Tried to resolve on the user's talk page, but the user refused to comment.GSK ●✉✓09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)00:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Persistently trying to replace an image with a new one. --SMSTalk14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The most recent 4 reverts were done after filing of this report. --SMSTalk15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Life Teen (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:98.196.58.91 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
User being reported:Lifeteenadmirer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
The anon keeps on inserting unsourced, POV information about the founder of an organization into the organization's article. The information is true, as far as I know, however it violatesWP:NPOV andWP:BLP, at a minimum. Additionally, there is already an article about the founder, so this information is best suited for that article anyway. Two editors have been reverting his edits and trying to get him to stop.
Previous version reverted to:[5]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[11]
Comments:
Shortly after I reported this issue,User:Lifeteenadmirer created an account, and thenmade the same edits to the article. I believe them to be one and the same.
--Briancua (talk)17:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk)00:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Hapa (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:74.101.71.177 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[19]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[20] and[21]
Comments: User appears to have a continually changing IP address, which they state here: "My IP address changes because my ISP dynamically distributes IPs."[22]
Page protected. This issue has been reported here, at ANI, and at RFPP. I've semi-protected the article for one week, but I'll comment about my ambivalence at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk)14:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Page:The Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:TriiipleThreat (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[23]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Renner
Comments: There seems to be a serious issue ofWP:OWN going on at this page, with a handful of editors apparently deciding for everyone else what should and shouldn't be included in this article. The entire history is replete with reverts, some valid admittedly, but a good portion not so much. Arguments over the validity of sources continues on the talk page, but something needs to be done to make these editors aware that simply reverting editors that happen to add sourced information is not okay. —Locke Cole •t •c04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Can I suggest you leave this one for admin to have a look at rather than continuing the debate here. Best wishesFlat Outlet's discuss it05:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment It's worth pointing out that 3RR doesn't apply to claims about living people. Fair enough, it's not like we are saying he's doing gay porn, but if there is any doubt about the authenticity of the claim the information should be omitted until there is a concrete statement, preferably by Marvel. All those sources look very gossipy/blog like to me and we shouldn't be includingWP:Speculation. There's no harm done if his name is added at a later date.Betty Logan (talk)07:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protected. I've locked the article for five days. If anyone - Betty or otherwise - wants to explain the supposed BLP issue to me, I'm listening.--Bbb23 (talk)14:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page:Ransom (1996 film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:TheOldJacobite (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
TheOldJacobite has violated the 3RR rule on the movie articleRansom (1996 film) and has reverted my edit four times in that article. I previously reported him for edit warring on that article, but no violation rule was taken.BattleshipMan (talk)16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Declined. TOJ has not violatedWP:3RR as he has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours. Please read the policy. I don't see any discussion of the plot/character dispute on the article talk page. Why don't you start one?--Bbb23 (talk)16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Gyumri (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:Interfase and188.255.44.254
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[38] The IP opened a discussion, Interfase responded,[39] but as we can see the edit warring continued.
Comments:
Interfase and the IP reverted each other for numerous times (around 20 times), which is simply ridiculous and unacceptable. --Երևանցիtalk18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat and for breachingWP:3RR. Actually, there are other problems as well, but that'll do for now.--Bbb23 (talk)00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Genocide of indigenous peoples (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:88.104.219.76 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[40]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[49]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[50],[51], see also edit summaries, requesting that the IP take the changes to the talk page.
Comments:
Please note that three different users have tried to address this with the IP, myself,Kathryn NicDhàna, andDarkness Shines. Warnings (five total) were placed on IPs talk page without any result. IP is making similar edits to diminish or eliminate references to genocide in other articles as well, see[52],[53],[54], and[55], just to list a few. Based on the pattern of editing, may be a sock, but I'm not sufficiently sure enought to go toWP:SPI yet.GregJackP Boomer!03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
You reverted me three times on that page and therefore violated the rule your self:[56][57][58]. Three of my were edits were reverts.[59][60][61]. Why did you make references to my addition of references for the estimates of numbers who died under Shaka and refer to it asdiminish or eliminate references to genocide. Also you said that I was trying todiminish or eliminate references to genocide when I corrected that the Miskito Indians were allied to the Contras.88.104.219.76 (talk)09:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Obvious violation, noting that GregJackP did notexcede 3 reverts.Dougweller (talk)10:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Page:Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:STATicVerseatide (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 foredit warring
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[65] However, this user justblanked my comments.
