Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive299

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF again (Result: no action)

Page: Joe Simmons (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bill Bradley (endurance athlete) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: UKeiG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1], [2], [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
After HW's attempt here to have me blocked failed, HW continues to revert my edits in violation of established WP:PROD policy. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:884:A54E:F6D5:C2AF (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious harassment and retaliation. Four reverts over three articles is not a 3RR violation. Note that this disruptive, IP-hopping user is also retaliating by removing PRODs simply because I placed them, and has violated 3RR on the Joe Simmons (actor) article. They're not here to build an encyclopedia in any way, but are throwing a disruptive tantrum by mass dePRODs after being blocked (see [10]). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hopping IP is clearly WP:POINT and needs blocking. Normal editors should like HW should not be subjected to this abuse. (have independently listed IP below after seeing disruption myself. Widefox; talk 01:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've rangeblocked the IP per ANI. This can be closed.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Closed - no more action needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Makeandtoss reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: no violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [not relevant]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

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

Comments:
This article is under ARBPIA 1RR restrictions. I've spoken to Makeandtoss several times a couple of weeks ago about 1RR (see link above) and he has received the ARBPIA warning, but he's kept it up. He also violated 1RR on Naftali Bennett on Nov 1st.

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither history of Jews in Jordan or Naftali Bennett were on 1RR. And # [14] is not a revert. The alleged 1RR violations I was 'warned' about, are not true. As I have discussed this on User Talk:Makeandtoss#Moshe Sharett. --Makeandtoss (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Closing as no violation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Cr7777777 (Result: Stale)

Page: Robert Sarah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

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

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]

Comments:
Contaldo80 aggressively violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding his contentious commentary and personal analysis into articles.

User:Contaldo80 repeatedly admits that he doesn't understand Cardinal Sarah's remarks, but insists on summarizing the remarks in the lead, reverting contributions from both myself and other editors. [26] [27] [28]

User:Contaldo80's rewording that Cardinal Sarah "is also a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights" is a biased misrepresentation. Instead of misrepresenting the subject to readers, the cardinal's own words should be used to describe his position, without the peanut gallery's misrepresentation. If User:Contaldo80 insists on adding a nutshell summary of the cardinal's remarks, it should be that Cardinal Sarah is a critic of the threats to family and a promoter of chastity.

User:Contaldo80 is the only user I've ever reported to the administrators. Cr7777777 (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, I do feel special. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stale. Edit war has died down with no reverts since Monday. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Lemondropzzz reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Blocked 1 month by --Jayron32 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC) )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Reception */ edited/deleted biased/unreliable sources"
2. 14:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689339575 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"

Comments:

Editor previously blocked (<2 weeks ago) for 1RR/ARBPIA violation -- not getting the message... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: what is the basis for considering the first diff a revert? Is there a particular edit which it undoes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course -- it would be whichever edit added the paragraphs in question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems quite an extreme interpretation, although if you can point me to policy/precedent that any content removal is counted as a revert then I will take a look. That said, I can see the edits are tendentious. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 month. Editor has a generally tendentious attitude towards ARBPIA articles, has been warned repeatedly and blocked 1 week for violations of same in past. Recidivism is an issue. --Jayron32 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Page

Kim Yuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 03:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689399201 by NeilN (talk)"
3. 03:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689431825 by NeilN (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Already been blocked twice for edit warring over same material. Has never joined in discussions. Talk:Kim_Yuna#Donations_section Talk:Kim_Yuna#Images_and_donations_section NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – For two years this user has been pursuing an edit war at Kim Yuna. They have been blocked twice before. They have never left a talk post or an edit summary. To be unblocked they will have to communicate, and if they are willing to do so it may be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Belovaci reported by User:Binksternet (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Tom Monaghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ray Kroc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of autodidacts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Belovaci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

• (On September 9, 2015, Belovaci performed five reverts.[30])

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31] 03:54, November 7, 2015
2. [32] 04:05, November 7, 2015
3. [33] 04:14, November 7, 2015
4. [34] 04:25, November 7, 2015
5. [35] 04:37, November 7, 2015

Belovaci has also reverted four times at List of autodidacts, and three times at Ray Kroc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] 03:57, November 7, 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

Belovaci is using WP:SYNTHESIS and original research to arrive at the conclusion that Tom Monaghan and Ray Kroc are autodidacts, that they are self-taught. None of the sources cited by Belovaci have ever said that these guys are autodidacts or self-taught. Instead Belovaci has determined that they are autodidacts by some personal calculus having to do with some reduced amount of schooling combined with success in business. However, Monaghan completed high school, and Kroc was taught classical piano in addition to attending about half his high school years. The main point is that Belovaci's sources do not use the term "autodidact" or the companion term "self-taught" for either of these guys. Binksternet (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Was hoping he would stop after I told him to; nope. — Earwig ^talk 06:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexis Ivanov reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts at Ali All four reverts restore the same version:

1. 18:07, 6 November 2015
2. 19:34, 6 November 2015
3. 20:57, 6 November 2015
4. 08:39, 7 November 2015

Very similar edit warring at Muhammad's views on slavery, restoring This version

1. 04:34, 2 November 2015
2. 14:25, 4 November 2015
3. 18:38, 4 November 2015
4. 00:59, 7 November 2015
5. 01:23, 7 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Given the user's behavior, several users have warned them recently, including three times in the last 24 hours 04:03, 27 October 2015‎ , 21:05, 6 November 2015 , 01:23, 7 November 2015, 01:28, 7 November 2015

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

Comments:

Several users have tried to discuss with Alexis Ivanov, but the standard reply is accusations of being a "lier" "You need to stop lying Jeppiz, enough with your lies and false accusation, that is all you got.", "Again another lie, I'm sick of your lies and the way you snake around the issues", "'LIES upon LIES". Jeppiz (talk) 11:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Ivanov also engaged in edit warring here:

1. 02:14, 13 October 2015‎
2. 02:31, 13 October 2015
3. 02:36, 13 October 2015‎
4. 15:07, 13 October 2015
5. 18:38, 13 October 2015

There is also a current ANI discussion regarding the user's combative behavior. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:RockMagnetist (Result: No violation)

Page: Template:Infobox author bibliography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchroCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_author_bibliography&oldid=668372770

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:

I gave the editor a chance to self-revert with this message, and the editor responded with this comment. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

1. No breach of 3RR (which needs FOUR reverts);
2. Trying to warn someone of something on your own page (where it wasn't seen until you added the diff here) is no warning at all;
3. Trying to claim you are justified by a "discussion" when none took place is no basis for making fundamental changes to a template that appears on numerous pages. – SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment ANI is not there for getting editors out of the way that object to changes. As SchroCat points out infobox alterations affect many articles so there needs to be a solid consensus for them. There hasn't been a technical violation so this report should be closed down and I suggest that RockMagnetist posts a neutral notice at the associated Wikiprojects to get further input at the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My apologies for misinterpreting the 3RR rule. However, Betty Logan should be aware that I did post neutral notices at the two most closely associated WikiProjects, as I pointed out on the talk page, and waited a week for a response. I made a reasonable effort to start a discussion, and this editor has no right to insist that I wait a couple of days for a proper argument. Since three reverts are allowed, I will use mine. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that there was not enough interest to resolve the dispute. However, per WP:NOCONSENSUS the convention is that the status quo is retained when a discussion fails to resolve a dispute. Perhaps you could try WP:3O or if that fails file an WP:RFC? Editing disputes should not be resolved by editors trying to game 3RR either. Betty Logan (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Its staggeringly petulant to bring a case here, find out that the limit is four reverts and then think that "allows" you to revert your controversial template change without discussion. I'm disgusted by your new, third revert: it shows contempt for any other opinion but your own, and for the consensus-building process. Are you so stubbornly determined to get your own way that you will ignore the fact that there was no discussion at all, and have forced your changes through with no fucking discussion at all? – SchroCat (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• @RockMagnetist: WP:3RR is clear in that it's not permission to revert up to three times. Editors can and will be blocked for edit warring even without breaking that rule. Use the talk page instead. clpo13_(talk) 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

To make it clear to all party's involved 4 reverts is not an entitlement and you can be found to be edit warring even if you are under that. In my opinion both of you have been edit warring. HighInBC 00:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:Edit warring is forbidden. WP:3RR is just a bright-line rule, which does not make less-than-four-reverts edit warring allowed. In fact, I'd say limiting oneself to three reverts but purposefully "using up all three" goes very much against the intended spirit. Don't do that. LjL (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• No violation Further reverts, violating WP:3RR or not, may result in blocks. Have a proper discussion please. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Ariel. (Result: warned)

Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

Winkelvi started an edit war and complained about Me performing one! Quite the hypocrisy! Ariel. (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nice try but not a valid report. The reporting editor has been violating WP:POINT by reinserting content irrelevant to the article and edit warring over it. This report is retaliation for removal of said content. Discussion has been attempted at the article talk page and two warnings regarding edit-warring behavior have been left at their talk page here and here. Looks like a candidate for WP:BOOMERANG to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet you reverted 3 times I did not. The contribution is quite relevant and your removal is illogical, and completely unexplained. I attempted to talk with you on the talk page but you just talk about some edit war, and nothing about the actual text. Stay on point and don't make this into some personal war, your behavior is inappropriate. Ariel. (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems you have a lack of understanding regarding WP:UNDUE. Please read policy on it so you can better see why the content you insist on inserting is not appropriate for the article. My comments at the article talk page are quite "on point". It's not my fault you are employing WP:IDHT. And yes, your behavior has shown an edit warring intent. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You seriously believe that the POV of the Jewish religion has an undue weight on the Bible? Ariel. (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The article you keep inserting the content into isn't about Judaism or the Bible. And that's precisely why said content is inappropriate and irrelevant to the article and simply doesn't belong there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not inserted an article into the content. What in the world are you talking about? I inserted two dates and referenced the first date with a link, and that link is about Judaism AND the Bible, and the second is referenced to the pyramids, which is what this section is about. You are seriously making no sense to me, I don't mean to be insulting, I really don't, but what you said really makes no sense. Ariel. (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that maybe there is a language barrier here? (if not, my apologies for assessing the situation incorrectly)

• I said you keep inserting content into the Ben Carson article, not that you are inserting an article into the content.
• The content you are adding is not pertinent to Ben Carson, the article subject. The article is about the man -- you keep trying to add content that is not about, nor directly related to, the current content or the man.
• The section in the article is not about the pyramids, it is about Ben Carsons believe regarding the construction of the pyramids.
• Because he has never said he bases his beliefs (either for or against) on what you keep inserting, said content is even more inappropriate for the article and equates undue weight. Please read that linked article for a better understanding.

I can see what I have said makes no sense to you - as you pointed out. That said, hopefully this explanation will help you make sense of why the content you have been edit warring over should not be in the Carson article. If any other editors want to take a stab at explanation, feel free to jump in. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you said now, but I very much disagree. The section (not article! Section) in question is about Ben Carson's beliefs. He is a Christian, and contrary to what you said he has mentioned his beliefs many times, so yes, he does believe in the dates I have listed. Therefor they are quite relevant to that section.

