Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive270

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:189.8.107.196 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Pope Joan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
189.8.107.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Donna Cross, a novelist who spent seven years researching the time period, says the historical evidence is there. "I would say it's the weight of evidence -- over 500 chronicle accounts of her existence."/"
  2. 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Even if it was just one, "all but one" = "most", definitely. Definitely not = "all". But I guess "almost all" is equally correct, and will better satisfy the clear personal position of the editors of this article :)"
  3. 13:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Fine, let us discuss then the editions made in the 1st paragraph regarding "most scholars". But why had you removed this neutral paragraph, which states clearly it is one person's POV, from the critique section? That was clearly censorship and abuse"
  4. 19:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643995372 by Dr.K. (talk) I suggest you read the Talk page; there indeed ARE scholars who disagree with this consensus, and this is indeed what is under discussion at the Talk page now"
  5. 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643996855 by Dr.K. (talk) No reason has been given as to why the references were removed. This is censorship."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pope Joan. (TWTW)"
  2. 19:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pope Joan. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Scholarly consensus */ comment"
Comments:

Edit-warring for days adding unreliable sources for WP:FRINGE theories supporting the existence of Pope Joan against overwhelming consensus on talkpage. Tendentious editing, personal attacks on the talkpage of the article. Will not stop despite warnings. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a clear violation to me. It has pov pushing, ignoring warnings and a likeliness to continue. I think a 48 hour block is appropriate with escalation of duration if it continues. Chillum 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment When asked Binksternet recommended that the IP perform no further edits to the article here. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored. It looks as though we have a WP:RGW situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WWE Batman131 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: UFC on Fox: Lawler vs. Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWE Batman131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. First
  2. Second
  3. Third
  4. Fourth
  5. Fifth
  6. Sixth

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning of his talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [1]

Comments:
This article was created for an event that happened 6 months ago. Back then a consensus was reached about the same thing the user is complaining and the result was that it would remain as it was. So much time has passed and WWE Batman131 decides to come now and start acting stubborn by reverting all edits to how the page was. I even removed a word from it so the article looks similar to articles from recent events, but he still removed them. He says he know the rules, but he doesn't respect the consensus and - even if he wanted to open discussion again - he doesn't keep the article the way it was agreed to. He know accuses me of edit warring as well, while I gave him all the chances to realize what he was doing (via summary edit when I mentioned the consensus on the talk page) and via personal message at his talk page. He even dared me to report him. I believe he should get a warning for this situation and be reminded that he can't start doing things on his own, even when people remind him that and he still keeps doing it. I gave him all warnings as possible, but he remained stubborn like plenty of the IPs we deal with that vandalize those same articles. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I must say, it's a nice report. But, I'm not vandalizing. I'm trying to resolve a problem civilly, I've done everything I should do. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
As well, I didn't dare you to do anything. You said you would report me. And I told you to go ahead. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User: 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 reported by User:RovingPersonalityConstruct (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Type 093 submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 24 January 2015
  2. 24 January 2015
  3. 24 January 2015
  4. 24 January 2015‎ - 17:08, 24 January 2015‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#STOP_YOUR_Revert_War_.21.21.21

Comments:

Greetings,

In an attempt to remove unsourced, or unreliably sourced, information I have come into some conflict with the anon user in question. While I am using the Type 093 article here, this is occurring on multiple articles (it may be easier to check both of our contribution logs to see this.) I admit that I am likely in violation of the 3RR rule myself at this point.

The anon user contacted me on my talk page, and I have attempted to impress upon the anon user the importance of reliable sources, and explain the validity of a certain type of referencing style using bibliographies. Unfortunately, the anon user continues to use whatever sources can be find (most, if not all, unreliable) to support the otherwise unsourced information on the pages, and refuses to acknowledge that the bibliography and references to it are valid. In the case of the Type 093 article, I attempted a rewrite using what reliable sources could be found, but this rewrite has been consistently reverted by the anon user. Other articles tend to be over small sections of the article.