Comments: The crux of this issue is that how can the runtimes of an album be known when a) the album hasn't been released and b) there's nothing official from the band either. Looks like iTunes is a Wiki-esque site with user-generated information, so failsWP:RS.LugnutsDick Laurent is dead18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Note. STATic is at three reverts and has therefore not yet breachedWP:3RR. Lugnuts, you have breachedWP:3RR, although not in your battle with STATic, unless you want to claim that your reverts of the IP were exempt, but that would be a stretch based on my understanding of the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk)18:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Note. Based on Lugnuts's final response to me above, I am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk)20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Armenian Eternity sign (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Vahram Mekhitarian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[71]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[72]
Comments:
This user constantly reverts disputed material and fails to discuss the raised issues. Also, he wasblocked on Sep. 27 for 24 hours and on Sep. 29 for 3 days. --Երևանցիtalk20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not know what to do and how to proceed with these wars. This page is under discussion at the Institute of Standards and the Government of Armenia. But we can not discuss any version of the page, because it changes all the time and looks contradictory. If possible, lock the page in my last edition for two weeks, until the end debate in Armenia. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked. I blocked Vahram Mekhitarian for two weeks andUser:Хаченци for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Specifically note my mention ofWP:3RR on the user's page and the subsequent revert by the user.EvergreenFir (talk)01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – Indef for vandalism byUser:IronGargoyle.EdJohnston (talk)03:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:DrBonesaw (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[73]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[77]
Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Multiple sections where the issue is still under discussion and no consensus for this one editor's proposal has been accepted:
Comments:
This is a classic SPA who only edits this topic, and mostly over a semantic issue. He does not impress or convince us. Instead of responding properly to the reversal of his edits and the advice about 3RR, the editorplaced a 3RR tag on my own talk page. I have given up and now come here. --Brangifer (talk)02:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Have I missed something? I'm only seeing three reverts by DrBonesaw, which is not yet a violation.GregJackP Boomer!03:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.DrBonesaw is warned not to edit war in the future though or blocks may be issued.Mark Arsten (talk)14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Zad6815:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Gregory Kohs (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Dan Murphy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
[80]Previous version reverted to:[81]Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[85]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (4th nomination)Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff][86]
Comments:
Subject objects to an attempt to add sourced material to an article being considered for deletionAymatth2 (talk)14:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I suggest you two stop reverting though, or blocks may be issued in the future.Mark Arsten (talk)14:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Max rspct (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[93]
Comments:
While notWP:3RR this editor has repeatly continued to re-insert highlyconfrontational anduncivil comments into an AfD discussion that was closed nearly a year ago, including after being warned not to do so, indicating a clear intent toedit war their comment back into the closed discussion. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursMark Arsten (talk)20:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Genocides in history (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:88.104.219.76 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[94]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[99],[100]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[101]
Comments:
Although not yet four reverts, this IP editor just came off of a 24-hour block for edit warring on genocide articles. Editor refuses to take changes to talk page for discussion.GregJackP Boomer!18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Declined Since he's only made two reverts today and has stopped to discuss, I'm going to decline to take action here.Mark Arsten (talk)20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Espresso (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:92.145.77.139 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[102]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[107]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[108]
Comments:
IP editor is engaging indisruptive editing. Check edit comments, falsely claimed to be discussing on talk page("see talk" on reverts 1,3), but never posted there. Not followingWP:BRD, did not attempt to discuss after being reverted the first time, which they should have done.
Yworo (talk)20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hoursItsZippy(talk •contributions)21:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Talk:Sega Genesis (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Technotopia (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[109]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[116]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not entirely applicable, as dispute involves content on article's talk page. Editor continues to restore deleted comment that is merely an accusation of bias coated with a nationalistic insult. A second editorbelieves this may be someone evading a block, as well.
Blocked – for a period of31 hours byUser:Euryalus just shortly before the filing of this report.--Bbb23 (talk)00:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Nina Rosenwald (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:72.66.30.115 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to: [will describe reverts]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Iwarned the user when he hit 4RR a few days ago, and said that I would let it go this time. The user waved it off withpersonal attacks and, as you can see, continued to edit war.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various sections onTalk:Nina Rosenwald, where the IP is pushing a POV against three or four other more experienced users, and has also shared such gems as"Israel cannot 'occupy' Israel. That part of the world was given to the Chosen People by You Know Who a long time ago and forever. I believe it's in the Book." and"the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not illegal—Israel says so, and Israel is in control. (International organizations are fine, up to the point where they begin to interfere with a nation's sovereignty.)" as justification for his edits.