You have violated the 3 reverts rule, how about instead of waiting to be blocked, you self revert your revert and self impose a ban on yourself on that page. Let other editors weigh in on the topic, and you stay out of it except on the talk page. Ariel. (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

"yes, he does believe in the dates I have listed." Do you have a reliable source that supports he has a) talked about those dates and says he believe in them, b) supports the content you keep adding back in, and/or c) proves the content is relevant to the article and the section in the article? "You have violated the 3 reverts rule" No, I didn't violate it. I reverted three times. If I were to revert more than three times, then I would be in violation of 3RR. "how about instead of waiting to be blocked" I see no valid reason why I would be blocked over a non-violation. "self revert your revert and self impose a ban on yourself on that page." No, that's not going to happen. I know it would make you happy and be convenient for you, but there's nothing to justify such a suggestion. "Let other editors weigh in on the topic, and you stay out of it except on the talk page." That's really not how things work here. Especially not in this instance. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Warned — Technically not a breach of the three-revert rule, but is certainly within the American Politics discretionary sanctions. I should also note that I find it odd that Winkelvi threw two different templated edit warring warnings at Ariel while still engaging in edit warring himself anyway. --slakr^\ talk / 07:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I find it odd you would throw a DS warning at me while ignoring the obvious boomerang that should have been given to the filer and/or not putting the same DS warning on the filer's talk page. Not to mention this filing is stale, and you didn't notice that, either. Indeed, since the filer and myself have obviously been talking here, nothing more has happened at the article at the hands of the filer or myself, the warning on my talk page is not only strange and way after the fact, but seems more punitive (as a badge of shame) than preventative of anything. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Scoobydunk reported by User:Springee (Result: Scoobydunk warned, Springee sanctioned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts, Nov 5th:

1. [49]
2. [50][51] - Pair of edits
3. [52] - Direct edit reversion
4. [53] Note this was not a reversion of a same day edit but a reversion of material I added on Oct 26th [54]

The 4 reverts above are part of 10 over 4 days (3 active) of editing. 5 being direct "undo" reverts.

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57] - Direct edit reversion
4. [58] - Direct edit reversion
5. [59] - Direct edit reversion
6. [60] - Direct edit reversion

Related reverts from Oct 26:

Material I added: [61]

And Scoobydunk removed: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Notice of this discussion [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have made considerable efforts to discuss these changes and reverts as well as my concerns with Scoobydunk but I have found the discussions to be hostile, indicative of a [wp:battleground] behavior. Here is a talk section I started on Oct 28th, after some of Scoobydunk's earlier reverts without a talk page discussion [65]. An additional section on Nov 3rd [66]. Finally, an attempt smooth things over on Scoobydunk's talk page: [67]. On the talk page I asked that he revert his last edit as a show of good faith and because it was a 3RR violation. This request was refused.

Comments:
Scoobydunk has a [wp:battleground] attitude towards those he disagrees with. In August he was attacking an actual historian who was contributing to the article (not OR) [68] and the reaction [69]. He accused me of lying on the article talk page [Here is an example of the same battleground behavior with respect to an admin he disagreed with.[70] He has exhibited this same battleground attitude towards administrators [71],[72],[73]

Overall his battleground mentality and edit warring and talk page WP:BLUDGEONing makes producting editing and consensus building virtually impossible. Springee (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the dishonesty in how Springee presents his accusations. He first list 4 reverts, however, the 4th revert is actually a consecutive edit with the 3rd, and therefore count as a single revert as described by WP:3RR policy which says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." I informed Springee of this on my talk page, yet he still intentionally misrepresents the information here.

Next, his first diff in the next section is not a "revert" of a particular edit. I rewrote the introductory paragraph, adding in new sources and removing less reliable sources, which is something that was requested on the talk page. We had discussed improving introduction paragraphs for multiple sections, so I wrote a stronger introduction paragraph. That's not a revert, it's an original edit. The rest of his diffs do not show a violation of 3RR, and only speak to this arbitrary 4 day timeline. Now, I'm sure some people will my actions and Springee's as being "edit warring" and I think that's fair. However, i ask that you read the boomerang response below and see the the common factor in these reversions over the last 2 weeks is, indeed, Springee and see that he's the one who's engaged in edit warring when the DRN noticeboard and talk discussions didn't go his way.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang for Springee

I think the fact that Springee has levied a variety of irrelevant personal attacks against me, speaks to the type of behavior I and others have had to endure as a result of his tendentious editing. I too could go on at length about Springee's tendentious editing and multiple instances of Wikihounding, but this is the edit warring noticeboard, so let's stick to the edit warring accusations.

I have, at no point, violated Wikipedia's strict 3RR rule and have operated well within Wikipedia's explicitly stated policies. This is not true for Springee who has been edit warring and has violated WP's strict 3RR rule.

1. Nov. 4 1:51[74] this was a partial revert of my November 2nd edit [75]
2. Nov. 4 5:51[76]
3. Nov. 4 7:26[77] and [78]
4. Nov. 4 16:17[79]

On top of Springee's violation of the 3RR rule, he's been reverting the edits of multiple users. He's reverted Mastcell[80], fyddlestix[81], and myself all in the period of the last 2 weeks, regarding the same subject matter. He's the common factor in all of the revisions. I'd also like to add that the content that Springee has been engaged in edit warring were originally posted to the article by me. He's been aggressively attempting to remove peer reviewed reliable sources and remove mention of "majority viewpoint" from the text, to push his own POV. We did go to the talk page to discuss the content and have gone through the DRN NOR noticeboard. When both of those didn't work out in Springee's favor, he said "We are clearly at the point of pointlessness."[82]. Notice how that's about 30 minutes before Springee began his most recent edit warring campaign. Springee is the originator of this edit war, trying to remove information from the article that doesn't fit his POV. I'd also like to emphasize another example. After I added in a new paragraph discussing the majority view in scholarship, Springee insisted on expanding a quote from Matthew Lassiter [83], then a few days later Springee removes the entire Lassiter quote and source from the paragraph for the reason of "reducing the length". So he intentionally made it longer, then removed it entirely because it was too long. I mean, come on.[84]. ThenScoobydunk (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - A thread was pending at the original research noticeboard. Then these two editors brought their dispute to the dispute resolution noticeboard, where the thread was waiting for a moderator and for closure of the NORN thread. As a DRN volunteer, I have now closed the DRN thread because this is also pending here as a conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The "4th revert" cited by Scoobydunk is not a revert but correcting a citation tag. Scoobydunk used the "book" template for a journal paper citation. I corrected the citation formatting. This in no way changed the content of the article any more than correcting a spelling mistake. Springee (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In response, 3RR is very clear on allowable exceptions and Springee's revert is not listed among those exceptions. People do dispute about how sources should be represented within the article, so reference reversions are not omitted from counting as a revert. This is still considered a revert in part of another editor. Furthermore WP:3rr clearly states "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard." Springee did not claim that this revert was an exception, or ask that it be treated as an exception. Furthermore, Springee did not only change the source in the reference from "book" to "journal", but he also removed the specific page that the material in the article references, and replaced it with the page numbers of the entire article. I don't contest correcting it to a journal source, but I do contest with listing all article pages, when the part used in the WP article specifically references a passage from page 132. This allows users to find it more easily. Unlike Springee, I didn't revert his edit because it would be a violation of 3RR.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The above accusation I think illustrates my concerns. Any perceived transgression is considered in the most negative light possible. Rather than thanking me for fixing a bad citation or just adding the overlooked page number an accusation of malice is made. Another example of the hostile editing and talk page environment created by Scoobydunk is knowingly misrepresenting statements by others. I mistakenly commented about a source due to an error on my part. I found an article with the same title but by different authors. I issued a correction once this was pointed out. That correction was ignored when my original statement, the one in error, was quoted as proof of my position on a subject after I issued the retraction. Knowingly misrepresenting statements by others is a violation of WP:IUC. Details here [85].
• Comment - Can some administrator please do something about this thread, such as blocking the editors for incivility? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• This falls under the American Politics 2 discretionary sanctions, so any uninvolved admin could impose sanctions once the parties have been properly warned. Gamaliel (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted User:Scoobydunk. User:Springee was previously alerted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• So does that mean Springee is violation of said sanctions after already being warned once?Scoobydunk (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• That's up to an uninvolved administrator to determine. You could file a request at WP:AE. Gamaliel (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The whole arbitration and sanction thing can be a bit intimidating for a person who's never gone through it before, such as myself.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to ask that a 1RR rule be applied to Scoobydunk reverting my edits during the same time period. Please note that despite the above claim Scoobydunk should be aware of these rules. He has a block on his account for edit waring[86] and unsucessfully attempted to bring santions against me in the recent past [87]. Furthermore, though warned about personal attacks here [88] he launched into a series of personal attacks against me here [89]. My current concern is that with a 1RR applied to myself this editor will simply continue to block my ability to edit the topic with impunity. Springee (talk) 13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Warned Scoobydunk of WP:ACDS (left by Robert McClenon); WP:1RR sanction of Springee within topic area for 1 month. --slakr^\ talk / 08:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:80.144.98.20 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
2. 18:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
3. 18:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Rverted"
4. 18:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
5. 18:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
6. 17:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
7. 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
8. 17:55, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted"
9. 12:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Several Fangio publics"
10. 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jim Clark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted six different editors, continued after 3RR warning, and shows no sign of stopping. Scr★pIron^IV 18:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Before this report was posted. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• User:87.144.152.129 is making exactly the same edits today as this address was making yesterday. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Samtar (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689645387 by Samtar (talk) revert vandalism."
2. 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689629086 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) reverted vandalism. you have been warned"
3. 10:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689551498 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) both pro and con sources describe him as such."
4. 15:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689475895 by Roxy the dog (talk) yours is a pov edit mine is cited"
5. Consecutive edits made from 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC) to 19:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "most notable skeptics define him as a biologist, and morphic resonance as a theory. see references"
   2. 19:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "small format error i made"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Rupert Sheldrake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Biritish Biologist in Lead +Morphic resonance theory */"

Comments:

I suggest bumerang, and to all parties who have ganged up on this vandalsim. Please see the section in the talk page. Those editors are abusing wikipedia editorial proccess to go against wikipedias purposeBigbaby23 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Although doubtful, a boomerang would only have me reverting one edit of yours due to what TRPoD rightly said on the talk. Regardless of the actual content, you have been edit warring samtar ^{t} 15:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeffgr9 and User:Debresser reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeffgr9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 05:18, 7 November 2015

Both users have violated the strict 1RR imposed by WP:ARBPIA

Diffs of the Jeffgr9 reverts:

1. 05:44, 7 November 2015
2. 23:26, 7 November 2015

Diffs of the Debresser's reverts

1. 16:43, 7 November 2015
2. 23:45, 7 November 2015

No warning required as per WP:ARBPIA "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the dispute; none of the two edit warring users have used the talk page while edit warring in today and yesterday.

Comments:

Having Jews on my watch list, I saw that both users have reverted each other. WP:ARBPIA applies to a "the entire range of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict"; as the origins of the Jews is a common issue in this conflict, it applies to this edit war, with its very strict 1RR ruling. Jeppiz (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a stretch of WP:ARBPIA which was never intended, nor do I believe it to be factually correct in the case of the edits under discussion. For sure, neither Jeffgr9 or I had even the vaguest connection with the PI-conflict in mind. In this context I'd like to point out that there is a reason there is no WP:1RR warning on the talkpage of Jews.

I propose informing Jeppiz, as the editor who opened this report, that he should not report experienced editors based on novel interpretations of WP:ARBPIA without first checking if the edits unambiguously fall within WP:ARBPIA's scope. I find it unpleasant to be dragged to noticeboards without good reason. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Two comments. First, I did not write ARBPIA but I don't think it's much of a "stretch" to apply it to Jews. The article is very strongly related to "Palestina-Israel articles", and the users editing it most frequently are exactly the same users editing other articles related to the topic. Few articles are as fought over by the users involved in the ARBPIA domain as Jews. Second, Debresser might find it "unpleasant" to be here, especially after eight previous blocks, but that is not a reason for the above violation of WP:NPA. Whether I was right or wrong, I was uninvolved in the conflict and reported both users. For Debresser to call that "malicious prosecution" is strange. Reporting only one user would have been strange, I fail to see the alleged "malicious prosecution". Jeppiz (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that only 1 of those blocks was recent. Making mention of all my blocks (in 8 years of active editing, including in the minefield of the IP-conflict), is poisoning the well. By the way, that block was precisely because of 1RR, and since I have been much more careful. In any case, I think WP:ARBPIA is really too remotely connected to the specific edits in question, and even the general question of the origins of the Jews I have not met in WP:ARBPIA-related discussions, either here on Wikipedia or outside. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason to argue about it. Either (A) WP:ARBPIA covers Jews or (B) WP:ARBPIA doesn't cover Jews. In case A, there is blockable edit warring, in case B, it is not. While I'd surprised if it weren't (especially given how the edit history looks), tt would be good to get confirmation. Jeppiz (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Jeppiz. It seems that the 3RR rule still applies to the WP:ARBPIA as it does to all, if not most, topics. I understand the concern about warring. I also understand this issue does not just concern myself and Debresser, there are at least a few other editors involved in making these most recent changes. Either way, for this particular set of recent changes, neither Debresser (to my knowledge), nor I violated the 3RR.

