Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive265

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Ryulong reported by User:107.15.41.141 (Result: Submitter blocked)[edit]

Page: Five Nights at Freddy's 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: multiple instances

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2] (reverting a revert of previous revert)
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6] (which is a partial revert of this change)
  7. [7] (partial revert of this page)
  8. Edit: 3 more reverts since filing this report:
  9. [8]
  10. [9]
  11. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's talk page is protected, put warning on article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Suggestion in comment [11]

Comments:
Edit warring

--107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is subject to tons and tons and tons of fan speculation. I've also been gamed into this by a banned user trying to get me blocked. Also of note is that this IP left me a threat that had to be oversighted. This should be shut down and the article semi-protected (as I have requested multiple times to end the vandalism and unsourced edits) so established editors can work on it properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
First edit is a revert, this is reverting a banned user which is an exemption to 3RR, part of this is also reverting a banned user which is exempt from 3RR, a revert, a revert, this is not a revert at all but a rewrite, this is also not a revert at all but another rewrite, another exemption from 3RR, partial self-revert to reinclude content that was removed in prior edit that is not a revert anyway, probably a revert but I went to the talk page. There was no "attempt to resolve on the article talk page" as the edit brought up is an edit summary made by a banned user's sockpuppet so this whole thing should be thrown out. 107.15.41.141 is an IP operated by a Gamergate troll who is trying to get me banned through any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
First, a minor point. The IP's edits were rev/del'd, not oversighted. Second, who is the banned user?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine, revdel. The Israeli IPs (the 31 ones) I believe belong to user:Wiki-star/User:Dragonron who just reverts me for the sake of reverting me rather than any actual interest in the topic seeing as he reverted me on completely unrelated pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I've reported the IPs because of the reverts to items that were not Five Nights at Freddy's 2 but checkuser isn't going to solve anything with that new evidence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe he's referencing this sockpuppet investigation. He's concluded the investigation on his own apparently, allowing him to exceed 3RR. Even discounting the reverts of the alleged banned user, I believe he's still exceeded 3RR. Ryulong, can you please clarify what you mean by "probably a revert but I went to the talk page" -- I see don't see recent contributions by you to the talk page. And please keep your comments civil. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I went to the user talk page of Spidervenom123 to leave him a message telling him that his edits are unwarranted because I left him an identical message 5 months ago regarding the other game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Now he's apparently followed me to unrelated pages to revert my comments in a discussion he was not involved in?? 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
That was trolling on your half, plain and simple, just as you've done across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the point in continuing this conversation beyond argument for argument sake; admins (or whoever reviews these requests) you have my evidence, if you have further questions I will attempt to address them. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
How is this attempt at being a strawman "SJW" not trolling?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Recommend review of IP's contributons. There's very few 'main space' edits & mostly drama. WP:NOTHERE, might be considered. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, because no one in good faith notifies every editor I've reverted in the past 24 hours of this thread [12], [13] (there are others but the IP made the pages new so there's no diff).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with procedure in these proceedings, I was not involved in the edit war so I thought it relevant to notify the involved editors. Ryulong went to each of these user's pages and removed my notification. He appears to be "following" me around wikipedia and reverting my edits, is this permitted? Please advise. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to notify anyone else about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not often participate in discussions on this board but I have two observations. Ryulong is being baited and Ryulong should know how to not take the bait. Chillum 03:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Chillum, I agree 100%. The question is, what are we going to do? Block for edit warring which seems to have happened? (But I'll want Bbb23 to confirm.) Block the IP for dramah mongering even though they've made a few valid article edits? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well then get rid of the fisherman because he keeps blowing up my notifications when he restores his invalid messages across the project. I'm obviously being baited but I have to respond to this shit so I don't get blocked for being baited in the first place. Half of the edits hes pointed out are not reverts. Then others are exempt from 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins, can you please advise on this issue: Ryulong has reverted my notification on these users' talk pages multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of his "instructions" from my own talk page. Is this permitted? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    Every time you do it I get notified because you've linked to my talk page and I asked you to stop but you clearly haven't. You are the definition of WP:NOTHERE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    Everyone doesn't have to be notified - only the user being reported. Further, his removal of any "warnings" and such on his talk page is an acknowledgement that he's gotten the message and he has the right to remove them. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand, he removed the notifications I placed on OTHER users' talk pages, multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of HIS notification on MY talk page. I hope that clarifies. Is this permitted? -- 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ryulong, that was foolish. I have blocked you for three hours on the minor matter of edit warring on the IP's talk page (a clear-cut case, where you disregarded their request you stay the hell away) and the notifications. That there may be no requirement that they notify other involved parties doesn't mean that they can't--frankly, I'm surprised that you'd make such a big deal out of something like that, but that's what EW is often about. Chillum, Bbb23, your advice on the larger matter is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any objection to me restoring these notices and reverting my talk page? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record I have blocked this IP. The recent contributions from this IP show a bad faith and successful attempt at disruption and little to no effort to create an encyclopedia. As always my talk page is open for discussion. Chillum 03:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, another admin beat me to it: yes, after the latest edits I was going over there for a NOTHERE block. Thanks Chillum. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Given recent history I think it is a rotating IP who is reoccurring as such I used a short block. I am watching the IP though and if the same person resumes I will increase the next block. Chillum 03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry everyone, but I was busy doing bad things, you know like eating dinner, watching a movie, terrible things like that. Looks like you sorted it all out. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Submitter blocked 72 hours by User:Chillum, per "anon IP engaging in disruptive baiting, not here to write an encyclopedia". EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:94.197.46.68 (Result: Submitter blocked)[edit]