Comments:
The user was already warned about edit warring after the first or second 4RR, and has now hit it again in his attempt to write a promotional puff piece. I don't know whether he's a paid PR agent, an ideological POV warrior, and/or simply a troll, but either war, he shows no indication of stopping his edit-warring behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
User continues to edit war in attempt to create a new article on a different topic atAcid Rap, while copy-pasting the former content toAcid Rap (mixtape), even after I explained that copy-paste moves are not allowed.STATicmessage me!02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – 24 hours.EdJohnston (talk)04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Page:Students for Justice in Palestine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sepsis II (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[121]
Diffs of the user's reverts: (page subject to 1RR)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[124]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[125]
Comments:
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. Sepsis is well aware of this, having been repeatedly warned about it, and blocked twice for previous violations:
Ya, this is a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim, or perhaps NoCal, I've already gone ahead and made the SPI -Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. These two sockpuppeters have been hounding me for a long time now, I asked Sandstein for advice in dealing with them, he said reverting these extremely obvious sockpuppets of banned users falls underWP:3RRNO - [[126]]. Anyone who reads the history of the article will see multiple sockpuppets recently editing it, Jennifer Worth , Firkin Flying Fox, GoGoTob2, Scarletfire2112/Soosim.... I will wait to revert these socks edits on the many pages they have attacked until they are confirmed/blocked. Thanks,Sepsis II (talk)00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think AndresHerutJaim would bother filing an edit warring report. Firkin Flying Fox is probably the same obvious sockpuppet that filedthis report. Isarig/NoCal is the kind of person who is capable of exploiting rules to target perceived opponents, while simultaneously breaking the rules themselves. They have done it many times over the years. So this looks much more like NoCal than AHJ to me, for what it's worth.Sean.hoyland -talk16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Page:Soylent Green (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Johnny Squeaky (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
First version reverted to:[127]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Second version reverted to:[134]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[143]
Comments:
Johnny hasn't violated 3RR, but his edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. The first set of edits related to a section which he regarded as trivia and wanted to label as such. Thearticle was protected to facilitate discussion, which ended up being quite comprehensive. Some of us felt he had a point and that the section violatedWP:DUE, and there was a suggestion to delete the section and simply add a link to the "See also" section. This proposal received consensus atTalk:Soylent Green#Straw poll on how to proceed including support from Johnny. However, once it was enacted he reneged on the agreement and started removing the link from "See also" (the second set of edits). If he genuninely objected to this proposal he should have spoken up, rather than supporting it so the discussion was closed under the impression that all parties were satisfied.Betty Logan (talk)07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Note. I don't have time to evaluate this now. As Betty said above, I locked the article at the end of September. That was based on a previous report here. For the benefit of other admins, I wanted to add (before I go to my real work) that I warned Johnny at the time. That warning, which Johnny removed (he pretty much removes everything from his talk page), ishere.--Bbb23 (talk)12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)I would add that after Johnnypointed out in an unlikely-to-be-seen location that he felt the external link wasn't pertinent to the article even after discussion had run its course and a consensus had been reached,I pointed out that consensus had been reached on the options, that he could have added his idea as one of the options, and that he was welcome to open a new discussion if he wished to do so.DonIago (talk)13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of36 hours - edit warring against a multitude of users.Magog the Ogre (t •c)10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Please note: This is not a 3RR violation technically. Rather this is a continuation of the edit-war this IP was blocked for a few days ago. Right after their block expired, the IP started the same edit-war they got blocked for in the first place. The IP refuses to engage on talk and instead reverts insinuating in their edit summaries that other editors don't understand linguistics etc.. Another admin has already warned the IP for starting the edit-war again:[144] I think that the IP should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Thank you.Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις19:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Frequent attempts to add an unsourced section to this page, all consistently rejected by editors and reviewers. User has been warned. {C A S U K I T E T}02:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hoursMagog the Ogre (t •c)10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Six-star rank (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Pdfpdf (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[146]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User talk,article talk,noticeboard
Comments:
This is nonsense. I have maderepeated requests to this admin to collaborate - he refuses. I have maderepeated requests to this admin to discuss the issues - he refuses. I have maderepeated requests to this admin to communicate - he refuses. I have maderepeated requests to this admin for his opinions - he has not replied. I have maderepeated requests to this admin to explain certain matters - he has not replied.
Occasionally he replies, "I have replied", but when I ask where he has replied, he does not respond.
This appears to be an example of an admin throwing his weight around and misusing his position. He is equally guilty of anything he's accusing me of.
Further, I continue to draw to his attention 3 years of discussion and consensus, which he continues to dismiss as irrelevant.