The issue of the origins of Jews is indeed touchy and inherently related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; however, when sourced facts directly define the origins of Jews, especially as it relates to converts to Judaism, there should be no dispute. In this case, the general origins of Jews and the Jewish culture are from Israel/the Levant/the Middle East/etc. It is the reason why Jews were/have been persecuted for thousands of years in Europe (from the Greeks, to the Spanish Inquisition to the Romans, to the Visigoths), the Arab League and the Ottoman and Muslim (e.g. Mamluk) Empires, Africa (i.e. the persecutions of the Igbo, the Lemba, Beta Israel, Abayudaya, etc.), and the Americas (the Ku Klux Klan, redlining of Jewish districts, forced expulsions, slander in the media, etc.).

Jewish survival through these persecutions contributes a great deal to Jewish culture and definition. In regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the origins of Jews very much relates because many Arabs/Arab leaders neither want Jews in power in the Middle East nor do they want Jews to lay claim to any historically Jewish monuments, narratives, or properties. This is evident in recent news events: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4712189,00.html . Jewish prophets have been claimed by many non-Jewish peoples, especially those of Christianity and Islam; Jews are not allowed to proselytize, whereas Christianity and Islam initially functioned to act as political, socioeconomic control systems for the Roman and Arab regimes, respectively. This difference between Judaism and Christianity/Islam is essential——the majority of converts to Judaism "join the tribe" because they feel their soul, identity, etc. aligns with that of the Jews; they believe in Israel as both a people as well as the Land of Israel as the origin of the Jewish people. Christianity, as a whole, used to have that tribal distinction, but it was to the European Empires (Roman, Spanish, British, Russian, German, etc.); Islam always had that tribal distinction, but it was to the Arab Empires, especially centered in Saudi Arabia, where Muhammad was born and the Kaaba is located.

The point is that many Jews who have converted have in fact assimilated to Jewish culture, but people should neither confuse the places in which diasporic Jews have settled, nor the origins of Jewish "converts," for replacing the true origin of Jews/Judaism in Israel/the Levant/the Middle East. Jews have always called to return to the land of Israel (Zion), and Jerusalem. It is inherent in Jewish ethnocultural (or ethnoreligious) identity. Look at the Kurds, they share the same distinction and similar persecution.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Thank you.Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Finished First ResponseJeffgr9 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nominator comment It would seem Jeffgr9 and Debresser are right and that I was mistaken in believing Jews to be WP:ARBPIA. I was in good faith, and I think it's a glaring omission that the article is not covered, but that is a different matter. As it would appear that the article currently isn't under ARBPIA, I withdraw the nomination of both users and apologize for the misunderstanding. Jeppiz (talk) 13:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your time Jeppiz and thank you for your responses Debresser. Jeffgr9 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm. I supposed this section should now be closed. Debresser (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by the submitter. User:Jeppiz no longer believes that ARBPIA applies to this dispute. I've undone the strikethrough, while confirming that the report is withdrawn. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MYS77 reported by User:TonyStarks (Result: Stale)

Page

Rachid Aït-Atmane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MYS77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688937546 by TonyStarks (talk) No. They're still called Modric and Benzema while playing. RACHID is how he's called since he arrived in Spain, and thus, to football. Respect that"
2. 20:51, 3 November 3 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688946429 by TonyStarks (talk) 1) Search: "Rachid Sporting Gijón" produces more results than "Rachid Ait-Atmane". 2) His SHIRT NAME is Rachid, RESPECT THAT."
3. 17:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689262757 by TonyStarks (talk) Until you don't show some sources, I'll keep reverting. Learn to respect other people."
4. 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688952070 by TonyStarks (talk) Sources were given to the user. No replies were made. So, I tend to conclude that's an agreement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User reverted my changes four times in a 48-hour period (he waited until the 24 hour period was over to revert again). He used the revert function twice to revert my change and manually reverted the content twice to revert my changes (see page history). I won't touch the article anymore until an admin intervenes. TonyStarks (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Reply: User clearly lacks interpretation. I provided sources to back up my edits, while he had none even with me asking for it through edit summaries and through messages in his talk page (which I got nothing but another revert as a response) until today, which he started a WT:FOOTY discussion and was in an extreme rush to see me blocked. User clearly wants to WP:OWN the page only because he edits Algerian football-related pages. MYS77 ^✉ 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Funny that you mention WP:OWN when your messages on my talk page are the following: "You edited the guy once or twice a year, while I was the one who bring all the info together. Show some respect, please." and "RESPECT, R-E-S-P-E-C-T other people's work. When he leaves Spain (and only WHEN), then you can call him whatever they'll call him in other countries. Until that, he's known as RACHID and will stay that way." To me, that sounds like you're the one that wants to own the page, as you put in the work so it's your way or the highway. TonyStarks (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Strange, isn't it? I asked for sources, and you only provided it when creating a discussion at WT:FOOTY. Why you didn't bring me the sources instead of doing unsourced reverts? You were the one asking for all of this. MYS77 ^✉ 01:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Proposal, mainly to avoid this extremely unnecessary mess. What about this lead: Rachid Aït-Atmane (born 4 February 1993), simply known as Rachid, (with this reference) is an Algerian professional footballer who plays for Spanish side Sporting de Gijón as a central midfielder. and then the rest of the page will stay your way. Fine? MYS77 ^✉ 02:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Stale - seems to have de-escalated (but this is at risk of going on WP:LAME). Stifle (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

2404:E800:E602:BE:545A:7FEC:ED83:7302 reported by User:116.14.128.14 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page:List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2404:E800:E602:BE:545A:7FEC:ED83:7302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]

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

[95] (I didn't know there was a talk page so I tried to communicate with her on the wiki page)

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

Comments:

I have reason to edit it the way I did. I did it according to the names of the cast provided by MediaCorp. Here is the link. [96] 116.14.128.14 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved editor Blackmane

I'm just going to post a comment here to say that I fixed the malformed report. I have no view on the content itself. Blackmane (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a week. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Scjessey reported by User:Bongey (Result: )

Page: Hillary Clinton email controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts just in the last 24 hours:

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100] (content removal and adding the word "Republican", without source)Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: This is only for last 24 hours. The majority of the edits by User:Scjessey on the page are reverts of others users[101]. The majority of edits by [User:Scjessey] are political related removing content edits, under the false pretense of removing "vandalism". Bongey (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Spurious, bad report by a new editor who recently showed up to the page to advocate some partisan political positions.[102] This page has been the subject of a lot of rapid editing by a number of editors, many of whom seem to be trying to promote WP:NOT#NEWS-style scandalous material about this presidential candidate (and hence, many to most proposed additions being reverted by one editor or another). The diffs show three two different reverts, not four, each on a different part of the article — whereas the reporter has joined an edit war and done 2RR on the same section.[103][104] Whether the reported edits count as one or three two reverts is a technical question due to the timing of intermediate edits, so it is questionable, but in no case do they appear to try to repeat a reversion. It would be helpful, though, if an administrator came in and gave some editors cautions about discretionary sanctions that apply to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the reporting editor's edit history is very odd, either an extremely sporadic novice editor or sock-ish. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The majority of edits by [User:Scjessey] are political related edits, under the false pretense of removing "vandalism".

How is how much a person edits relevant to the argument? Its not. Yep I am a sock, that uses the same handle on multiple web forums.

Reality I spend my time on slashdot , were discussions are actually discussions 68.184.247.218 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Accurate report considering User:UW Dawgs and User:Scjessey both reverted my exact change, but User:UW Dawgs reported User:Scjessey in the last 20 days. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon citation needed, every single line of the talk section was cited. When a anonymous source statement to politico is used as a source over two federal judges and two government websites, I don't know of clearer example of a violation of NPOV rule. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed wrong link on the last diff. Also the 3RR rules says content removal and it doesn't have to be from the same section.Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

FWIW There seems to be some coordination between Wikidemon and User:Scjessey. Wikidemon has been removing content on the same page. I report User:Scjessey and Wikidemon comes to his defense. Bongey (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Bongey, this report is going to get closed down soon, but please develop some WP:COMPETENCE editing the encyclopedia and dealing with its customs before trying to play process games like this. Your help actually editing and improving articles in neutral fashion, keeping content policies in mind, would be appreciated. Jumping feet first into current politics disputes with a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach in your account's first edits in years, a sloppy attempt to lob accusations and have other editors blocked, is not constructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• block me also for a few days if you want,but it is toxic for any community when to have groups of "individuals" consistently making politically slanted statements and immediately resorting to personal attacks.Bongey (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A couple notes about this bizarre editor. On the sock front, they seemed to admit to it (though perhaps sarcastically) from an IP address,[105] which they subsequently removed.[106] On the BATTLE front, they just filed an AN/I report against me for my participation here. Can we cut to the chase here and do something about this one? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Only two of those edits listed are reversions (and not for the same thing), so I'm going to just ignore this. Ping me if you want me to comment on anything specific. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:popcornduff reported by User:capuchinpilates (Result: )

Page

Under the Skin (2013 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

popcornduff (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]

I did 1 revert between his 2 reverts - [110] , where my edit summary said, "Please don't revert edits, use talk instead." He reverted anyway, with an edit summary accusing me of being the reverter, and saying that my edits have already been talked to death. It's true, I have talked about them at length in the past, because my 3 edits in the past have been reverted by him/her, so each time, instead of undoing his reverts, I try to explain myself. All of my edits have been substantially different, as all have tried to take into account his criticisms of my edits. Here are his previous reverts of my edits on this page -

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[114]

Comments:

The recent talk is only the latest in a lot of talk I've done on the page, as you can see in the whole discussion - [115]

Here is the talk where I tried previously, at length to compromise with popcornduff [116]

When he didn't respond to these attempts to compromise on the talk page, I opened a dispute resolution here: [117]

I tried to explain my positions in the noticeboard, but to me, popcornduff put only as much energy into it as necessary to make it look like he was participating. It didn't go anywhere, nothing was resolved, and the moderator gave no concluding thoughts or any suggestions.

Near the end of the dispute, here is what I wrote to the moderator: "I'd be interested in what you have to say, but I fear you might simply say that, in the absence of consensus it should just remain the way it is, or it shouldn't include any language more complex than it has now. But there's a few problems with that. One, is that the language I'm interested in using is not against policy; there are no rules against using "weasel words" and "purple prose." Two, there are other issues we haven't gotten to here; Popcornduff says language I've used is purple prose, I say it's not (and I'd be happy to say more about that). But the biggest problem is with being able to make any improvements to the plot summary at all. Popcornduff wrote the original summary, and he seems to me to be blocking anyone else from making any substantial changes. S/he's reverted many, many editors, and while many of the reverts I would probably agree with, he seems willing to edit war where others aren't. So if one editor protects their own editing, then how can a WP page ever improve? For an obscure movie like this, I don't think there's ever going to be some troupe of like-minded editors who show up on the talk page at the same time and demand the same changes."