This editor is edit-warring on Sangram Singh and has now violated WP:3RR on suspicion that he is reverting copyright violations, I see it as mere content dispute, the information being removed which I personally favour. He claims it is copy-pasted from the source but the source is reliable and the info can easily be rewritten and redacted, not a legitimate excuse for blanking.

94.197.46.68 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just in the process of reporting this IP at WP:ANI for repeated violations of copyright. If the IP wants to rewrite the content, he/she can - but we DO NOT include copyright-violating content in artices, ever.
It should be noted that this IP appears to have followed me from the Vivek Murthy article, where I had reverted the addition of an image clearly copied without attribution, and in violation of copyright, from the Washington Times. [[14]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talkcontribs)
For closing admin: bottom line: 3RR has been violated and at the time of my post, the defendant has not self-reverted and this is compelling evidence of edit-warring in that the accused has no intention of standing back. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The IP clearly posted here to harass Andy and cares little about copyright violations. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Two things, if the witness testifying for the accused has any proof of the allegation then may he take it to the appropriate project page, otherwise if he has evidence that 3RR has not been violated then may he present that here. Thank you. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Fact: the material in the Sangram Singh article was copy-pasted from the sources cited, in violation of copyright. Fact: removals of copyright violations are exempt from WP:3RR. Fact: repeated violations of copyright aren't exempt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
All right then, where is the evidence that it is a copyvio? 94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you actually checked the links, you'd see that text was copied from linked pages. --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The IP has continued to insert the image into the Vivek Murthy article, despite the warning template on the image page (both on Wikipedia[15] and Commons [16]) Since it seems apparent that this IP has no intention of complying with policy, I suggest a substantial block is called for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Result: Submitter blocked 5 days for copyright violations. The photo of Vivek Murthy was published in the Washington Times and there is no evidence that it has been made free for our use. Regarding the IP's statement, "the info can easily be rewritten and redacted". That is not how copyright is handled here. The material should not even go into the edit history if it's copyrighted text. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lmmnhn and User:UU reported by User:George Ho (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Template:Umbrella Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lmmnhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
UU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22][23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
I was just uninvolved. I warned them about violating the rule. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The warning came well after the edit war. However, in addition to the reported article, they both also violated WP:3RR at Template:Hong Kong political parties. Actually, I think the only reason it stopped is because Lmmnhn did the last reverts at both templates and UU hasn't edited anything since that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Vwjr reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Passive smoking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vwjr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636479616 by MastCell (talk)"
  2. 17:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637188906 by Yobol (talk) Simple edits like this make the page look more objective. Nobody like smoking and second smoke, but this page look like a rant and not scientific."
  3. 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637190657 by Yobol (talk) you mean the seriously skewered talk page with the group mentality? I am helping you make your page look more rational. I do not smoke and I do not endorse it."
  4. 17:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637191233 by Zad68 (talk) I am responding to criticisms of this page and am trying to lesson the lack of objectiveness. I can do this all day."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Most recent edit comment says they "could do this all day" Yobol (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor has reverted twice more since this report filed. Yobol (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:66.87.121.63 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: sockblock)[edit]