How can you communicate with someone who pays no attention to any POV than his own?Pdfpdf (talk)11:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
By-the-way:
Constantly re-introduces a version which unnecessarily adds uncited model numbers, changes certain sentences to grammatically incorrect versions, adds a spammy looking ref, and edit wars his version back in by asserting that the reversions are vandalism and that we shouldn't care about the grammar if its "useful information"ViperSnake151 Talk 15:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursKrakatoaKatie16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Acid Rap (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs),Acid Rap (mixtape) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ben0kto (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[147]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[152]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: Ok... this is going to be a long story I hope to make short. Ultimately this is the same instance that was reported by another userhere. The editor in question, Ben0kto, has been warned about edit warring over Acid Rap. He was blocked for a short period of time due to edit warring. After his block was up, he continued to edit war and he continued to try to move the album to another article so he could create an article on the music genre of acid rap. He has been warned several times and he claims that he has not been completely warned about everything that is happening, but the problem is that I don't know how much more explicit we can get over everything. I've also reported this to ANI, but I'm reporting this here as well. I have to say that at this point I don't see inexperience as an excuse since he's well aware that his edits are controversial and people have tried to explain things to him.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Page:Talk:Dick Dale (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:
Previous version reverted to:[153]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[161]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: See AN/I report at[162]
Comments:
Note the AN/I report linked above, andthis comment on the editor's talk page:" You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments.".Beyond My Ken (talk)
Edit warring to add POV text.NeilNtalk to me04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
User, NeilN refused to discuss content in detail and merely reverted my sourced edits. What he calls a 3RR violation was actually my proposed reword of my own text in response to another user's concern on the talk page. His one line responses to my repeated requests for detailed discussion are seenhere on talk. This request is an attempt to distract from an edit war that he (NeilN) himself started.Devanampriya (talk)04:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: After the 3RR had been formally breached by Devanampriya I had lefta comment on the article talk page noting the breach and mentioning that I didn't intend to report it unless the edit-warring it continued. Given that Devanampriya has ignored that message and repeated requests to propose text on the article talk page to gain consensus;continued to edit-war; and used the article for his non-neutrally worded edits, I think a block and a 1RR restriction is required to prevent article-space disruption.Abecedare (talk)06:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Shraddha Kapoor
User being reported:Smauritius (talk ·contribs)
Previous version reverted to:[163]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[168]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[169]
I have only added legit links to prove my edit.But the other user [Smauritius] seems to be a fanatic and doesn't want to agree with me. She is even making unfounded accusations that I have many user accounts to disprove my claim. I request a third party opinion to verify me edits and make them permanent or give full protection for the page to stop any more edit warring. -Rose$keel (talk)04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The link I submitted confirming Shraddha kapoor's birthdate is the contentious issue here. Smauritius is not from India and hence doesn't know about the CINTAA. I request someone who is from India and has knowledge about the film and telly industry located in India to arbitrate and vet my link. I think it is unfair to castigate and write down my link as unreliable when none of you are from my country, India. Some things which are taken for granted here may be new to others abroad. The article has only been protected till 18th OCtober. After that, again the issue will resurface. This must be stopped. Please verify my link and permanently lock the personal details box so that no further changes are made to it. Further I want to bring to your notice here that the user [Smauritius] is a fan of shradhha and no edit she makes on the page is unbiased. Please glance through the whole article and notice the discrepancies in language. The whole article reeks of immature editing and bad grammar and wrong lexicon usage. All this has been a result of [Smauritius]'s contributions. I request the admins to verify my link and lock the personal details box permanently. Also please ask a proper editor to clean up the article or if I am allowed even I can do the job. Once it is done satisfactorily, it can be permanently protected so that no mroe edit wars happen when fanatics like [Smauritius] take issue with the details linked. -Rose$keel (talk)07:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm providing the following links to substantiate the reliability of the link(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) I provided on the page osShraddha Kapoor.Smauritius doesn't want the age of the actress to be revealed and hence is doing her best to make it seem as though my link is unreliable whereas it is the most legit link any actor can have. Please go through her talk page where other users have also corroborated my information butSmauritus has fought verbally with all of them.
Please take note of the following:
CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/home) is an association of cine and telly artists in bollywood and membership in it is compulsory for every actor.Read how this actor was reprimanded because he did not have a CINTAA membership-->(http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ragesh-b-asthanaa-cintaas-hit-list). Also read how CINTAA has the power to pass legislations regarding the Cine industry-->(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-16/tv/36373471_1_new-rule-cintaa-joint-secretary). Anil Kapoor the actor inaugrated CINTAA's website -->(http://in.movies.yahoo.com/video/anil-launches-website-cintaa-053000873.html).
All that I've said above can be verified by a knowledgeable third party editor from India.Rose$keel (talk)07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. Article locked by Geniac.Minima© (talk)11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:AOnline (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff 1[170]
Diff 2[171]
Diff 3[172]
Diff 4[173]
Diff 5[174]
Diff of warning[175] (another user had warning before I even noticed the reverts)
This article is under 1 revert rule restriction, so just two reverts would have been enough.Sopher99 (talk)13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments:
Page protected. I locked the template for three days. Just to be clear, both users in this report breachedWP:1RR. If they had been the only two, I would have blocked them both. However, there were others who also breached 1RR, and I didn't wish to impose more than two blocks. Those other editors, as well as AOnline, will be formally warned, even though warnings aren't required to impose sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk)18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Page:John M. Phillips (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:PrestonHornsby (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
IPs involved:38.97.127.10,98.82.34.81,98.71.253.34,166.147.120.169,24.127.245.111,166.147.120.155 and98.82.0.6
Previous version reverted to:[184]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
and many more...