Here are places where popcornduff has removed things I've written on an entirely different page -

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]

There are also instances where I have corrected basic errors on WP, and popcornduff has reverted them (after I explained the errors he has gone back to fix it, but in his words, not mine). [121]

Popcornduff engages in liberal reverting on other sites I've happened to edit, but I might be the only one who has called him on this. Most editors probably never noticed he has reverted them, but some other editors have tried undoing his reverts of them, or talking to him, but he often keeps reverting until they get frustrated and go away, such as here -

1. [122]
2. [123]

These are just a few of the many, many undos he's done on Under the Skin and elsewhere. But if I've randomly bumped into these few, I can imagine how many other sites he must be engaging in this behavior on. Personally I think most of his reverts and excisions that I've seen are good, and that he does protect many sites from illegitimate and unproductive additions. Before My first edit of Under the Skin was ill advised, and my first points on the talk page were overbearing, and I’m sure this did not help the situation, but now I wish he would stop reverting me and taking out my edits. Popcornduff is a much, much more dedicated, prolific, and decorated editor than me, but the two of us are enmeshed in a long term power struggle. Capuchinpilates (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

On the Under the Skin page in question, in the last 18 months popcornduff has made 191 edits, 80 of which were where he cut more than he added, of which most of those I suspect, but do not know for sure, he was cutting other editors materials, such as mine. He hit the undo button 34 times, of which a few were back and forth reverts with another editor, including me. Capuchinpilates (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

By being archived I hope this report has not been permanently shelved. If the administrator is concerned that maybe popcornduff was not notified, I notified popcornduff on Sunday at the same time I filed the report, by writing on his talk page, and he replied to the same day. Can I please get a result to this? Capuchinpilates (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Today, a week after filing this report, popcornduff (PCD) removed a number of my edits, for the second time, on a totally different page (Ex Machina (film), including these edits: The edits of mine PCD took out today were: 1) "high-security" 2) "Each day Caleb talks with her, then later discusses the results with Nathan" 3) "one android breaks off its forearms by banging against the wall, demanding to be released." 4) "At their next meeting, Ava cuts the power and Caleb tells her his plan" 5) "The next day Nathan declines to drink" 6) "but is fatally stabbed by Ava."

Here is the first time PCD excised a number of my edits on the Ex Machina page: [124] The second time [125] Then I re-added some of the edits PCD had taken out [126] with the edit summary - "re-added a few details I had previously added on 8/29, that had been taken out on 9/1. See talk:Caleb's Fate."

Then today PCD took out many for the second time [127] Also, one the edits he changed today, was one that he changed before, I let him know here on talk that it was not accurate [128] . He says ok, I’ll change it, but PCD merely exchanges one word for a similar one, leaving it again inaccurate [129]. I change it back to the accurate version [130], then today, with no talk or explanation, PCD changes it back again to the inaccurate version [131]

PCD edit summary of today's edit is "plot bloat," and his edit brought the plot down to 459 words from 599, taking out many different editors work. WP policy recommends plot summaries of 400-700 words. Given this is a complex, dramatic movie, enforcing a word count below 500 is not necessary, and is passive edit warring (something I myself have been guilty of as well). Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:159.203.114.77 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Stale)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689670936 by 174.70.73.68 (talk)"
2. 19:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689676495 by Loriendrew (talk) Vandalism change"
4. 19:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism and spam edits made by previous editor."
5. 19:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Please note that the Publix Twitter that responded is verified; it was retweeted by an unverified source. You are in an edit war and should heed your own advice."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Publix. (TW)"
2. 19:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Publix. (TW)"
3. 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Publix. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP seems to think a twitter account trumps the WP:RS present at George W. Jenkins, also blanked own talk page removing warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that Loriendrew has made one, two, three and then four reverts all on the very same day, note that on edit number 4 where he breaches 3RR, he cites the legislation in the same summary. This needs to be taken into consideration when examining editwarring from anons reported by established editors. Para Forts (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism reversal is an exemption of 3RR. If you note user also changed company formation date ahead 60 or so years. It is nice to know brand new users are getting interested in 3RR discussions.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stale Looks like the IP has moved on. Loriendrew, if they come back let me know and I will block for vandalism. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2‎ and User:2606:6000:610A:9000:888E:4ADD:E8AC:2B25‎ reported by User:LjL (Result: )

Page: Baby boomers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 2606:6000:610A:9000:888E:4ADD:E8AC:2B25‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [132]

The above #96 has nothing to do with 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at all. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [133]
2. [134]
3. [135]
4. [136]
5. [137]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138] and [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: explanations have been given with extensive edit summaries

Comments:
I am making the (I believe) very reasonable assumption that these two IPv6s are the same editor.

LjL (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Note that Millennials and Generation Z had to be protected last week because of edit warring from an IPv6 IP address ignoring 3RR warnings. I'd already requested temporary semi-protection of baby boomers, since this seems to be the same person. --McGeddon (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

McGeddon it seems like a conflict of interest to request a lock and then continue to edit the Generation Z page at-will. Especially since the lock was for an extra long time (11/4 to 11/11). Do you see how that appears to others?2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A WP:Conflict of interest? Have you read that page? Because it says something completely different. Requesting page protection and then editing is patently not a conflict of interest. Let me ask you though, what do you think hopping IPs and edit warring on them is, apart from - obviously - the thing that causes pages to get protected in the first place? LjL (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm bringing up a different issue than what is on that page. Outside of the walls of Wikipedia people do care about conflict of interests. We have been talking about the disputed issue for days on the talk page, the page was requested to be unlocked and the locking editor apparently did not take the time to consider that the disputes were being talked out meanwhile McGeddon still gets to edit the page at-will. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Well uhm maybe you shouldn't have edit warred? It's pretty normal that when an editor breaches 3RR they get blocked, or, in this case, since you're IP hopping, pages get protected; and then, other editors can and do keep editing. Consider following Wikipedia policies when editing, maybe... LjL (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree about following Wikipedia policies. The page should be unlocked immediately though. 2606:6000:610A:9000:8547:5B6E:711:E5E2 (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:MetallicaMan800 reported by User:LjL (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Douglas Fir the Talking Tree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MetallicaMan800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [140]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [141]
2. [142]
3. [143]
4. [144]
5. [145]

There is also a number of other reverts on this same article, mostly (but not exclusively) removing maintenance templates; not linking any further ones since, basically, the article's entire history is made up of this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no response from user to edit summaries

Comments:
User created this article, and is WP:OWNing it; has also been reported on WP:AIV because of seeming like a vandalism-only account (has defaced a user's talk page among other things).

LjL (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I'm convinced the user knowingly continued to edit war (after being warned), but you'll also note they have engaged in discussion on the article talk page in the past. Edit summaries are not how you communicate with other users. Not sure about it being a vandalism-only account; let's start with a brief block and go from there — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear-cut vandalism since they actually created an article about an existing product... but I have just proposed it for deletion on the basis of lack of notability, and I'm seeing other articles speedy deletion has been filed for: they seem to make articles that are just short of hoaxes (existing but extremely minor things, "sources" being Amazon product pages, and so on). LjL (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Brad90210 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: )

Page

Bloomingdale's (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Brad90210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "check again, source was not removed twice. thank you. Undid revision 689863306 by Epicgenius (talk)"
2. 21:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Source was removed on accident. thank you. Undid revision 689861360 by Epicgenius (talk)"
3. 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "source added"
4. 21:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Not Original Reserach, Bloomingdales is an exclusive luxury brand and does not have any middle class competitors."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 20:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Saks, et. al. */ new section"
3. 20:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Albany, New York. (TW)"
4. 21:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bergdorf Goodman. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Removing sources */ new section"

Comments:

User has been edit warring across multiple articles. Bloomingdale's, Saks Fifth Avenue, Albany, New York and others. This is the first time today that they have violated 3RR - but the edit warring has been clear cut from IP to newly registered editor today. Despite discussion and recommendations to use talk pages, user is reverting multiple editors and passing the bright line of 3RR Scr★pIron^IV 22:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I created this account to upload a picture as you can see. I am not intentionally "warring" with any one I am sorry you two did not like my edits, I made sure all of the sources were valid and credible. Brad90210 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC) I have not reverted to "multiple" editors, and I have not made any more edits. I will not be editing here any longer. Enjoy Brad90210 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Lord_.26_Taylor_editor.2C_back_as_an_anon_again. There have been repeated COI problems from anons at Lord & Taylor and related articles, and that article is now semi-protected, so anons can no longer edit it. (Lord & Taylor, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Hudson's Bay Company are all subsidiaries of NRDC Equity Partners.) This new SPA editor may be related. Is a sock check indicated? John Nagle (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I looked at that, from a behavioral standpoint I did not think it was the same editor. This one gave a name on my talk page, and looks like a low-level sales person who moves between department stores. Perhaps a little conflict of interest, but the not kind that replaced the "History" section with "A Legendary Company" Scr★pIron^IV 23:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You're probably right. The L & T anons all seemed to have a very specific agenda, trying over and over to insert the same copy. This new editor seems more random. John Nagle (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Strawbury17a reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: )

Page

Yunjin Kim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Strawbury17a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "clarifying her nationality and added source; her best know film in South Korea"
2. 11:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 11:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "She is a South Korea-born american (source : source : http://speciallotto.tistory.com - moved to U.S in 1980 when she was 7)"
4. 11:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "Kim yun jin is not a Korean; She has U.S nationality (source : http://speciallotto.tistory.com/604) and had moved to U.S in 1980, thus when she was 7 years old."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yunjin Kim. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

attempt to communicate through edit summaries and invitation to use talk page was ignored. William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 12:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Sakultah reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Blocked)

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

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 (Paolowalter removes town "Shekh Ahmad" and adds "Kuweires military housing", with edit summary)
• Revert 1 (Sakultah adds town "Shekh Ahmad", without edit summary) 16:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Edit 2 (Rhocagil removes town "Shekh Ahmad", with edit summary)
• Revert 2 (Sakultah adds town "Shekh Ahmad", without edit summary) 18:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147] [148] [149] [150]

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. In addition, you can notice a number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his unsourced edits. After a 5 day block for edit warring, this user found nothing better than to come back and edit war some more on the same module with unsourced edits, breaking 1RR. Tradedia^talk 20:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

  We have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The user simply resumes the disruptive activity after the block lifts, based on the edit history. He did that after my previous block lifted. The next block will be permanent. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Stolichanin reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "reverting without explanation and discussion by Ljl. The collage is based over opinions of all editors in talk page. This mosaic represent all architectual styles in the city."
2. 20:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "No examples for neo-classical and neo-renaissance architecture, dominated the all central part of Sofia, in template. The image of Vitosha was critisized by many editors before. Sofia is popular as one of the greenest capitals and parks are needed"
3. 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "revert. WP:Vandalism"
4. 19:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Adding of aerial view until estabilishment of consensus about the mosaic."
5. 19:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "revert. No examples for neo-classical and neo-renaissance architecture, dominated the all central part of Sofia, in template. The image of Vitosha was critisized by many editors before. Sofia is popular as one of the greenest capitals and parks are needed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[151] and [152] (this is a note added by LjL (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC))

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[153] (this is a note added by LjL (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC))

Comments:

Continuing edit-warring. No signs of stopping. Has been blocked on 21 and 24 October for exactly the same reason. Dr. K. 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I find the edit summary of 20:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "revert. WP:Vandalism" very worrying as it is a blatant misstatement of the truth (which is that no WP:Vandalism took place at all). I had previously warned Stolichanin about misapplying the term "vandalism", so they must have been aware of this when they used the term again to justify their edit warring. Nevertheless, I have warned them again to the same effect. LjL (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism for not agreeing with his/her edits is just another indication of this editor's strong bent for edit-warring, especially given his/her recent two blocks for edit-warring. Dr. K. 21:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – Already blocked twice for edit warring on this article. Stolichanin looks like he is prepared to continue forever. Any admin may lift this block if they are persuaded that Stolichanin has changed his mind and will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

User:68.231.26.111 reported by User:Victor Punta (Result: Nominator blocked indef)

Page

Portal:Current events/2015 November 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [154]
2. 20:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690189579 by Victor Punta (talk)and another sock comes into being ... just 4 days ago to edit war!!!"
3. 20:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690188450 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)blogs are not suitable citation for an encylopedia and protests of tiny groups fail WP:NOTABILITY"
4. 20:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690188093 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)the guy (or i should say sockpuppet) who just reverted me and called me a vandal established is sock just 4 days ag"
5. 20:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690125191 by Victor Punta (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. 20:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2015 November 10. (TW)"

Note: IP editor removed warnings...