My apologies if this is the improper place to bring up this issue, or if I have misidentifed the issue. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, This guy RovingPersonalityConstruct repeated removed massive amounts of multiple sourced content and replaced them with his own personal opinions. When I reverted his vandalism he keeps saying that I have no sources to back up my the original contents. Then I searched and backed up the original contents with multiple sources from Chinese and Western news media he then say that my sources are not reliable and his source is !

Type 093 submarine Chengdu J-20 JL-2

Please take a look at his behavior !

In fact his only source is another Wikipedia page link to the US Department of Defense !

Please see his reverting history for evidences. I have warned him on many occasions yet he does not know how to stop nor proving me wrong. He just keeping saying that his only source is "reliable" while my many sources being "unreliable".

Admins please stop him !--2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked. I blocked the IP for 72 hours for violating 3RR and personal attacks. I blocked Roving for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:09I500 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
4chan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
09I500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644093825 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) edit warring / pushing pov / battleground behaviour / personal crusade"
  2. 12:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644091956 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) its not"
  3. 12:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644089602 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) abuse of WP:BLP to push POV"
  4. 11:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644087910 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) this is in compliance with WP:BLP"
  5. 11:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644087154 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
  6. 10:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644061915 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) use talk page to reach consensus, do not push your pov with edit warring"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */ new section"
  2. 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
  3. 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
  4. 11:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
  5. 11:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
  6. 11:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* GamerGate sanctions discussion */"
  7. 12:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Lying by omission is a thing."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is edit-warring to remove reliably-sourced information and in so doing, is presenting a specifically-named living person in a false light in contravention of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. The removal of that reliably-sourced information results in the article lying by omission, as the edit removes the word "false" from the phrase "false allegations" about this specific person. This has the effect of taking negative claims which are well-established by reliable sources to be untrue and presenting them as a subject of debate. There is discussion of this matter on the talk page. I have obviously gone beyond 3RR here, but this is a clear-cut application of the BLP exemption, as the user in question is edit-warring to falsely depict a living person in contravention of policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 12:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:JimMacAllistair reported by User:Bede735 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here, here, and here

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

Comments: I could use some help with JimMacAllistair, a new editor who signed up five days ago. I attempted to reason with the new editor in my summary text here and here, and provided further explanation and appropriate next steps on their talk page here. The editor ignored my appeals. This article is a WP:GA and is currently in WP:PR. Bede735 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: JimMacAllistair was identified as a sock puppet of HarveyCarter and has been blocked indefinitely. Bede735 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. As far as I can tell there are three reverts; this edit is not a revert as far as I can tell. You're both currently at three reverts each; a As he is the new user I'll leave a notice at his talkpage to discuss before making further reverts. Bjelleklang - talk 18:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User: Hans Barbosa reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Large denominations of United States currency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hans Barbosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&oldid=643311755

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Earlier insertion of dubious information

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=643256657&oldid=641881613

Within 24 hour period, insertion of dubious material 4 times

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=643892515&oldid=643311755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=643968796&oldid=643912778

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=644024465&oldid=644008695

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency&diff=644026663&oldid=644025183

User has been warned by other editors who have been reverting the edits.

This editor is inserting unsourced material of dubious authenticity, but is being reported here rather than as a content dispute because the editor has gone over 3RR.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned. I see you've alerted him under WP:ARB911. Not sure whether he is serious about the secret issuance of $500 million dollar bank notes to Chiang Kai-Shek. But let's hope this kind of thing doesn't continue. It looks like the probably-fake currency images will be deleted soon. This is a new account that was created on 18 January. If it turns out that he is continuing with these ideas an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Deepall66 reported by User:Eeriyaka (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Thesara Jayawardane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deepall66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

versions :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thesara_Jayawardane&oldid=644073056

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thesara_Jayawardane&oldid=644069699

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thesara_Jayawardane&oldid=643018182

This user created an user similar to a wiki admin User:Arjayay , fake account is User:Arjayaya is blocked now.