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Comments:
About seven IPs (very likely all the same person) are involved in this edit war that has been going on forover a month. I've warnedPrestonHornsby but he doesn't seem to talk much, nor the IPs. Seerecent warning to 166.147.120.155.
How to deal with PresentHornsby I don't know, as I actually feel his contribution was constructive. I do however recommend semi-protection of the article to prevent further disruption from IP hoppers. —MusikAnimaltalk15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protected
Warned. I have semi-protected the article for a week. I've warned Preston that if he continues to add material that is even in part aWP:BLP violation, he will be blocked.@MusikAnimal: I know you're acting in good faith, but please bevery careful about restoring any material the IPs have removed (that Preston originally added). In looking at some of them, they are violations ofWP:BLP and cannot remain in the article as crafted. For example, in one of them, the material itself was not supported by the source. The article discussed Phillips and a video, but it didn't say what Preston wrote. Anytime we add negative material to a BLP, we have to be extra careful that it complies with all aspects of BLP policy.--Bbb23 (talk)20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Warned in edit summary about RS and 3RR. The same user added the content before creating an account, which makes 4 reverts.Jamesx1234518:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursMark Arsten (talk)04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)None, but edit summaries were used.
Long history of warnings and blocks for edit warring. If I'd come across this editor doing this on an article where I hadn't been one of the ones reverting, I'd have blocked him.Dougweller (talk)08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not "warring" I am only pointing out that the article referred to points out that original sin is a controversial concept within both Judaism and Christianity.Jimjilin (talk)17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Page:Natural landscape (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Rstafursky (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[197]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[202]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[203]
Comments:
Editor has persistently reverted additions to the article. The only vaguely legitimate reason given is that the material is " focused on unreferenced material". however all material is fully referenced to reputable journal articles and texts. The editor refuses to ente rinto discussion on why precisely they think that the material is unreferenced. The only other reason given for the persistent reversions is that the user believes that my intentions are not suitable.Mark Marathon (talk)22:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Darkwind and Mark, yes I will act in good faith. I have already started fact checking on Natural history. Mark has altered at least 11 items/links by deleting/adding. We will take these one by one so there is documented material. Because Natural landscape is an extremely important term used in several disciplines we shall proceed with care while at the same time moving as quickly as possible.71.233.41.122 (talk)19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Page:Liberty University (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:71.71.5.101 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
The edit warring is obvious if you look at the editor's history. He or she has been warned and asked to participate in discussion in the article's Talk page to no avail.ElKevbo (talk)01:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursMark Arsten (talk)15:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Nuremberg Laws (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Herzlicheboy (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User:Herzlicheboy is being disruptive at the articleNuremberg_Laws (among other problems with other edits, but I am here for this article specifically). He's accusing me of not checking the sources (I did check them), he's rejecting perfectly clearly sources (which are accessible to all) and trying to delete a paragraph in the article. Besides that, he's accusing me of using a bot to revert his edits (which I didn't), to have spent some seconds to do that (which I didn't, it took two hours until his edit was reverted by me), and suggesting me to stick editing Pokemon articles (which I don't).My-2-bits (talk)01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Firstly, the user "2 bits" made no attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page. The only attempt made to resolve this issue on the talk page was mine. See this please:Talk:Nuremberg_Laws#Persistent_POV_wanting_to_add_that_Blacks_were_included_in_the_Nuremberg_Laws, and the user "2 bits" has not made the slightest attempt on the talk page to justify why he thinks the sources support the statement he wants to keep in the article. My position is that the sources don't support the statement, ergo they are false sources, or not apposite sources for the assertion made. Furthermore, I did not revert the article any unreasonable number of times.Herzlicheboy (talk)01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours for violating 3RR and for theincivility (bordering onpersonal attacks) shown on the article's talk page and onUser talk:My-2-bits. Further, when considering this editor's prior history of unhelpful edits,as pointed outon his talk page, I am concerned that he may notbe here primarily to improve the encyclopedia.My-2-bits(t c), your behavior could also easily be interpreted as edit warring, but given that you have certainly handled this issue with more civility than Herzlicheboy and have no prior history of edit warring, I don't see a need for a block regarding this incident. —Darkwind (talk)11:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Fractional reserve banking (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Reissgo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional_reserve_banking&oldid=576532354
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted][208]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[213]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[214]
Comments:
Editor Riessgo has a history of edit-warring his personal theories into articles concerning Fractional reserve banking and Full reserve banking. He is joined from time to time by various single purpose accounts. Despite a recent warning, he continues to EW this article. Although he waited to do the most recent revert until the 24 hour period had expired, the pattern and intention of edit warring is clear and the longstanding disruption of this article needs to be stopped.SPECIFICOtalk13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours. This may not be a 3RR violation, but it's definitely edit warring - the case is made by the page history. Considering that, plus the user has a prior block history for edit warring on an article in the same topic, it's an edit-warring DUCK to me. —Darkwind (talk)17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Page:State of Palestine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Lanlan lanwan (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:
The article is within scope ofWP:ARBPIA and covered by 1RR. The 2 reverts above are a 1RR violation. I warned the editor atUser_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and gave them an opportunity to self-revert. Their edit was reverted by another user.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: SeeUser_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: SeeUser_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation andTalk:State_of_Palestine#.22Sovereign_State.22_of_Palestine
Comments:
The account appears to only be used intermittently and the editor doesn't seem to be familiar with policy. Nevertheless, could an admin please either give them a stern warning to stop edit warring and use the talk page or a short break from the article. They are going to start fires in the topic area if they carry on like this. I don't think they are ready to edit in theWP:ARBPIA personally but I'm happy to be proved wrong. They should probably also receive an official ARBPIA notification too. I'm opposed to those being issued by non-admins so I haven't done that.Sean.hoyland -talk17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. User received sufficient warnings from other editors; an "official" warning wasn't needed.--Bbb23 (talk)19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Saib Tabrizi (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Urməvi (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[219]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, i did not do that, but i have already tried to do it in the history page, and told him that he couldn't do such edits without sources in his own talk page.[220] He has been blocked before because of this.
Comments:
Warned Both editors have been issued formal warnings of enforcement underthe Armenia-Azerbaijan case, and notified that further edit warring will lead to sanctions being imposed.SeraphimbladeTalk to me19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The 3RR warning above was the second one added. I did so not realizing that user Hot Stop had posted one moments before. User IrishStephen did the last change after the warnings had been posted. –S. Rich (talk)18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I made my edits to mirror the decision undertaking by administrators to rename the Bradley Manning article toChelsea Manninghere. I believe this decision requires us to reflect this change on other pages relating to Manning. I stand by my edits and await any further decision by administrators. RegardsIrishStephen (talk)19:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution.Mark Arsten (talk)19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Iranian Volleyball Super League (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Luispedros (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:diff
Comments:
I have a problem with this user on two pages (and probably more in future we don't solve it now),Iran men's national volleyball team andIranian Volleyball Super League, he is just reverting my edits without any reason, it seems he just doesn't like me ! I even tried to warn him in his talk page but all I got was personal attack. I know I should have been report this issue earlier since it's already an edit war but I thought we can solve the issue without coming here. in one of these pages, I just corrected some names and sorted them but he still reverted it and in another page, I made the page shorted by using templates instead of the names and removing an unreferenced section (which I wrote it myself few years ago) I changed the colors and etc to improve the page and he just reverted all of them without any reason. I explained my reasons in edit summaries.Mohsen1248 (talk)12:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protectedMark Arsten (talk)15:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Washington Redskins (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Al.dobyns (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[221]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[231]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[232]
Comments:
The edits relate to the current media fuss about the Washington Redskins' team name. The matter is already addressed in the article in question and in another linked article, but the user in question is determined to jam NPOV material into the lede. Several users have admonished Al.dobyns to quit it, but he/she appears not to care. Al.dobyns also attempted to remove the various warnings from his/her talk page, necessitating reverts there as well. Comment edited to add: I admit I may have accidentally violated the 3RR rule myself in trying to revert what I feel is blatant vandalism, so I am going to refrain from further efforts to keep the Redskins article cleaned-up.1995hoo (talk)18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am being target by several users including 1995hoo because they are fans of the washington redskins and I am trying to present the history of the slur, redskin. I have warned them that I am writing an article for a large sports news outlet and that their usernames will be used in this article.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAl.dobyns (talk •contribs)18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Already blocked for one week byUser:Bbb23.Mark Arsten (talk)18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Largest cities in Europe (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Lactasamir (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[233]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[238]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[239]
Comments:
The dispute regarding the inclusion of certain cities on the article on the largest cities in Europe has been focused on cities such as Ankara, Baku and Yerevan, which user Lactasamir thinks need to be included even though they are not located in the geopgraphic Europe. I and other editors have provided detailed arguments against Lactasamir's stance on the article's talk page, but he has refused to discuss the issue ("I have nothing more to say"): while he has left some comments after this, he has declined to answer the arguments and questions made by other users. Still he has been edit warring and today broke the 3-revert-rule. Note that the time period is slightly more than 24 hours (19:02 yesterday to 19:42 today), but the policy states that "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation". Currently the article is protected. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk)20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protected – Three days, by another admin.EdJohnston (talk)21:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Roscelese (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[240]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[246]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[247]