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Victor Punta= another sock of just 4 days since creation for the sole purpose of editwaring--68.231.26.111 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

so I ask you - who exactly is the edit warrior???--68.231.26.111 (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Victor Punta has made repeated edit warring attempts to add unsuitable material to wiki (1) blogs as sources and (2) tiny protests failing WP:NOTABILITY which he believes are "world events"--68.231.26.111 (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Repeat portal current event edit warrer.... Victor Punta (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note Please hold off on closing. I'm going to open a SPI. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked indefinitely Sockpuppet. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

User:85.110.121.66 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi)

Page: Seljuk Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 85.110.121.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [158]
2. [159]
3. [160]
4. [161]
5. [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has chosen not to engage in discussion on talk page.

Comments:
Seljuk Empire and Sultanate of Rum, both have been inundated with anti-Persian IPs; removal of references, removal of referenced information and referenced quotes. Absolutely no attempt was made by IPs to discuss on talk page. Clearly just POV editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Biblioworm. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User: 186.151.51.159 reported by User:Bleckter (Result: Semi)

Page: White Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.151.51.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP insulted me in the history.

Comments:
The IP removes sources and adds a table with wrong information. I put a warning in his user talk but he blanked the page. [168] In the history he attacked me. He told me " so shut your mouth!". [169] --Bleckter (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Frinton100 (Result: 1 month)

Page: Oldham West and Royton by-election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mabelina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version

Special:Diff/689848983/689851521

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/689869493/689870691
2. Special:Diff/689871691/689872908
3. Special:Diff/689873282/689874370
4. Special:Diff/689879216/689879449
5. Special:Diff/689876654/689876868

Diffs of 3RR warning Special:Diff/689878847/689888282

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Special:Diff/689693933/689877151
2. Special:Diff/689576931/689869901

Comments:

There has also been a spate of edit warring at John Bickley (UKIP) and over the last couple of days at Jim McMahon (politician), the latter leading to an exceptionally long discussion on the article talk page. In the case of Oldham West, consensus does not favour Mabelina's edits, and yet they have persisted in making them. Frinton100 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

They have violated 3RR at John Bickley today as well. AusLondonder (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why on Earth is this archived?

• Note Dearchived. I had started working on this, but then forgot about it the other day. :P Updating in a moment. --slakr^\ talk / 11:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 month — Apparently continued edit warring on this and other articles; prior block history. --slakr^\ talk / 11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alphama reported by User:Hanam190552 (Result: declined)

Page

Thảo luận:Hiệp ước Matignon (1954) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

User:Alphama had an action of violation the talk page of Hiệp ước Matignon (1954) and an action of violation against regualtion of wiki. User:Alphama had deleted discussions of User:Hanam190552 with out any eligible reasons. The reason proposed by User:Alphama was that the discussion of User:Hanam190552 was too long. [170]

• Declined — That page does not exist on the English wikipedia. The Vietnamese Wikipedia likely has its own edit-warring prohibitions and procedures for dealing with it. --slakr^\ talk / 12:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172] - 00:06 November 9
2. [173] - 21:15 November 9
3. [174] - 14:04 November 10

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning for edit warring was necessary. See the user's block log for their two previous blocks for edit warring or the previous times they've been brought to this edit warring noticeboard.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, but there is a discussion going on at the talk page, see here where the user directly states "Oh and BTW, the only one that was in danger of being in violation of 3RR was you." in an exchange with another editor, clearly demonstrating the user's lack of understanding our edit warring policy, being that three reverts were made a little over a 30 hour period, coming from an editor who has a history of edit warring problems. The idea in their head seems to be "as long as I don't revert more than 3 times, I'm not doing anything wrong" and we're only hurting ourselves here if we let that mentality continue to brew.

Comments:
I've said just about everything up above. The user doesn't understand the edit warring policy and perhaps a longer block than last time would be helpful as well as a 1RR restriction upon return from a block. They're well aware that there is an edit war going on and that they're a part of it, but continue to revert other editors while dancing around the magic number 3 and the 24 hour period they know would be grounds for an immediate block. Also feel free to see here where I approached the admin who blocked this editor twice this year and the editor's reply there was all about me "having it out for them" and admitting to getting into edit wars due to a "passion for what [they are] contributing to". Overall damaging to Wikipedia and its' editors to let someone with this mindset continue editing this way. Gloss 22:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, the user Gloss has a personal vendetta against me, and I don't, for the life of me, know why. For what's it's worth I am seizing editing the article in question ([[American Horror Story: Hotel]) for the time being. I regret the fact that the situation escalated to this point. I highly recommend Gloss' own behaviour/edit history be closely evaluated. They are one of the top tier instigators on this site. LLArrow (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what behavior of mine you believe needs to be evaluated, but I'll refrain from commenting here again unless further explanations are requested by an admin. Gloss 05:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your behaviour of aimlessly taking other users that "wrong" you to task needs to be seriously considered as disruptive. I fail to see how you significantly contribute to Wikipedia, other than serving as an ubiquitous, self serving policeman. LLArrow (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This behaviour is concerning but not sure we have a smoking gun here. Three reverts and not all within 24 hours. LLArrow is advised that a block would not be inappropriate here, but as they have now disengaged I suspect a block at this point would be regarded as punitive. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Declined as stale --slakr^\ talk / 12:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Gob Lofa reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: declined)

Page: Guildford pub bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gob Lofa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175] (NOTE: NOT DONE TO AVOID VIOLATING WP:3RR) Quis separabit? 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [176]
2. [177]
3. [178]
4. [179]
5. [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [181]

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

Comments:

1. [183] -- example of Gob_Lofa's condescending and dismissive attitude towards other editors (not only myself)
2. Editor in question continues to revert even though a robust and far from conclusive discussion is going on here. Quis separabit? 16:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment This article is part of the Troubles and should be under a 1RR. Murry1975 (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I hope I'm not going to be penalised for reverting to your version, QS. Gob Lofa (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: there is something wrong with your above list of revert diff: only two are actually such. LjL (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps they have been censored by some inimical power? Juan Riley (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I count four revisions over a few days, including one of Gob Lofa's characteristically misleading edit summaries saying 'see talk' when there is yet no agreement on the talk page. Gob Lofa has a combative attitude to any edit which is reverted and a habit of not engaging on the talk page but simply asking what s/he obviously thinks are clever questions instead. We also have long term edit wars in which s/he will simply wait a month or so then reinstitute . For example here where s/he reinstates a contested edit on the 10th Sept, it is reverted again then a wait and on the 29th October the edit is reinstated with the "as discussed' misleading edit summary again. We similar behaviour and misleading edit summaries ("Already discussed") at Martina Anderson and many other articles. All of this is often over very minor edits, although Gob Lofa also has a habit of removing words like terrorism (that seems to have subsided in the last month or so). So this may not have been properly reported and a full warning was not given, but an experienced admin really needs to take a look at the overall behaviour of an editor with a WP:POV and WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to Northern Ireland articles. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Declined While it appears to be on the verge of long-term edit warring, it's not quite there yet. Issues related to the discretionary sanctions on The Troubles should be directed to arbitration enforcement. --slakr^\ talk / 12:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:216.1.89.148 reported by User:Stevietheman (Result: semi-protected)

Page

United States presidential election, 1968 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689888721 by Stevietheman (talk)"
2. 15:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 69003592 Editor failed to show how the citation did not support the entry. Editor is misusing Wikipedia to express her point of view."
3. 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690143072 by Stevietheman (talk)"
4. 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690150809 by Stevietheman (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on United States presidential election, 1968. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. New content in "Campaign strategies" section - I would have done this sooner but I needed some time to put this together, and also, I felt that the 3RR violation needed to be dealt with (so far it hasn't been).

Comments:

IP has done 4 reverts within 24 hours. Several other editors disagree with the change this user wants to make. User refuses to discuss in talk after two requests. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

On closer inspection, it's myself and another IP editor who disagrees with the change. At any rate, it seems this user is more interested in warring than defending the change. The IP has mostly done blank reverts, and called me out for nonexistent vandalism on their talk page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

And, as you can see below, they have now taken the opportunity to file a baseless report on me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected --slakr^\ talk / 13:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevietheman reported by User:AUpirate (Result: declined)

Page: United States presidential election, 1968 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stevietheman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [184]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

User talk:216.1.89.148 November 2015 What do you mean by "our policies"? Please stop vandalizing this page or you will be reported. Your entries and opinions are not helpful and are not supported by objective sources. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

This is abusive of this page's process. I have done only two reverts in the past 24 hours. So, apparently, this is retaliation for my report above. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk / 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Rasulnrasul reported by User:AmritasyaPutra (Result: declined)

Page

Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690017335 by Kautilya3 (talk)"
2. 19:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "reverting Wikipedia:UNDUE not applicable since it is from reliable source and discussion has started to remove if anyone want"
3. 19:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "not a valid reason to remove, please discuss in talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning on user talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Article talk page section

Comments:

AmritasyaPutra^T 02:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk / 13:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:76.114.152.44 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 31h)

Page

Richard Downie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690305208 by Fyddlestix (talk) Also, it's not a BLP violation to mention facts with appropriate sourcing,"
2. 11:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC) "Restored mainstream expose focus by Center for Public Integrity sidebar to main story of promotion of human rights abuse at CHDS. Wikipedia is not a personal P.R. promotion vehicle."
3. 01:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC) "Restored well-documented information in first paragraph."
4. 00:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC) "Restored accuracy. Wikipedia is not meant to be public relations lair."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Richard Downie. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

WP:BLP issue; user had been notified of discussion on BLP noticeboard before final revert.

Comments:

. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 13:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Icarus of old reported by User:194.145.208.20 (Result: stale)

Guys, I'm having a serious problem here: I've tried editing this page's IPA following Wikipedia rules about Italian phonetic transcription and linking a more than clear example too (ref-8). The matter is the phonetic transcription of the labiodental nasal /ɱ/: as said in both pages, a nasal (N, M) before a labiodental fricative (F, V) is always a labiodental nasal (/ɱ/). Incredible, uh? The example used in the 2nd page for Italian is iNVece, where the sequence 'NV' is phonetically transcripted /ɱv/. It's the same, identic case of iNFamante (except that, ovbiously, the fricative is F instead of V).

BUT there's a but: mr. Icarus of old doesn't agree. Both with me and with en.wiki. He's keeping reverting my edits since yesteday. He asked me to provide sources: I did it. I wrote civilly on his talk page, trying explaining why he was wrong. He undid my edits, came on my talk page and wrote first quite politely and then quite rudely also because English is not my mother language (I bet he can speak franco-provençal better than me...).

He keeps saying that en.wiki cannot be a source for itself... But this is not about sources: in such provided pages is indicated 'how' to represent the phonetical transcription of Italian. For example, to represent the Italian sounds written ZZ ('aZZurro') it's not used this sequence /d͡ːz/ but this one /ddz/. And this isn't even exactly the matter: because there's no issue about the phonetic transcription of /ɱ/, it's just /ɱ/, period. It's not /n/, it's not /m/, it's /ɱ/. What do we have to discuss about? I really don't understand...

And, if he didn't cancel what I've written on his talk without first reading it, he could see the external source provided by me, the same source cited on the 2nd page I linked: Journal of the International Phonetic Association - Italian - Cambridge Journals Online. Not the newspaper my dog stole from the old woman who lives in the house next to mine: the 'Journal of the International Phonetic Association - Italian - Cambridge Journals Online'. He just has to buy it, or even just read it for 4.49 €, if he can't trust my surced words.