Page: Talk:Vani Hari (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.121.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff placing personal attack on Talk page
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [lhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A66.87.121.63&diff=637329197&oldid=637328592 dif] Diff of NPA warning: dif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: diff

Comments:

User is making personal attacks on Talk pages and edit warring to keep them in. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User Jytdog is harassing and misconstruing policy per C.Fred at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tag-team_.2F_organized_abuse_by_User:Elaqueate_and_User:Guerillero_to_WP:OWN_Vani_Hari, the discussion is appropriate to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.121.63 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC) =
Note IP was blocked for socking. See this dif. Withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Joseatienza reported by User:AngusWOOF (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Hi-5 (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseatienza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [25]

In my previous complaint, anonymous IPs were reverting the Hi-5 section "reasons for leaving", which the RFC discussion had agreed to remove and incorporate into the History section since the former section was unsourced and not appropriate for the band members section. Since then the article was submitted for RPP and protected for some days.

A contributor has been actively working with the new section, however, today, decided that they wanted the original "reasons for leaving" section back and has restored the article to that state.

I have attempted to remove the section again but the user has reverted multiple times and I have reached my limit on how to enforce this.

EDIT #1: [26]

my responses: [27]

EDIT #2: [28]

my response and talk page warning: [29]

EDIT #3: [30]

my response and final warning: [31]

EDIT #4 (user decides to tell me not to delete this information and that it is correct): [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] but he has since erased this [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Hi-5_(Australian_band)#RfC:_Reorganize_band_members_section original discussion]

Comments:

Thanks for your time. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours De728631 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Nyttend (Result: Article protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: not applicable, since none of the reverts are going all the way back

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35] reverts my edit here
  2. [36] reverts my edit here
  3. [37] reverts my edit here (I added a cleanup tag, and it was removed six minutes later, before I had time to explain it)
  4. [38] reverts my edit here (I forgot that I'd removed the same thing earlier)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: no warning given in this incident, but Jytdog was just warned yesterday for edit-warring somewhere else.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion here. I've not re-reverted anything, except for the unintentional one in my fourth pair of diffs above.

Comments:

Uncalled for, we are discussing things on the Talk page. Nyytend has been going through and making lots of changes, some fine, some not. I had zero intention of bringing him here and am surprised by this. The edit warring notice elsewhere is not relevant to this discussion. So no warning. Nyytend please withdraw this or we are both liable to be blocked. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Difs by Nyytend:

There's a major difference between simply removing content and actively reverting someone. 3RR applies to situations when you hit the undo button or actively restore something someone else removed; that happened five times here, and only one of them (Jytdog's final diff) was done by me. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog's been doing this quite actively, and has been trolling discussions trying to get users who question his edits banned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.162 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I learned of this incident from a report at WP:ANI (section "Tag-team / organized abuse by User:Elaqueate and User:Guerillero to WP:OWN Vani Hari") by an IP who was clearly the same person as this IP. Time for a rangeblock. Nyttend (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
note - user above is a sock that has now been blocked here - was writing personal attacks at Talk:Vani Hari that I was removing per WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)


