616764&oldid=649616701
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_colors:_A%E2%80%93F&diff=next&oldid=649616790

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARagtacoman&diff=649616371&oldid=649616127

Comments:

• Already blocked for 24 hours. User was blocked right as you were filing this report! Thank you though. Swarm ^X 01:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:67.240.247.8 reported by User:Stickee (Result: 24h)

Page: Murder of Boris Nemtsov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.240.247.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:46, 3 March 2015 - reversion of [224]
2. 01:58, 3 March 2015‎ - reversion of [225]
3. 02:40, 3 March 2015‎ and 02:41, 3 March 2015 (consecutive) - reversion of [226]
4. 02:51, 3 March 2015 - reversion of [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:44, 3 March 2015

Comments:
All within ~1 hour, including after warning. Stickee (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 04:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ooh22 reported by User:Bernie bernbaum (Result: Page Protected)

Page: Triple J Hottest 100, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ooh22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [228]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [229]
2. [230]
3. [231]
4. [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has made accusations of edit warring despite being responsible for multiple reverts. 3RR has not been violated but administrator intervention would be appreciated.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments: There have been sustained attempts to include a disqualified track in the official list section of the article to reflect the results of a failed social media campaign. The inclusion of the disqualified song on the official list is unnecessary and superfluous. The continued attempt to include the track on the list adds no value to the article and has seemingly been made by disappointed supporters of the unsuccessful social media campaign. Reasons for exclusion of the track are provided in talk section of article.
Bernie bernbaum (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected I've locked the page for three days - can you all post something on the Australian wikipedian's noticeboard at least to get some more eyes and consensus on it? I'll consider blocking if there is more argy-bargy after the page unlocked without discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

As requested, a discussion has been initiated on the Australian Wikipedian's NoticeboardBernie bernbaum (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Inanutshellnews reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Paula Broadwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "This article contained largely slanderous information cited from sources with incorrect information."
2. 22:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "This information is libel and slanderous."
3. 23:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "This information is slanderous and false, although attributed to mainstream media."
4. 12:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Please stop reposting this paragraph because the information is false and slanderous."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Paula Broadwell. (TW)"
2. 03:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Paula Broadwell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent deletions */ new section"

Comments:

Starts on Feb 23 NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saw this edit war and have reverted to NeilN's version. SamuelDay1 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:DuppaBuppa reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked)

Page

Organized crime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) to 20:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Just a minor change"
   2. 20:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 20:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Also note the marking of their edits as minor -- and shouldn't this go to AIV? —George8211 / T 20:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely - as a vandalism-only account (from AIV report) - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Liambishop12345 reported by User:Snowager (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Bin Weevils (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Liambishop12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 21:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 21:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 21:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bin Weevils. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wiki-expert-edit reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48h)

Page

Naveen Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wiki-expert-edit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Please build consensus before unilateral changes. Moon Express is one of the biggest part but your focus seem to be on infospace and lawsuit."
2. 21:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Please discuss the changes before undoing the edits"
3. 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649749085 by NeilN (talk)Please see the talk page. I did start the discussion. You reverted without even reading it."
4. 22:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649754449 by NeilN (talk)Please read the talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Naveen Jain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC) on Talk:Naveen Jain "Adding talk for removing RonZ intereference"

Comments:

Editor has COI and problematic history on article NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Swarm ^X 03:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:121.242.73.226 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: 2 weeks)

Page

Nellore district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Started again adding redlinks Vin09 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Swarm ^X 04:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:ArindamDey AD reported by User:Drm310 (Result: Indef and page deleted)

Page: Arindam Dey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArindamDey AD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [234]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [235]
2. [236]
3. [237]
4. [238]
5. [239]
6. [240]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242]

Comments:

This user is obsessively removing the speedy deletion tags from this WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY page. Despite repeated warnings on his user talk page, he doesn't seem to understand that this is unacceptable behaviour. My comments on the article talk page were either ignored or not understood. --Drm310 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: The user was indef blocked [243]. --Drm310 (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've indef blocked and deleted the page. He should have read the messages on his talk page.  —SMALLJIM  16:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:70.31.103.237 reported by User:MatttK (Result: blocked, sp page.)

Page: Patrick Brown (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.31.103.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [244]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [245]
2. [246]
3. [247]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249]

Comments:

Sorry, I have tried to fill this page out to the best of my ability but it is the first time I have become involved in an "edit war". There is a user (actually, multiple users) who is repeatedly adding a paragraph to the Patrick Brown (politician) page, which is not properly sourced or written. Several different users have attempted to remove the paragraph and explanation and warnings have been provided. I do not know what to do at this point, as the user has declared "We will continue to add it whenever it is removed." As a side note, Patrick Brown is currently running in a leadership election for a political party in Ontario, so I expect more problems on this page in the future. MatttK (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Have semiprotected the article, and will also look at the other editor pushing the same paragraph and block as needed. Bjelleklang - talk 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Spearmind reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:59, 4 March 2015 diff initial removal of one set of content
2. 11:31, 4 March 2015 diff re-deleted after I addressed the stated concern with the source and restored the content (we resolved that issue on Talk, thank goodness)
3. 15:33, 4 March 2015 set of diffs removing quotes from citations (new issue), on basis of WP:CITEVAR (?)
4. 16:55, 4 March 2015 diff re-deleted after I restored quotes
5. 17:03, 4 March 2015 dif re-deleted after I gave 3RR notice and warned on talk and on his page that he is violating 3RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - user edit warred right over that.