What can I do? Anyone can help me with this nuisance? I don't know how to behave, I don't want to go against wikipedian rules, I've stopped reverting his edits because he called a friend who can keep reverting for him so that he doesn't appear to be edit warring nor going against the 3 revert rule... Please, tell me what to do, I've provided all the information I could to explain my point, to explain why /ɱ/ is correct while /m/ and /n/ aren't. Please, answer soon, anyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.208.20 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not informed of this by the IP user, as is made clear at the top of the page, nor did I "call a friend" to help out. Icarus of old (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Your activity on Wikipedia is not constructive and I'm having a really hard time understanding the points you are trying to get across. No need to be so dramatic. I highly doubt this post will gain any traction. Meatsgains (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never interacted with either of these editors; I reverted an unsourced change that is being defended with WP:CIRCULAR logic. There is no collusion or edit warring going on. I will WP:AGF and try to believe that the replacement of my entire talk page[188] by this IP with another's editors contents was some kind of mistake. Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolved — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Without consensus. Icarus of old (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Rosica ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.1.89 (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a final little gem: I DO assume good faith, so I don't think at all that anonymous user with a Memphis IP is an unlogged Icarus of old, for sure it's a different person who has nothing to do with him, it's just a coincidence that the IP contributions include insults (such as this or this) towards users who coincidentally had just edited a page where watching the history you can find several edits from Icarus of old, it's definitely a coincidence and I can bet he has nothing to do with that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.111.27 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stale --slakr^\ talk / 13:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Jalodiya reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: declined)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690017515 by Mahensingha (talk)"
2. 11:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent history */Added content"
3. 10:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Medieval period */Added content"
4. 09:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */Deleted immaterial text"
5. Consecutive edits made from 05:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC) to 05:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"
   2. 05:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent history */Deleted inappropriate content"
   3. 05:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Subdivisions */Minor tweaks. In the context"
   4. 05:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "/* See also */Deleted unwanted text from the content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Meena. (TW)"
2. 11:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Meena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of rig veda:a historical analysis */ Suggestion"
2. 11:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of rig veda:a historical analysis */"
3. 11:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Meenas belongs to Kshatriyas varna */ Reply"
4. 14:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Meenas belongs to Kshatriyas varna */"

User is intentionally adding the contents from unreliable promotional websites and removing the sourced contents. He is interested only in glorification of Meena community. Please also see his [Behaviour_on_Talk_page]

Comments:

I don't see edit warring here. In fact only one of the diffs provided seems to be a revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

He has reverted the corrections made by me twice in which he added the unreliable contents and removed the sourced contents. I tried to discuss with him but his behaviour is not co operative and I request you to Please follow the talk page of Meena article.--MahenSingha (Talk) 14:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Declined While the three revert rule hasn't been breached, this is clearly a content dispute between Mahensingha and Jalodiya that's slowly becoming an edit war. I strongly recommend both editors seek dispute resolution (e.g., a third opinion or open an RFC) or both editors risk getting blocked and/or the page protected. --slakr^\ talk / 12:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Review requested: I again request to review the case as it is not edit conflict because I have not made any major edit on the page I just told him to follow the process as the said user removed the sourced contents and added the information based on his original research. Please also note that the contents of the article are outcome of lengthy discussions and refinement by the consensus which he intend to change now just for the promotional purposes, the process usually seen on the Indian caste related topics. Also review his illogical behaviour on the talk page of the article Talk:Meena, where he did a lot cut, copy and paste without bothering much for the policies.--MahenSingha (Talk) 22:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:80.182.68.92 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Concord Production Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "this isn't evasion block / why Game of Death???? is a wikidata different"
2. 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Yes but The Game of Death enwiki is inexistent or could you create the page here as fr:The Game of Death or es:The Game of Death or simple:The Game of Death / Link in Game of Death confuses all wikimedia!"
3. 17:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690483592 by JohnBlackburne (talk)"
4. 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690484389 by JohnBlackburne (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Concord Production Inc.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Block evasion, but already at four reverts so why wait for Sock Puppet investigation? JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

see the puppet master User:Charliewolf79 and previous appearance as User:Jonny9791 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

and note that the user went on to edit war at the game of death and then created User:Smitersleon to continue the edit war there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Smitersleon indeffed. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

User:77.10.77.253 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page

Karl Marx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690441887 by VoluntarySlave (talk) restore long standing Version (years); i.e. editor consensus, see talk archive"
2. 20:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690496871 by RolandR (talk) see here, for example: [[189]]"
3. 21:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690506947 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Karl_Marx/Archive_8#Marx_was_not_a_German"
4. 23:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690517478 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) back to version, that existed for YEARS!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP has been warned by another editor. Also appears to have made the same edit from another IP [190] RolandR (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mimi C. reported by User:NCdave (Result: stale)

Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mimi C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (diff): [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [192] 19:15 Removed "where all 3rd and 4th year students receive scholarships in return for military committment," which had been inserted 23 minutes earlier, at 18:52, by Christo1234, as shown above
2. [193] 19:59 "(Reverted 1 edit by Christo1234 to last revision by Cwobeel.)"
3. [194] 20:48 "(Undid revision 689388498 by Christo1234 (talk) please see Wikipedia rules. Your revision is not supported by references, whereas, mine are. The title of the Politico article is not mentioned.)"
4. [195] 20:50 "(reinserted "Carson's campaign conceded to Politico that he had never been offered a full scholarship")"

At 20:51 (one minute after his own 3RR violation) Mimi C. posted a very harsh comment on Christo1234's Talk page, accusing him of disruptive editing and vandalism, and threatening him with being "blocked from editing." [196]

At 23:47 I posted a comment on Mimi C.'s Talk page asking him to not be so harsh toward inexperienced editors: [197]

18 minutes later, instead of responding, he simply deleted it (blanked the whole Talk page): [198]

Subsequently, he has continued to edit the article; e.g.: [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

I am not involved in this edit war, but Christo1234 (whose edits Mimi C. reverted four times in 95 minutes) did try to resolve this dispute on the article talk page. Here's the diff of his/her attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201]

Christo1234 posted that at 20:39, which was 9 minutes before Mimi C.'s 3rd revert.

At 20:44 (four minutes before Mimi C.'s 3nd revert) Christo1234's edit comment asked Mimi C. to "please see talk page" to discuss their argument: [202]

The section Christo1234 created is still there; Unfortunately, Mimi C. did not reply (neither did anyone else): [203]

Comments:

What troubles me most is the way that Mimi C. treated an inexperienced editor. I don't know either of these editors, but Christo1234 rarely edits on Wikipedia. This was the first time (s)he had edited in nearly a year. He or she only edited on one day in 2014, and two days in 2013.

Everyone on Wikipedia should be treated courteously, but inexperienced editors especially so, to encourage them to contribute. Instead, Mimi C. repeatedly reverted Christo1234's well-intentioned edits (four times in just 95 minutes), ignored his or her entreaty to discuss it on the Talk page, accused him or her of disruptive editing and vandalism, and threatened him or her with blocking.

Wikipedia should be a friendly place. That was not friendly. That's the sort of treatment which causes editors to abandon Wikipedia for long periods of time. NCdave (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

From my POV: (note, this is concerning the Ben Carson article where conflicting stories were being reported about him throughout the day, causing confusion among editors).

At the time, I found Christo1234's edits were unsubstantiated due to lack of proper references, his POV was biased towards the subject matter (which goes against the neutrality rules of Wikipedia) and quite a few grammar and punctuation issues were found in his sentences. I looked up his history and found that he had barely made any edits over the years. I had kindly asked him to please read Wikipedia rules. When Christo kept reverting back to his own erred edits, I had deduced (perhaps erroneously), that he was a troll which is why I sent out the (TW) Wikipedia Warnings of blocking to deter him from further editing, which he eventually did. I then received a note from NCdave, whom I don't know, and who was not involved in the edit war. I decided not to respond and went ahead and cleared my talk page (which I regularly do - I'm assuming I'm allowed to since it's my own?). I apologize if my actions appeared abrupt and I will be more patient and responsive in the future with editors. After being an editor for a long time on Wikipedia, and seeing common trends and trying to decipher if the person is trolling or not, we tend to jump to conclusions too easily, and forget that once, we were once Wiki novices too, in need of patience as well. Again, my apologies. Regards, --Mimi C. (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't analysed these edits in detail, but this revert certainly seems inappropriate as you reintroduced poor grammar to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol, good catch Martin!--Mimi C. (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stale --slakr^\ talk / 12:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the criteria for dismissing a complaint as "stale?"

I'd like to have at least seen some assurance from Mimi C. that (s)he will strive to be gentler on inexperienced editors in the future. Instead, he complained that "[Christo1234's] POV was biased towards the subject matter (which goes against the neutrality rules of Wikipedia)."

That statement is manifestly false, because Christo1234's edits give no evidence of any bias for anything except truthfulness and even-handedness, and Mimi C.'s statement also shows that Mimi C. is still assuming bad faith on the part of Christo1234.

In fact, Mimi C.'s edits to the article -- not Christon1234's! -- repeatedly inserted already-discredited and poorly-sourced negative material, despite Christo1234's Talk page objections, such as the false accusation that "Carson's campaign conceded to Politico that he had never been offered a full scholarship."

Christo1234 complained, on the article Talk page, that "8) carson never "concedes" to politico anything, yet this word is then added to wiki story as fact and reverted to without explanation. / 7) the reversions being made by mimi c. do not contain any comments as to why, just reversions." Mimi C.'s response was no response, except to immediately reinsert the false material into the article.

I'd like to have seen some indication that Mimi C. will refrain from such behavior in the future, before dismissing the complaint as "stale." NCdave (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@NCdave: This noticeboard isn't for general conduct complaints; it's for edit warring and three-revert rule violations, not exorcising assumptions of bad faith or assessing what should or should not be used in an article. Please see WP:ANI, WP:DRN, and WP:M for the former; see the article's talk page (and if needed the requests for comment system) for the latter. --slakr^\ talk / 10:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:12.239.13.142 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: 31h)

Page

Hulagu Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690491467 by Loriendrew (talk) I provided the resources if you have any trouble about it look it up yourself before deleting content. Until then stop unnecessary deletions."
2. 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690484750 by Loriendrew (talk) I have provided my resources, and if you folks would just look it up rather than blindly taking it down I would be grateful. Thank you."
3. 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690397264 by Kansas Bear (talk) I have provided my resources from which the additions were found in please look it up."
4. 01:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690356973 by Kansas Bear (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hulagu Khan. (TW)"
2. 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. (TW)"
3. 17:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: HowToCite. (TW)"
4. 18:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also see edits at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A subsequent search of the IP's source on the Hulagu Khan article;

• A Concise History of the Middle East, by Arthur Goldschmidt Jr
  

reveals no mention of Hulagu's conversion to Buddhism, no mention of syphilis or ruptured aorta. This is the very issue the IP has edit warred over. Also, the IP's edit warring at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising[204] appears to incorporate a fake book.[205] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 10:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mlg666666 reported by User:NFLisAwesome (Result: 31h)

Page: South Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mlg666666 (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. First case
2. Second time
3. Third time, this time reverting rather than simply readding
4. Fourth time, second revert
5. Fifth time, third revert
6. Sixth time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Mlg666666 had been reverted a few times by Geraldo Perez, and despite Geraldo saying to take it to the talk page, they continued to add it, as seen with the sixth diff. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 10:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Takafumi1 reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: )

Page

Raja Raja Chola I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Takafumi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 08:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC) to 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Malai Nadu */"
2. 03:44, 10 November 2015
3. 21:29, 9 November 2015
4. 02:56, 9 November 2015

… etc.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:42, 9 November 2015
2. 03:25, 8 November 2015

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:43, 9 November 2015 (Not sure if this counts.)