From a quick look it seems that both User:Jytdog and User:Nyttend may be edit warring. My proposal is that both Jytdog and Nyttend make a voluntary agreement to not edit the article again for five days. That would save 3RR admins the effort to scrutinize all these diffs and apply the exact letter of the law as to whether 3RR has been violated. There seems to be an active discussion on Talk. The IP comments just above appear to be from a sock from the 66.87.* range who has just been dealt with at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
How have I been edit-warring? I've done a lot of rearranging, including cutting some bits as linked above, but they were there before I came along; I would have done them all at once if I'd felt like it. Significantly different from repeatedly hitting the "undo" button. Nyttend (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks to me that Jytdog made reverts at 15:00, 15:02, 15:04, 15:29, 15:49, 15:51 and 17:25. Nyttend, you are the only other person editing during this time period. Do you believe that *he* is reverting while all you are doing are normal edits? Per WP:EW, "a revert means undoing the actions of other editors", and isn't limited only to the Undo button. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's quite possible. Imagine that you find an article, and you go around making edits to it. Someone else comes along and hits the "undo" button to revert a bunch of the edits you've made: if that happens enough times, the other guy has broken the three-revert rule, regardless of whether you have. Note that my first diff wasn't the Undo button ("add deleted criticism where it belongs"), but it was a revert anyway. I could give you a much more detailed explanation if requested, but a simple check of the page history will demonstrate that I wasn't going around removing his additions, restoring his removals, or putting back his modifications. I would appreciate knowing precisely which edits involve actual reversion: you have the one re-removing the surgeon, and this because I thought he accidentally removed more than intended in a previous edit (as far as I can tell, Jytdog didn't disagree), but that's all. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As I mentioned there is a certain "ick" factor for me to getting hauled to 3RR without warning, and in my view Nyttend and I were having a reasonably good and civil communication going on both Talk and in edit notes. I was not unhappy with Nyttend's editing and only provided diffs for leverage in this discussion, to be frank. I am sorry that Nyttend found my behavior to violate the spirit and letter of EDITWAR. I am not emotionally invested in it in terms of the work I do here, and have my hands full with articles I care about (not to mention the haters in peanut gallery sandwiching this discussion.) I would be happy to walk away from the Vani Hari article and unwatch it, and accept any warning given. Would be happier to keep my hand in but the last thing I need is another admin's ire. Acceptable? Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Jytdog has been edit-warring on multiple pages including Oseltamivir and Vani Hari. He is trying to add links to self-published blogs and it's time for an administrator to take action against Jytdog's advocacy for these pseudoscientific publications -A1candidate (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – Nyttend's bulk deletions here are far from consensus (see the extensive talk: coverage) Jytdog is merely the editor who got to them first. This is far from the sort of edit-warring deserving sanction (even on Nyttend's part). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: The Vani Hari article has been protected 24 hours by User:Fluffernutter. If anyone thinks that Jytdog's edits on the Oseltamivir article amount to edit warring, file a regular 3RR report on that article and supply diffs. If a new war breaks out at Vani Hari when protection expires the next admin might decide that blocks are needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:66.87.120.162 (Result: Submitter blocked)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]

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

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

Comments:


User has both committed 3RR and repeatedly made incivil comments and threats.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.120.162 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 9 December 2014‎ (UTC)

Note - this is related to report above. Seems to be another SOCK. I have done nothing uncivil; i have removed personal attacks per WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Note - filer of this action has been blocked as a sock - see here. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: The submitter has been blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

User:177.221.167.122 reported by User:KyleRGiggs (Result: semi)[edit]

Page
Template:Spain squad 2014 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
177.221.167.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Sockpuppet of Gringoladomenega Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It is the same Ip of 187.5.175.206 115ash→(☏) 15:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC).

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected — It looks like that blocked user is editing via the ips (and no other ips are making edits on the page anyway). --slakrtalk / 01:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:72.178.86.254 reported by User:Soccersalvatore (Result:No violation; both users warned re: civility)[edit]

Page: Template:New York Giants roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.178.86.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637246703

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637261822
  2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637086480
  3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637086657
  4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:New_York_Giants_roster&oldid=637410376

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

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

Comments:

Soccersalvatore (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Continually changes information with wrong, unsourced information.

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation I see one revert from the IP and that's it. I see no warning. This report is also malformed. I'm placing warnings on both your pages for civility. only (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas reported by User:108.91.175.42 (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

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

Comments:
This is an on-going problem:

Edit warring on same page in October 2013: [48] [49]

Edit warring on same page in June 2014: [50] [51] [52]

Edit warring on same page September 2014: [53] [54] 108.91.175.42 (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Tarnhall reported by User:journalist_astronomist (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: The Danse Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarnhall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
Proposed article changes with no relevance as to whether someone has edit warred

Content reverted:

current_members = The Danse Society

Maethelyiah
Paul Nash
Jack Cooper
Iain Hunter
Sam Bollands

past_members =
Paul Gilmartin
David Whitaker
Steve Rawlings
Martin Roberts
Lyndon Scarfe
Tim Wright
Paul Hampshire