Comments:
Article attracts strange behavior, what are you going to do. Bizarre urgency around something (should refs have quotes?) that editors could determine consensus for, with leisurely discussion on Talk. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:CITEVAR: "Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity" - thats what im doing here. If there is a source quotes are not needed and not helpful but its considered helpful removing them. If editors feels quotes are needed - put them in the article or add a footnote within references. Thats all I have to comment on that. Notice Jytdog wanted really to use Daniel Pipes work for the CIA as a source in such a controversial wikipedia article and it took quite a while he understood that its better to replace him. Possibly he is still angry about it losing his source. Actually he is also very active in reverts. I will not do such anymore until theres a conclusion here.Spearmind (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been pointed out on the talk page: Quotations are not inline citations.

The point of WP:CITEVAR is to not alternate between inline citations and ref tags in the article. For example:

blah blah blah (Arthur Writer, p.12), blah blah<ref>Someguy Adude, p.14</ref> -- This is problematic.

blah blah blah<ref>Arthur Writer, p.12 (Someguy Adude, p.14)</ref> -- Questionable, but there can be reasons to do this.

blah blah blah<ref>"blah blah" - Arthur Writer, p.12</ref> -- Totally fine, because quotations are not inline citations.

At this point, referring to quotations as inline citations again would violate WP:IDHT, and citing WP:CITEVAR again would WP:REHASH. Please do not give the admins reason to make your block longer. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Spearmind seems to be unaware that the issue here is about his behavior, not his arguments about content. Please give an educational block. (I note that right now the topmost case here also concerns his edit warring behavior.) Thank you.

If you read the other case you will find out soon that the problem is someone else. Please count Jytdog´s reverts. I think I have reason for my reverts which I explained already. Im defending policy here, which the editor before gets wrong. WP:CITEVAR: "Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and helps maintain text–source integrity". Its about that and nothing else. I look forward for an admins decision paired with some policy knowledge.Spearmind (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that User:Spearmind has broken 3RR and that Jytdog has not. This case might be closed without a block if Spearmind will agree not to edit Conspiracy theory or its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice offer, but the first block ever is seldom for more than a week... The Banner talk 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

"In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period." Will accept as long Jytdog in same the boat with me. He made 3RR if you count correctly. 1 2 3, which is a revert of my 3 smaller deletes, 4 Its just my fault that Im editing step by small step.Spearmind (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

this is pretty open and shut behavior thing. The spirit of this place is that we discuss changes. He made one change, which i reverted and while we discussed it, he restored his deletion. In that one I ended up agreeing to let that go, and added content elsewhere that met what i wanted. (the idea he writes above about me ("Possibly he is still angry about it losing his source.") is silly and shows he doesn't understand how this place works) Then he moved right to the next thing, and again attempted to steamroller his version into the article without discussing. He doesn't get the basic way we operate here. Again, please block, i think 48 hours is good enough. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just want to make clear that quotes ARE inline citations. Im defending policy here. I ask admins to ack that.Spearmind (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Protected three days. Whether a scholar should be quoted who is supported by the CIA is something that needs editor consensus. You can't just keep reverting. Spearmind's reverts were more blatant, but Jytdog is close to the line, if not over it. If the Middle East is especially prone to conspiracy theories surely more sources can be found. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed thanks for taking action, and I understand we are all busy. I reverted the CIA thing once, b/c the basis for the deletion was that the actual ref included a link of a modified version of the published article, that was on the author's website. Spear's initial deletion was valid - the edit note said "WP:USESPS not reliable". I found the published source and verified the content, and restored the content, with the link to the author's website removed. Stated objection addressed. Spear then deleted it again, now bringing new reasons. We discussed that on Talk, and with the new reasons stated, I was fine with letting it sit. I thought the 2nd delete was aggressive, but didn't fuss over that. Spear then deleted all the quotes from refs, and edit warred over that without talking at all. His behavior is totally out of line. I acknowledge that I went right up to the 3RR line but I didn't cross it, and I was the one who opened the Talk discussion over this. I don't bring 3RR cases lightly. I think he needs a block - even now he doesn't get that his behavior is wrong - his last comment above, is still arguing that he was right about the content. I am very mindful of talking things out. Please reconsider? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ah well. spear will learn sooner or later. thanks in any case. Jytdog (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:李建兴 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: )

Page

2015 FIFA Women's World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

李建兴 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 12:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649984034 by Qed237 (talk)"
3. 12:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649983581 by Kante4 (talk)"
4. 12:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 12:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 649976291 by Kante4 (talk)"
6. 08:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding flags against MOS and the template documentation for that infobox. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. QED237 (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment A few weeks/months ago the editor was adding wrong information about China playing in 2011 when it was North Korea. Now the editor added teams when they were already added and really not needed again and editing the infobox like QED said and added above. Kante4 (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the lack of discussion, it has not been successful in the past as the editor write in unknown signs and not english but we tried in edit summaries and at my talkpage and his. QED237 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Not commenting on the edit warring, but the user is correct, a flag is valid there as MOS:INFOBOXFLAG allows flags for sporting competition. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if that's true, he added wrong information and added teams that were alrady added. If he stops now doing that (which it seems like), i can live with it. Kante4 (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)