I reverted, asking Roscelese to explain his/her actions. The only justification offered was a reference toWP:POV andWP:BLP with no context or evidence. It appears that this is a case of attempting to censor embarassing facts. Further, this editor engages in personal abuse, as can be seen in my post atUser_talk:Roscelese#Embarassing_facts. --Frotz(talk)20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments:
Page:Tourism in Poland (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:WKS Śląsk Wrocław (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[248]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[253]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[254]
Comments:
User WKS Śląsk Wrocław is a notorious revert warrior with a hidden agenda and long-term history of ignoring WP policy/guidelines. He's been warned by SPI clerk against logging in and out to cicumvent 3RR report like this, please see:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.99.45.74/Archive. Thanks,Poeticbenttalk00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Note. WKS appears to have heeded the warning. Most recently, the only reverts were by the two of you, both logged in. Neither of you has breachedWP:3RR. Discussing the dispute (I don't know who's right about the pictures, but WKS's rewording of the lead and removing the references without supporting his changes can't be right) on the article talk page is a good idea, but the provocative thread you opened belongs more at ANI than on a talk page and is not conducive to resolving a dispute. That said, WKS has only 230 edits, and all of them are to article space, so other than in edit summaries, he doesn't appear to talk.--Bbb23 (talk)11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page protectedMark Arsten (talk)15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Pluto2012 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[255]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[258]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[259]
Comments:
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. (and there is actually even another revert by Pluto within this 24 hour window, here:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947%E2%80%9348_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine&diff=576901289&oldid=576901120)Pluto is well aware of 1RR, having warned others about it[260], having been repeatedly warned about it himslef (see above), and having been blocked for previous violations under his previous identity (Ceedjee)(link showing Pluto2012 == Ceedjee, This information has since been removed by the users, in yet another violation of Wiki policy):[261]Block lock as Ceedjee, including a block for edit warring:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ACeedjee
Pluto is a knowledgeable and diligent editor who is usually careful to respect the rules. This is a rare exception, almost certainly an accident.Zerotalk08:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Page:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Izuko (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:Revision as of 20:50, 14 October 2013
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:21:38, 14 October 2013, prior to 4th revert
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Link to talkpage thread
Comments:
Seems like a cut-and-dried 3RR violation. Izuko rapidly racked up 4 reverts against multiple editors, insisting that his text remain in the article as a precondition for talkpage discussion ([262]).MastCell Talk
Greetings, this is Izuko. I figured, since I'm being double teamed, I should go ahead and defend myself. I'll cover both hear, since it's two-against-one, if you don't mind. I notice how MastCell says that I insist that my work remain on the page as a precondition for talkpage discussion. Of course, that means that the contrary is true. He insists that the work I did be removed as a precondition to discussion. Almost each "revert," I tried to add a bit more, cite a bit more, show case a bit more, in order that it be acceptable to fair-minded individuals. Each time, they didn't do much but hit undo. Was each a "revert?" I guess so (granted, the first one was because I hit save instead of preview as I was checking my work). It only turns out that they had more people than me. Notice that, combined, they also revered my own work three times. So, is the problem an edit war? They were both involved. Or is the problem that I didn't get my posse together before "being bold?" If you're going to ban me for three reverts, I recommend that you ban them for participating in an edit war.Izuko (talk)22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours, as a clear cut 3RR violation. Will attempt to explain more fully on their talk page why things don't work the way they think they should work. --Floquenbeam (talk)22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:AOnline (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:
The page has a 1 revert rule restriction, and he undid two of my edits with that one reverthttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history
He deleted my request for him self-reverthttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AOnline&diff=prev&oldid=577196781Sopher99 (talk)22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. Some explanation is in order. The revert reported here did not violateWP:1RR. One revert, no matter how much is undone in that one revert, is still one revert. So, the report as filed was baseless. Also@Sopher99:, who should really know better, did not notify the user of the report. That said, subsequent to the report, the user clearly violatedWP:1RR.--Bbb23 (talk)23:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)The IP address has been told by two different users thatTemplate: Album ratings may only contain ten reviews, however the anon continued to add more reviews after it already reached the limit. Even after being notified ofWP:3rr, they reverted a fourth time.STATicmessage me!22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursMark Arsten (talk)03:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Page:United States (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:VictorD7 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[264]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[269]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:United States#Answers to various questions
Comments:
Victor has been deleting others' comments about his relentless right-wing POV pushing from the talk page without archiving the sections involved, and trying to keep complaints about his editing disconnected from his name.[270]EllenCT (talk)08:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hours even though this is his first block for EW/3RR, due to blatant statement in edit summary that"I'll keep stopping [you"], indicating a clear intent to continue edit warring. —Darkwind (talk)18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)See his talk page.