In 1980, they recorded and released their first 7" single, "Clock," on their own newly-formed record label, Society Records. The Seduction was their first independent album released on Society Records in 1982, a six-track album containing the live favourites "Godsend", "Ambition" and "Danse Move" as well as the atmospheric classic "In Heaven Everything is Fine". They recorded several Radio 1 sessions including a released John Peel session 'Woman's Own" and "Were So Happy" and topped the Independent Charts with the single "Somewhere". Their most well known album, Heaven is Waiting, was released in December, 1983 by Arista. The album contained the singles "Wake Up" and "Heaven is Waiting" and a cover of The Rolling Stones song, "2000 light years from home", released in 1984 as a 12" single and as a limited edition double single. They released two further singles under Arista "Say it Again' and "Hold On". In 1986 after releasing their final album as Danse Society International, Looking Through back on their own label again the band split from Rawlings and the other band members left to form Johnny In The Clouds.

  1. [| current_members = The Danse Society

    Paul Gilmartin
    Brian Jay
    Elliot Wheeler
    Craig Eddington
    Mal MacCafferty
    ]
  2. [| past_members =
    Maetheliyah
    David Whitaker
    Steve Rawlings
    Martin Roberts
    Lyndon Scarfe
    Tim Wright
    Paul Hampshire
    ]
  3. [At the time of writing this (December 2014) The Danse Society now consists of Paul Gilmartin, David Whitaker, Mal Macafferty, Elliot Wheeler, Craig Eddington and Brian Jay. Martin Roberts having left to pursue other band interests as well as recording and producing artists and bands. Paul Nash and Louisa Pile continue to make music and at this time also use the band name.]
  4. [Gilmartin's Danse Society has regained the original ethos of the band with a strong male vocal which is proving popular with fans old and new as well as live audiences. David Whitaker is instrumental (pun intended) in the band's development and direction and supports it in the studio whilst Craig Eddington's keyboards make the live performances as ethereal and dramatic as ever. Mal's bass and technical expertise complements Gilmartin's distinctive and powerful drums to provide a solid TDS foundation to Elliot Wheeler's innovative and evocative lead guitar. The vocal is powerful and distinctive with echoes of Rawlings in fusion with a new yet polished talent that comes from a veteran rock vocalist with the experience, charisma and presence required of a successful front person.]
  5. [The Danse Society Reincarnated itself and indeed - a sixth studio album penned by Gilmartin's skilled lyrical hand and scored by the band is imminent - as is another single and in 2015 more live performances to supplement the dozen or so that they have already undertaken. Behind the scenes, there is much happening including a resolution to who will actually sue The Danse Society name and title. Paul Gilmartin registered and holds Intellectual Property Rights to "The Danse Society" and the Crown of Thorns logo. Further consolidation is being finalised and 2015 will see the band refreshed and secure and delivering quality Dark Wave to the loyal and patient fanbase as well as new audiences. The Danse continues.]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [From this page [1] you can see that the user assumes that registering a trademark on pre-existing copyrights gives him the right to totally delete the previous 4 years of history of the reformed band as stated in the official website www.thedansesociety.com when such user was in the band before he resigned in writing on the 29th January 2014 during the tour with no notice. The same user I am reporting is not only in breach of copyright but is also adding facts not relevant to the band history, is spreading false personal information on the band members past and current, and is assuming a manipulative position based on a trademark that is in the process of being invalidated for the above reasons. He first hasn't attempted to contact the band before resigning, then as stated in his interview, [2] where he clearly declares that he first resigned, then called his new band Heaven is Waiting, then changed his mind otherwise his current singer wouldn't have accepted anything other than The Danse Society, so then he registered the trademark on somebody else's existing copyright and instantly puts himself in charge of deleting the current band members that never left the boat, to install himself and his new partners of venture, calling himself as a contributor for editing in the name of truth. Also such user has already been notified by Paul Nash's solicitor.]