Comments:

User:Takafumi1 has been repeatedly removing {{refimprove}}, {{unreliable sources}}, {{page needed}}, {{not in ref}}, and other tags from Raja Raja Chola I. Takafumi1 also persists in adding unreliable sources to the article. They have not responded to warnings (by myself and also by User:Kansas_Bear) on their talk page and continue their disruptive editing even after attempts at discussion. They also consistently refuse to add edit summaries to their edits. There might be WP:OWN issues at play as well as the pages that Takafumi1 edits the most appear to revolve around the Chola dynasty. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Takafumi1 has been adding tags to the Mahmud of Ghazni article, without any explanation.[207][208] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hanam190552 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)

• Page: North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Vietnamese elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
  
• User being reported: Hanam190552 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although they have't broken 3RR (yet), this user is edit-warring across multiple articles. This started when they attempted a cut & paste move of North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946 to 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election. Once this was reverted, they have made multiple attempts to add dubious and biased ("unpatriotic Vietnamese") information to the article:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First attempt to add such information
2. Second attempt
3. Third attempt

At this point the article was locked after I made a request at WP:RFPP. As a result, they then started editing the article that they had created via the cut & paste move:

1. First recreation (after the cut & paste move had been undone)
2. Second recreation

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Opposed: I Provided official information for reliable sources, which are official newspaper of Vietnam, Pre-1946 elections in Vietnam were not conducted by VietnameseHanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to this, they have been repeatedly making inappropriate edits to {{Vietnamese elections}}, namely removing the pre-1946 elections (probably to back up their claim that the 1946 elections were the first in Vietnam), changing the link for the 1946 election to the title they cut & pasted the article to, and changing North Vietnam and South Vietnam to Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Vietnam, despite the fact that the latter two redirect to the former two:

1. First attempt
2. Second attempt
3. Third attempt

Whilst this has been going on I have been attempting to get them to stop this and discuss (see User talk:Hanam190552#Cut & paste moves) but sadly it has not stopped them from continuing to cause problems on the articles. I note that they were blocked twice in October for edit warring at Vietnam-related articles. Number 57 16:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Opposed: I Provided official information for reliable sources, which are official newspaper of Vietnam, Pre-1946 elections in Vietnam were not conducted by Vietnamese. User: Number 57 prevent me to redirect pages and provide official informationHanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week – The editor seems to have some knowledge about Vietnamese politics but he needs to follow consensus here. He has been blocked twice before and the outlook for the future isn't good. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Hanam190552 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election User being reported:: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:: [209]

User:Number 57 provided unofficial and bias information. User:Number 57 tried to prevent me from correcting by request block page: [North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946]

Violation by rediceting 3RR

1. [210]
2. [211]

besides that, in discussions, he cannot defend his arguements17:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The information provided by User:Number 57 was bias informationHanam190552 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is clearly an attempt at revenge following my report of this user immediately above. Sadly it seems the user is unfamiliar with what 3RR is (citing two reverts not four), and those reverts are of them having made a cut & paste move. Should be a classic WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)You request the block before I can redirect. Secondly, You cannot show the results of the 1946 election in areas like me, You cannot prove that the 1946 election occured in only the North Vietnam by figure but I can prove that the 1946 election occured in all areas of Vietnam by official figures, the figure from the website of National Assembly of VietnamHanam190552 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Your book provided bias information, the book had not provided full information, the number of seats of the First National Assemly was wrong (the truth is 403 seats, but the books said 302), the party name on the ballots (the truth is Viet Minh, not Vietnam's Labor Party), and the number of seats of each party. The book does not provide the information that Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang and Vietnam Revotionay League did not particpate the 1946 election because they had gained 70 seats by an agreement with Viet Minh in December, 1945 Hanam190552 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC).

• Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:WouNur reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked)

Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WouNur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [212]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [219] [220] [221]

Single purpose account ignoring repeated attempts to engage on talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Still reverting after notice of this case posted on user talk. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This editor has a personal theory about banking that he is eager to share on Wikipedia (see his user talk page). He has been adding the word 'fraudulent' to the fractional reserve banking page. His account was newly created on 12 November. If he proves unable to edit neutrally a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:Lx 121 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [222]

Info/Background: This case has a LONG history; the user has been "camped out" on this article since 2013; their ONLY significant editing activity has been to remove uncomplimentary material from the article. Persistently. Repeatedly. With little or no rationale. The user isn't even pretending to be applying "BLP" anymore.

The user has removed material added by multiple users; over years. I only got into this thing by noticing the user's activity.

The user has gotten into multiple disputes & edit wars, with multiple users, over the years. The user has had 1 (& the same) sympathetic "buddy" backing him up in many of these; which has been sufficient to either "win" or at least keep them from being blocked from editing the article.

Talking to him hits a blank wall; been there, done that, more than once.

Opened yet another discussion on the article's talk page about it, no response; except to delete more material from the article, & I'm pretty sure the user is watching the talk page too.

The diffs are legion. Here is the article's history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=history

If you do a word-search, "hillbillyholiday" comes up 27 times in the last 1000 edits. The overwhelming majority of those are for edits removing material (i.e.: material that is uncomplimentary to the subject). The only exceptions to this are a few additions of tags (to same type of content).

...& lets be clear: the factuality of the material IS NOT in serious dispute. ALL of this stuff is in the public record. It was said, it was done, etc. It is sourced & more sources are available; the range of sources being removed by this user negates any credible arguement of "RS". The edit-comments of the user range from moderately credible invocations of "RS" or "BLP" to point blank "WP:I don't like this".

This has been going on for long enough. We are pretty free & easy with swinging the hammers @ Wikimedia these days (protect, block, ban, etc.), & we've lost a lot of good people that way. This is a case where action is LONG overdue; it would be nice to see some action in a case that actually deserves it.

Diffs of the user's reverts: (see above) for the current "battle" see:

1. [223]
2. [224]
3. [225]

Then 3 more "whitewash" edits in succession, cumulative result shown below:

1. [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228]

Comments:

Addendum: If you look @ the user's overall contribs, this person also appears to be engaged in a minor campaign to eliminate any use of dailymail.co.uk as a source, from any article they come across. Unless we are going to formally blacklist the daily mail as an RS, the user really shouldn't be doing that. Not a blocking offense, but it does fall somewhere between a useless activity, & potential NNPOV source-bias nuisance. Lx 121 (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lx 121 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification to user: [229]

Lx 121 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-Up: And the user has now deleted my comment & notice on their talk page. Less than 1 hour after posting it; & no reply/response. Lx 121 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to do that. Under these circumstances I would have done the same. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

comment: well i don't delete anything from my talk page, doing so makes a JOKE of "archiving"; but that issue is beside the point. i mentioned this action in order to demonstrate 2 things: i) that the user is aware of the situation, & ii) that the user is uncommunicative/unresponsive/uncooperative (pick whatever term you like best, to describe it). Lx 121 (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You give the impression of someone new to the ways of this project—for example, the Talk page history demonstrates both of these actions forever.
Beware that you do not finish up here shooting yourself in the foot. Best to avoid a boomerang at all costs! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

actually i've been "here" since 2009, & i must have something like 15,000-25,000 edits "under my belt" by now, though more of them are @ wmc than @ wp/en; &, with all due respect, just because "for example, the Talk page history demonstrates both of these actions forever." -- that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. AND as i said in my post just above "i mentioned this action (ON the talkpage) in order to demonstrate 2 things: i) that the user is aware of the situation, & ii) that the user is uncommunicative/unresponsive/uncooperative (pick whatever term you like best, to describe it)."

i appreciate the advice; but a) we are off on a tangent from the actual issue here, this is about a user who is "whitewashing" a biographical article; obviously, & repeatedly. with impunity. & b) if the community process @ wikipedia is really SO broken that it can long longer fix a simple, obvious problem like this one, then i really don't need to be spending my time @ wikipedia anymore. i have already drastically cut the amount of time i spend editing @ wikimedia projects, because i've been really turned off by how BADLY "the system" is working now. i can find other things to do. i can find more productive, useful things to do. & i'm certainly not the only user who feels that way; it looks like even a lot of the "dedicated" admins are going. a lot of the boards seem pretty dead, compared to what they used to be like a few years ago. Lx 121 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No violation – It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break WP:3RR. If you have questions about the usability of sources you can ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

...my complaint is about 'EDIT WARRING, NOT "3r" specifically. if you re-read my original post, you will find that i never even mentioned WP:3RR, JUST edit warring.

"Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring."

"back in the day" this [230] used to count as an "edit war".

if we're NOT in an edit war, i'll just put the page back to the state it was in, before hillbillyholiday started chopping, AGAIN, & you can let me know when it counts as an edit war?

otherwise do i need to RE-FILE this complaint, or can we have another review of this one; preferably by a different admin?

Lx 121 (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OR perhaps you could recommend another board, more relevant to this particular type of user-problem? Lx 121 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Martinkunev reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: warned)

Page: Trans-Pacific Partnership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinkunev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:15, 13 November 2015‎ (Undid revision 690377065 by Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk)) (undo | thank) [231]
2. 20:33, 13 November 2015‎ (Undid revision 690441768 by Phoenix7777 (talk) you can discuss this in the talk page) (undo | thank)[232]
3. 20:42, 13 November 2015‎ (there is no such agreement) (undo | thank)[233]
4. 20:56, 13 November 2015‎ (Undid revision 690446640 by DiscantX (talk) there is a talk section about this; nobody seems to notice it and want to have a discussion) updated since my last visit (undo | thank) [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

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

Comments:
The edit war was started by User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq here. I tried to keep the page in its original state. User:Phoenix7777 refused to engage in a discussion, claiming that there has already been reached an agreement while there is no agreement at all.

1. 13:54, 13 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,941 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (already reached agreement.) (undo | thank)
2. 14:39, 13 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,941 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (Undid revision 690444803 by Martinkunev (talk). no consensus at all. also as I said it has been reached agreement.)

Here is a discussion regarding the conflicting edits on the page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Trans-Pacific_Partnership. I'm sorry that wikipedia's policy specifies that I can only try to preserve a page 3 times a day. Martinkunev (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the word "agreement". The agreement means the TPP has been reached "agreement", not "controversial" reached agreement as I said "no consensus at all". So the word "proposed" is unnecessary.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the word "proposed" is appropirate is currently discussed in the talk. You removed the word "controversal" while there is an ongoing discussion whether it is appropriate. There have also been numerous tries to edit the article (I've mentioned some here) to make the agreement sound good (which violates NPOV). Martinkunev (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Warned — It doesn't appear Martinkunev has continued at the moment (since the edit warring warning). I have, on top of the warning, left a {{Alert}} for on their talk page. Feel free to update this or re-report if they continue. --slakr^\ talk / 13:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the warning. The only reason why I was warned is because at least three people were trying to change the page (the first one most likely not a genuine user) and I was the only one trying to keep its original content. Nobody bothered to engage in the already started discussion before making dubious changes. I was watching the page for more than a week in order to prevent vandalism. It's clear that some people's interests go against the objectivity of the article and there is evidence for such people (most notably User:CFredkin who has sockpuppeting history) making edits. Here are some examples:

[236] # 19:06, 28 October 2015 CFredkin . (83,206 bytes) (-1,078). (→Investor–state arbitration (ISDS): rm not from reliable source)

[237] # 22:57, 28 October 2015 C.J. Griffin . (84,284 bytes) (+1,078). (Undid revision 687938053 by CFredkin (talk) Rv. Both Stiglitz and DN! qualify as RS)

[238] # 06:41, 7 November 2015 CFredkin . (83,919 bytes) (-1,337). (→Cost of medicine: Pls provide a secondary source for this to indicate notability.)

[239] # 08:28, 7 November 2015 DavidMCEddy . (85,759 bytes) (+1,839). (→Cost of medicine: added secondary source to indicate notability)

[240] # 19:54, 7 November 2015 CFredkin . (83,920 bytes) (-1,839). (→Cost of medicine: Sorry, Democracy Now is not a reliable source)

[241] # 20:24, 7 November 2015 C.J. Griffin . (85,655 bytes) (+1,839). (Undid revision 689504992 by CFredkin (talk) yes it is. We've been over this already.)

[242] # 20:34, 7 November 2015 CFredkin . (83,816 bytes) (-1,839). (Undid revision 689508848 by C.J. Griffin (talk) after the last discussion in Talk, it was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Lead_paragraph_does_not_indic)

There are several discussions related to this in the talk page.

The edit that started the war, was made by User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq which is likely a sockpuppet account. After my first revert, User:Phoenix7777 made the following change (which sounds very much like the last edit of User:CFredkin and just like it makes an invalid argument).

[243] # 14:39, 13 November 2015 Phoenix7777 . (86,941 bytes) (-23). (Undid revision 690444803 by Martinkunev (talk). no consensus at all. also as I said it has been reached agreement.)

I reverted the change, explaining that "there is no such agreement" and started a user talk discussion. User:DiscantX made the change again claiming that I have to justify myself. Finally, me and User:DiscantX discussed the issue. I explained to him that I was the one keeping the content under question unchanged (until a decision is reached at the talk) and he was the one changing it. He agreed on that ("Okay, you're right there").