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursZad6813:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Chernivtsi (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:IVMD (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[271]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. —Darkwind (talk)18:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Chernivtsi (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:79.117.162.2 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[277]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of24 hours. —Darkwind (talk)18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Rupert Sheldrake (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Alfonzo Green (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
--TRPoDaka The Red Pen of Doom23:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Testability_of_morphic_resonance
Comments:
This user was previously blocked for:3RR, incivility on Rupert Sheldrake.
User deleted note explaining why he was reverted.[281]
User proceeded to war, saying, "If you think the edit is wrong, explain why on the talk page".[282]
I gave another explanation on the talk page.[283]
User continued warring, saying, "My edit continues to be reversed with no justification on the talk page" (while inexplicably removing sourced and accurate content never mind, it was moved instead).[284]
User was informed by administrator about warring and 3RR,[285] user responded to this message,[286] and continued to war.[287]
OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name usingBarney the barney barney (talk)22:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I made an edit to the Rupert Sheldrake page. When the the new material was removed, I reinstated it and initiated a new section on the talk page to discuss it. After that three editors serially reversed my attempts to restore the edit, and none of them addressed my justification of the edit on the talk page. As to the comment I deleted, this was only a reference to a comment in the edit history that was irrelevant to the topic on the talk page. Also, I did not remove sourced content but only moved it to the new section of the article (where it clearly belongs).Alfonzo Green (talk)00:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – 31 hours.EdJohnston (talk)01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Life Teen (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Lifeteenadmirer1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[288]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[293]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[294]
Comments:
This has been an ongoing problem with this user. At first they were anon and using an IP address. Then they created an account, but their edit warring and violations ofWP:BLP andWP:NPOV resulted ingetting the page semi-protected. They are back again, using both an IP and a slightly altered username. There is only one user causing problems, and so far they have not expressed any willingness to work within community norms. I'd suggest that taking action against this user may be more effective than protecting this page again. --Briancua (talk)03:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Note. I've blocked Lifeteenadmirer1 indefinitely, blocked Lifeteenadmirer for two weeks, and blocked the IP for two weeks. I've semi-protected the article for one month.--Bbb23 (talk)05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Macedonian language (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Kiril Simeonovski (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[295]
Parallel rv onBulgarian language:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:standard 3RR warning;request to self-rv,ARBMAC warning
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Macedonian language#Torlakian dialects
Comments:
Edit-warring against consensus of three other editors. Spurious "vandalism" accusations in edit summaries[296]. Apparently aWP:POINT agenda: editor has conceded the edit may be inappropriate ("I totally agree..."[297]), but still insists on reverting it back in in order to force a different change on a third article in return.
Fut.Perf.☼10:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours for violating3RR.Kiril Simeonovski(t c), while you are blocked, please take a moment to readthe edit warring policy again. Most relevant to the current situation is the fact thatit does not matter who is "right", edit warring is still a prohibited behavior, and this is explained right in the first paragraph. Edit warring is likely to result in a block from editing to prevent disruption even when the article isn't under discretionary sanctions.Page protectedMark Arsten (talk)16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)In addition to current edit warring, the most recent edit is a continuation of attempts Chesdovi has made to add a passage that has failed to gain consensus from editors in the past. An example of a past attempt ishere; another ishere. This sort of repeated attempt -- especially when it comes as a violation of 3RR as in the edit at 10:09am today -- is particularly tendentious.Nomoskedasticity (talk)11:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
There has not been a 3RR violation.
It turns out Nomoskedasticity has reverted material thrice, while I have done so only twice. The bulk of my post actually wishes to highlight that Nomoskedasticity does not engage in discussion and reverts to posting invalid edit war reports hoping to prevent material being in the article.Chesdovi (talk)16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Page protectedMark Arsten (talk)16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Page:Banc De Binary (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:91.184.201.142 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The page is being attacked from Cyprus and essential details from the article are being deleted. The attacks delete my simple explanation of why US regulators have charged the company, which in their indictment describes it as a sort of boiler room scam, masquerading as trading house.— Precedingunsigned comment added byHistorianofRecenttimes (talk •contribs)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.Mark Arsten (talk)16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)Page:List of United States Senators from New Jersey (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:91.143.60.173 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This IP user is putting in false information, yes there is a special election in New Jersey for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator Frank Lautenberg tonight October 16, 2013 but the result are not official yet. The user keeps putting Newark Mayor Cory Booker as the sitting U.S. Senator from New Jersey which he is not, Jeffrey Chiesa a Republican remains until the election results are official and the winner is officially sworn-in by Senate President/Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden. I did place two warnings on this user's page but obviously they are ignorning it. I request assistance in this matter. Thank you in advance.TheGoofyGolfer (talk)01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Already blocked byUser:Elockid as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk)03:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)