Comments:


As a long time fan, having seen the band dying in the 80s and following the last 4 years of hard team work to reclaim a good reputation, seeing such a lack of respect for a team for a lonely ex band member in this way, I am frankly appalled. Since Wikipedia has always been a point of reference for everyone, I believe that if Mr Tarnhall has got something to say this should not mean deleting 4 years of history for his personal revenge and changes of mind. People are interested in The Danse Society and not in his personal ventures, I believe. I hope this explains the reasons for my report. ps: I apologise for struggling with the structure of this report. Thank you. Kind regards Journalist astronomist (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)journalist astronomist

(Non-administrator comment)  Comment: - An extraneous header or other inappropriate text was removed from this request. Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have restored the sourced and more neutral version of the article from before the whole clusterfuck (removing the non-WP:RS FB site), and started an area on the talk page for the users involved to discuss changes, pointing out that Wikipedia doesn't care which band is teh gratist!!1!, but what reliable sources verify. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  • Result: Protected five days. If the war continues when protection expires a number of single-purpose accounts may need to be blocked. The edits suggest continuation of a real-world dispute here on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Benjamin au reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Protection)[edit]

Page
The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Benjamin au (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Zeitgeist Movement. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 12:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Zeitgeist Movement. (TW)"
Comments:

User has been warned multiple times that their edits are inapropriate, and they must gain consensus on the article's talk page should they want content reinstated. —MelbourneStartalk 12:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(This is Benjamin) The TZM page needs to be fully protected please. The Zeitgeist Movement exists of many ideas completly unrelated to the films and this must be respected. Please refer to many other political movements) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin au (talkcontribs) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Scott101100 reported by User:Iselilja (Result:Blocked as a sock)[edit]

Page
Race and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Scott101100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is also under sockpuppet investigation and I basically consider them a vandal. One of their POV they try to edit into the Race and health article is that " all white people are intellectually disabled in some form or another, due to their abnormalities in chromosome 15 affecting the pituitary gland and possibly the brain, as well as their limited vision." Iselilja (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as sockpuppet now. Iselilja (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikifixerrr reported by User:Wbm1058 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. special:diff/637429670
  2. special:diff/637354557
  3. special:diff/637293477
  4. special:diff/637288896
  5. special:diff/637188217

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: special:diff/637378625#Primary topic for Darren

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: special:diff/637378625#Primary topic for Darren

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. The user has 190 edits but has never left a message on a talk page. They kept on editing after the notice of the 3RR complaint but made no response. If they are truly not listening at all a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Sincere310 reported by User:98.221.118.184 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Diem Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sincere310 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]
  5. [64]
  6. [65]
  7. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] edit summaries, ongoing pleas amongst editors.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [== age/b-date lie ==

So I added a link to the people article and wrote about the age lie in the personal section of the article. Can people please stop changing the correct info.? I do have doubts about when exactly she began lying about her age as some commentors have pointed-out that she may have done it early in her career because she would have been ineligible for her MTV show as they allegedly had an age limit of 25, but the statement from the sister implies that her cancer was most of the reason although she did mention "show biz"-so if anyone wants to add that or more valid refs about it they may. There are other valid ref articles available, but none really confirm when she started the lie98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)]

Comments:
This minor celebrity who recently died was found to have been lying about her age. Random editors keep trying to change back to the wrong age after reliable refs have been posted to the article about the age being wrong and the lie.98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 98.221.118.184 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Mandruss (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

[Withdrawn after user's self-revert] ‑‑Mandruss  00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Page: Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Common_sense

Comments: User eventually opened the talk discussion, but only after ignoring my first invitation and reverting. They then claimed an agreement that did not exist and reverted again on that basis. That is the current state of the article.