User:Phoenix7777 never responded me in his user talk. At the end he accused me of violating the 3RR. As I said, I find his/her actions completely inappropriate.

I'm writing all this because I have done nothing wrong. I want to contribute to wikipedia and instead of doing that I'm forced to waste more than 8 hours of my time defending myself while I've done nothing wrong and in the process, I have to also waste other people's time.

At the end, the content of the page was changed (the word "controversial" was removed), without any discussion while there clearly are several opinions on the topic.

Martinkunev (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Rockhound57 reported by User:Samtar (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page

Saks Fifth Avenue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rockhound57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Does not violate WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ( Undid revision 690754178 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "No those are future events that are scheduled planned to happen. "Promo tone" is subjective, those are facts about the store which is plausible.Undid revision 690756723 by Samtar (talk)"
   2. 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "No those are future events that are scheduled planned to happen. "Promo tone" is subjective, those are facts about the store which is plausible.Undid revision 690756723 by Samtar (talk)"
   3. 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690757385 by Rockhound57 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Saks Fifth Avenue. (TW)"
2. 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring by User:Rockhound57 */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring by new editor to include future events in article - written in a mildly promotional tone. Have attempted resolution samtar ^{t} 14:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made several attempts to contact samar on his talk page with zero response or explanation behind the removal of my revert. I have not edited since he asked me not to. The section he wants to remove should not be removed. I will continue not to be disruptive and cautious with my editing. ThanksRockhound57 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have replied Rockhound57 - as I stated, this is now a discussion on your edit warring and not nessesarily the content you are disputing samtar ^{t} 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not warred with you but only asked you to explain your revert...Rockhound57 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: User is a suspected sockpuppet samtar ^{t} 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1012:B102:F649:302E:14EC:B130:7F03 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

2600:1012:B102:F649:302E:14EC:B130:7F03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Bronze Age origins */It's bc"
2. 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BC): El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel */It's BC"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age II (1000–586 BC)Yahweh as God of Israel */It's BC"
   2. 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Bronze Age origins */It's BC"
4. 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BC)El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel */It's BC"
5. 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Bronze Age origins */It's BC"
6. 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BC)El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel */It's BC"

ADDED 17:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC): 7

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yahweh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:141.8.61.233 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Irreligion by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "My edit is constructive because according to the referenced source the world atheist percentage is 41% not 36% because no response means no religion as well!"
4. 20:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 14:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 15:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "I insist in an aggregated figure because both"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Irreligion by country. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Tanbircdq (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Criticism of the Israeli government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<[244]-->

Previous version reverted to: [245]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]
4. [249]
5. [250]
6. [251]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [252]

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

Comments:

The editor has been editwarring by removing sourced content with various editors, including Makeandtoss and Denniss for nearly a month on this page. Temporary full-protection was added to the page recently but the editwarring continued once the protection was removed. The user has been warned about her disruptive editing but she ignored this and has continued to revert. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mohsin17 reported by User:Elockid (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of metropolitan areas by population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of slums in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of tallest buildings in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohsin17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: List of tallest buildings in Pakistan, List of metropolitan areas by population

Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of metropolitan areas by population

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4

List of slums in Pakistan

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3

List of tallest buildings in Pakistan

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5
6. Revert 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: List of metropolitan areas by population (Not exactly talk page though), List of tallest buildings in Pakistan

Comments:
See also here and here for history of edit warring/disruptive editing. Mohsin17 does not have any interest in discussing as evident by the number of editors who Mohsin17 has been edit warring with on multiple pages. Instead he/she accuses the other editors of being for example racist or Islamophobic. I know List of slums in Pakistan and List of tallest buildings in Pakistan isn't as recent, but I'm including it just to highlight Mohsin's edit warring history. Elockid ^{Message me} 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Many reverts. Zero article talk page posts. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:12.239.13.142 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Hulagu Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690397264 by Kansas Bear (talk) I have provided my resources from which the additions were found in please look it up."
2. 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690484750 by Loriendrew (talk) I have provided my resources, and if you folks would just look it up rather than blindly taking it down I would be grateful. Thank you."
3. 18:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690491467 by Loriendrew (talk) I provided the resources if you have any trouble about it look it up yourself before deleting content. Until then stop unnecessary deletions."
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690566108 by MarnetteD (talk)"
   2. 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Military campaigns */"
   3. 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Death */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hulagu Khan. (TW)"
2. 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. (TW)"
3. 17:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: HowToCite. (TW)"
4. 18:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
5. 19:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "/* IP 12.239.13.142's edit warring */ reply"

Comments:

User blocked for 31 hours on 13 Nov 15, resumed after block cleared. Also edit warring at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Alexander the Great in the Quran ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Resumption of edit warring after block expired. No use of talk pages. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mulkhan reported by User:Yerevantsi (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [253]
2. [254]
3. [255]
4. [256]
5. [257]
6. [258]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [259] by User:EtienneDolet

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

Comments:
User:Mulkhan is a single purpose user who refuses to cooperate, i.e. discuss the issue on the article talk page and instead prefers edit warring.--Երևանցի ^talk 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits were made because the potentially libellious material was being repeatedly inserted; talked in the talk page until it's carried on to the discussion board, please refer to that page. For keeping the discussion in one place; the link to the discussion was posted in the relevant place in the "controversies section" until all policy issues are made clear. The edits were made according to the reasons stated in edit summaries and per policy issues stated in the discussion board. Mulkhan (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You, and yourself only, are the only user that stands by your own words. There's at least five users ([260][261][262][263][264]) who disagree with you and would like to keep the article at its previous and more stable state. Please be reasonable, utilize the talk page, discuss, and stop the edit-warring. It's pretty simple. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Fully protected, 4 days. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Wikimandia (Result: Filer and reported blocked 72 hours)

Page: John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266]
2. [267]
3. [268]
4. [269]

(update) After this report started:

1. [270] POD warned by EdJohnston that he is risking a block and should offer explanation
2. [271] POD replies he does not care about administrators
3. [272] POD adds fifth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous warnings on his page: [273]

Comments:
User is a serial reverter and appears to suffer from WP:OWNERSHIP. Apparently on this article he wants the intro to only say subject is presumed dead, which is not true, as his son has been attempting (and failing) for years to get him declared legally presumed dead so he can inherit the earldom. I did not warn him this time as he knows 3RR well (is here regularly) and his threatening message on his talk page to all who dare challenge him says enough.

—Мандичка^YO 😜 09:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Where has the 16 October Independent report been cited in the main article text? If it has not been added to the main text, it should not be summarised in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The text cites this source for the failure - [274] I added the Independent article from October just as an addiional more recent source. The court case is back in the news and thus has renewed interest in the case (see spike in page views). My concern is that it is quite factually incorrect in the intro now, he is most certainly not presumed dead and this looks like an obvious goof to anyone who has come to the article after seeing it in the news. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So... add the new source to the main text, and summarise it in the lead if it is sufficiently important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

He has reverted that change, so it is clear the reason that that article was not also cited in the body is not the reason he is being reverted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is clear that there is no breach here. PoD is merely trying to maintain the article by keeping it in good order. What a cliché the OWNERSHIP accusation is in situations like this where the reporting editor is themselves clearly struggling with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cassianto^Talk 15:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • • This is not IDONTLIKEIT. It is "article is factually incorrect." Although I tend to dislike it when that happens. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute. I see no exemptions from edit warring here. This was edit warring. I will leave this to another admin to decide on the best action. HighInBC 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• HighInBC FYI POD stated (link above) he does not care about administrators (refusal to participate in this report) and added an additional revert. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I have blocked POD for 72 hours for continuing the edit war after this report was filed. Both POD and Wikimandia had engaged in edit warring prior to this report but Wikimandia had the sense to stop so I don't see the preventative value in blocking Wikimandia at this point. However I urge Wikimandia not to engage in further edit warring in the future, my decision not to block was a discretionary one and a block would be justified. HighInBC 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears I was in error, Wikimandia also made another revert after filing this report. So I am going to give the exact same block for Wikimandia. HighInBC 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:81.35.40.239 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690823048 by Carniolus (talk) false dont believe it. Is false"
   2. 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822897 by Crboyer (talk) false dont believe it is false"
2. 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822736 by Crboyer (talk) Vandalism"
3. 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822661 by Carniolus (talk) Vandalism."
4. 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822483 by Crboyer (talk) vandalism from multiple users"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822128 by Carniolus (talk) vandalism"
   2. 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822262 by 81.35.40.239 (talk) vandalism. Tangled 2 is real"
   3. 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Vandalism. Its true. Tangled 2 is inevitable"
6. 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690821968 by Carniolus (talk) tangled 2 is beyond question"
7. 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690821862 by Carniolus (talk)tangled 2. Is beyond question"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours By GB fan NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:74.216.86.188 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690819961 by DMacks (talk) No original research, in addition, WP:NOTFORUM. Also, Twitter and youtube links are Original Research WP:NOR"
2. 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690819275 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk) WP:NOT"
3. 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Criticism of Steam Greenlight and developer incidents */ Not encyclopedic. Please read up on Wikipedia policies."
4. 04:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Digital Homicide */ None of this section is encyclopedic, Seems to be fan written."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [275]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple warnings given. Ben^Yes? 22:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Twitter posts and youtube links are not published research. In addition, it isn't notable. 74.216.86.188 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, comments from reddit are not sources for an encyclopedia either.. Nor is tumblr blogs. 74.216.86.188 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours By DMacks NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:7uperWkipedan reported by User:Tanbircdq (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Gaza Strip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Israeli settler violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 7uperWkipedan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<[276]-->

Previous version reverted to: [277][278][279]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [280]
2. [281]
3. [282]
4. [283]

1. [284]
2. [285]

1. [286]
2. [287]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [288]

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

Comments:

The editor has been editwarring with various editors such as Nishidani and Makeandtoss. He/she violated WP:3RR on Gaza Strip, and WP:1RR on Israeli settler violence and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Despite being made aware of 1RR by User:RolandR he/she ignored this and continued to revert. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor has made a further edit to one of the above articles.[289] This is in breach of the arbitration 1RR rule, and s/he has been warned by an admin that if s/he does not self-revert, s/he will be blocked.[290] RolandR (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Even reporting him, he is still insisting on deleting sourced content. [291] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:LiXuanze reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

Page: Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) et al.
User being reported: LiXuanze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has just come off a three-month block for uploading incorrect or misleading flags and coats of arms (and then edit warring to substitute them in a large number of articles). Within 24 hours, not only have they resumed the same edit wars that led to the block, but they've also started a new one at Cyprus. Here are just some examples:

• At Cyprus, all edits post-block: [292] [293] [294]
• At Transnistria, pre-/post-block: [295] [296] / [297]
• At Canada, pre-/post-block: [298] [299] / [300]
• At Arms of Canada, pre-/post-block: [301] / [302]

Diffs of past edit warring / 3RR warning: [303] [304]

The user is uncommunicative except for nonsensical edit summaries. Probably a competence issue. See also Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 53#LiXuanze.

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely by JamesBWatson. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:BFlatley reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 2 months)

Page: The Dark Knight (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BFlatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

October

Previous version reverted to: [305]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [306]
2. [307]
3. [308]
4. [309]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [310] (including a follow-up warning by an admin)

Diff of block: [311]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [312]

Resumption of edit-warring immediately upon expiry of block: [313]

Second block: [314]

November (these are the edits that are actually being reported)

1. [315]
2. [316]
3. [317]

Comments:

The editor has not technically violated 3RR this time around but I feel that this a continuation of a previous incursion rather than a fresh one and the behavior should not be tolerated when he makes no effort to discuss the issue on the talk page. Also, while not relevant to this case but perhaps relevant to a review of his conduct the editor was again blocked for disruptive behavior at an entirely unconnected article on October 24 for three weeks: [318]. This means he has actually resumed an edit war coming straight off another block. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 months - Clearly disruptive, clearly self-indulgent long-term edit-warring. User never discusses and doesn't seem interested in what other editors have to say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)