This is my first trip to this board, and I apologize for any presentation shortcomings. I hope I don't do this enough to become good at it. ‑‑Mandruss  22:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I genuinely believed we had come to an agreement, per discussion, since 1) it was agreed that "suburb" did not need linking, and 2) there was no reply to my observation that Ferguson, Missouri cannot be overlinking (ie, drawing attention away from the text), since it looks identical to Ferguson, Missouri which was in the article previously.
I did not do more than 3 reverts. The 3rd was after the talk page discussion appeared, in my understanding, and in the absence of a reply, to have reached agreement. If you had reverted, of course, that would have indicated otherwise (to my astonishment), and I would not have reverted again, obviously, since that would go over 3RR.
You say "ignoring my first invitation". I did not "ignore" your invitation: I thought it would be equally productive, and more efficient, to offer a better explanation in my edit summary. Specifically, "some of us don't know where Missouri is; everyone knows what a suburb is" (my 2nd edit summary) rather than simply "better linking" (my 1st ES, which I had initially assumed would be sufficient). The more complete explanation was my preferred method of reaching consensus, in the first instance, rather than opening a talk page discussion about this minor edit. When the full explanation was not sufficient, I did open the discussion.
In what sense had we not come to an agreement? You admitted that you had not checked my edit before reverting. Now that you have, I would really like you to explain how Ferguson, Missouri is worse than Ferguson, Missouri? As I mentioned, the benefit of Ferguson, Missouri is that not everyone knows where Missouri is. Barely anyone outside the US does (I assume). zzz (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I clearly stated my objection to Missouri on the talk page. I'm not going to do it again here. Be advised, you can't claim failure to respond as an agreement. If you could, things would get very complicated if one of the parties had to leave for some reason. I agree when I say I agree. ‑‑Mandruss  23:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(As I said, I have not gone over 3RR.) The only part of the edit I can imagine anyone disagreeing with was my unlinking of "suburb"; but you agreed to this, after admitting you had not previously checked my edit (despite reverting it twice). After this had been established, I stated "It seems we are in agreement" (and there was no reply when I returned to the page, after editing on other pages). I would not have assumed anything from this normally, but in this case it is logically impossible to object to Ferguson, Missouri as opposed to Ferguson, Missouri - which is so self-evident, that it did not occur to me that you might still object. I repeat, please tell me, what is your objection? zzz (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to resolve content disputes. That is what article talk pages are for. If you will self-revert and agree to leave the article in that state until there is consensus for the change, I will be happy to withdraw this complaint and continue the content discussion where it belongs. The discussion is still quite new, but it's not currently going your way. ‑‑Mandruss  23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
You said "I clearly stated my objection to Missouri on the talk page". Well, you did mention "overlinking"; I explained, in terms of policy, how this cannot be the case. Since we are in fact now discussing this at enormous length, please state your objection. zzz (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
For the third and final time, this is not the place to resolve content disputes and I will not abuse this space because you insist that I do. I am requesting some kind of intervention here. ‑‑Mandruss  00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Withdrawn after user's self-revert. Judging by the editsum they have given up on the content question. Sorry for the waste of page space. ‑‑Mandruss  00:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Cynlouise reported by User:Pishcal (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page
Austin Police Department (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cynlouise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC) to 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 19:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636209263 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
    2. 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636209203 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
    3. 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208948 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
    4. 19:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208849 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)"
    5. 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636208770 by ArizonaComebacks (talk)no police misconduct. just one angry person who didn't like the way he was treated"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Both Cynlouise and ArizonaComebacks have been engaged in an edit war on this page since September 5th. Both have violated 3RR multiple times, and there seems to be a lot of POV pushing. Both parties involved have been warned, but neither seemed to pay any attention. Pishcal (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Nutrition.and.Health reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Eating disorder not otherwise specified (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nutrition.and.Health (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 03:03 Dec 9

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:14 Dec 9
  2. 4:17 Dec 10
  3. 17:07 Dec 10
  4. 18:35 Dec 10
  5. 18:37 Dec 10
  6. 20:17 Dec 10

and now, 21:33 Dec 10, removing tags.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:56 Dec 10 18:40 Dec 10 and 20:35 Dec 10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

Editor has not engaged either user talk or article talk, even with four different editors attempting communication with him or her. Continues to edit with no responses on any talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Update And again, 22.44 dec 10 and still no response on user or article talk, even after more prompting.[72] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Four hours later, no action, an admin at the Education Noticeboard protected the article: [73] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected (full) by Xaosflux for one week. Apparently, the reported user is a student on assignment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:M60a3tts reported by User:331dot (Result: 7 days)[edit]

Page
T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
M60a3tts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607339 by Al Khazar (talk)"
  2. 10:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607528 by Al Khazar (talk) So what. Accept the fact."
  3. 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607804 by 331dot (talk) bunch of noobs."
  4. 10:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "i surrender, noobs."
  5. 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608154 by Al Khazar (talk) I did used the reliable source THAT YOU WERE TALKING. WHY CHANGE?"
  6. 10:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608293 by 331dot (talk) NOW YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS VANDALING. DON'T YOU HAVE ANY EYES?"
  7. 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608436 by 331dot (talk) SERIOUSLY. Now You Two are the one who is vandaling. You guys told me to bring the reliable one, so I DID."
  8. 10:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608702 by Al Khazar (talk) You know what? BTVT.NAROD.RU is a personal site, full of russian exaggerated figures. It is not credible at all."
  9. 10:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637608916 by Al Khazar (talk) kept the ref except NAROD."
  10. 10:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637609171 by Al Khazar (talk) Stop vandalling. For example, narod claimed that the protection of M1A1 was under 400mm, and in reality it's 600mm(Zaloga). IT IS NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL."
  11. 11:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637609486 by 331dot (talk) I gave Khazar a reference, and HE DELEATED THE TALK PAGE."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on T-90. (TW)"
  2. 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on T-90. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Same as the IP user reported above. Brief attempt to discuss the issue on another user's talk page (User talk:Al Khazar). When they became dissatisfied with the direction of that discussion they resumed reverting. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 7 days. Will semi-protect the article as well due to IP socking. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:220.76.25.116 reported by User:331dot (Result: See below report)[edit]

Page
T-90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
220.76.25.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606046 by Al Khazar (talk) I DID SEE THE TALK PAGE, AND THE REF I BROUGHT ARE ON IT. USE YOUR EYES. You know nothing about the armored vehicle, don't you? LOL"
  2. 10:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606654 by Al Khazar (talk) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6M_3vz3CDw#t=138 WATCH THIS. USE YOUR EARS."
  3. 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637606920 by Al Khazar (talk) It was Taken in Expo Arms 2011, and this video was taken by the officials. Stop whining and accept the FACT."
  4. 10:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637607146 by Al Khazar (talk) AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW IS NEGLECTING THE FACT."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on T-90. (TW)"
  2. 10:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on T-90. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

May also have registered a sock at User:M60a3tts. Attempts were made to discuss the issue in edit summaries 331dot (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 7 days as per below report. Black Kite (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Portugal Editor Exploration reported by User:Abecedare (Result: Portugal Editor Exploration and Qwerty3594 blocked)[edit]

Page
Goa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Portugal Editor Exploration (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC) "Facts and knowledge contribution should not be changed or modified by unknown editors"
  2. 13:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Facts and knowledge contribution should not be changed or modified by unknown editors PLEASE. Undid revision 637601863 by Qwerty3594 (talk)"
  3. 13:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "AVOID VANDALISM PLEASE"
  4. 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Dear Friend, Goa was invaded and annexed in 1961 defined by the UN. It rejoined the REPUBLIC OF INDIA in 1974/75 after a sovreignity treaty with the UN by PORTUGAL & India. So, please do NOT VANDALISE."
  5. 14:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  6. 14:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Dear Friend, Please reference your claim from UN Charter DOCUMENTS."
  7. 14:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Reference: http://www.colaco.net/1/treaty.htm ; Let FACTS be on WIKIPEDIA for Knowledge contribution only not VANDALISM or manipulations. Any further issues, write on my talk page and refrain from changing."
  8. 14:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Signed : March 14, 1975 ; courtesy: United Nations Treaty series 1975: Vol: 982, pg: 159"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Goa."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Note that Qwerty3594 (talk · contribs) has also been similarly edit-warring (not filing separate report for paucity of time). User has also been warned about edit-warring at my talk-page, at the India project page etc, but with no effect. Finally note that User:Portugal Editor Exploration has been blocked twice previously for edit-warring at the same page. Editing restrictions under WP:ARBIND should be considered. Abecedare (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

On a lighter note, he has just awarded himself the Platinum editor star!!! Bizarre. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Turan22 reported by User:Merlinme (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Kathīr al-Farghānī (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Turan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77]

That is only three reverts, but they were made after I specifically warned the editor for edit warring on Avicenna, with another three undos in 24 hours here:

[78] [79] [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Avicenna article talk page: [82]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Indef for disruption. I'm also indef blocking Bilga07 (talk ·