This user notified several times to discuss the matter in the talk page. but not listening. user is reverting things back to since 13th OCT 2014, using unregistered account such that.


The person behind these fake accounts damaging the integrity of Wiki, changing things without good faith. could you please take pessary actions to block this user.

if possible could you protect the article (BLP) Thesara Jayawardane from further editing or protect it editing by unregistered users or any user has less than 10 wiki edits.

kind regards Eeriyaka (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

User:108.31.156.228 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
The Fosters (2013 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
108.31.156.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[7]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Edited to remove passage that impacts the neutrality of the section per Wikipedia's published guidelines."
  2. 01:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Removed irrelevant clause that negatively impacts the neutrality of the section contrary to Wikipedia's published standards."
  3. [8]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on The Fosters (2013 TV series). (TW)"
  2. 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Fosters (2013 T.V. series). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user has been repeatedly warned in the past for the same edits, but their block (I believe) and the page's protection did not hault their behavior. This has been going on for quite some time. Whilst they have taken a break, they have returned with the same results and they don't seem to quit and I fear that's their motive. When the edit warring first began, more editors came along, as I suspected there was sock puppetry occurring. Though, now, it's only this user. Callmemirela (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Long-term edit warring and POV-pushing by IP. Let me know if you see this person editing elsewhere. This edit summary is worth preserving: "Removal of irrelevant opinion from a shyster organization run by a hypocrite who lives off donations from sanctimonious LIVs. This opinion negatively impacts the neutrality of the section." Myself, I would be asking about the neutrality of the edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
EdJohnston Thank you for your help. Your last sentence made me chuckle. Although, I do have one worry. I believe, through my point of view and opinion, this IP is associated with the One Million Moms organization. They are the only one to constantly make the same edit, with rather invalid arguments to remove such content. Should this be much of a concern? Callmemirela (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:188.217.107.13 reported by User:Eric (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Apennins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.217.107.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts (two of five articles, 3 diffs each):

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]
  6. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:This Vodafone Italy IP editor has been campaigning to change English terms to their French synonyms on several articles. The diffs I provide above are to two of them. I assume it must the the same editor who was using a Telecom Italia IP to do the same kind of edits in July 2014 (see Special:Contributions/80.181.225.114)
Eric talk 23:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: Warned. User has not continued since being given a block warning. EdJohnston (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Note: Thanks, Ed. I was placing the an3 notice template there at the same time you were putting the report notice. So I did not add the an3. Eric talk 05:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wijesekara94 reported by User:EmadIV (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Sumudu Wijesekara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wijesekara94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 06:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) to 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sumudu Wijesekara."
  2. 06:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sumudu Wijesekara."
  3. 06:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Sumudu Wijesekara."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Constant removal of speedy tags. →εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 06:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ElCommandanteVzl reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
Eliot Higgins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ElCommandanteVzl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Regime is POV and it is still not a fact that the gov used chemical weapons, despite what this source say"
  2. 18:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Many RS claim that it were the rebels"
  3. 18:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "the bild is a RS http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild"
  4. 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Again, it is not a fact that the gov used chemical weapons"
  5. 19:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Regime is POV, it has been discussed many times. for examaple here: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_20#Government_or_regime"
  6. 20:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Please see: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_20#Government_or_regime"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Eliot Higgins. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Ghouta edit war */ new section"
Comments:

Also requested page protection on WP:RPP, but this editor has continued to war with other editors after the warning (at the time of the RPP it was 1:1). VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale User's behaviour was certainly deserving a block, but disruption ceased over 24 hours ago so I don't see how it would be preventive at this point. Talk page seems to be serving its purpose now as well. — MusikAnimal talk 22:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Asher Heimermann reported by User:Only (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Mirro Aluminum Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:03 1/24/15
  2. 18:41 1/24/15
  3. 19:34 1/24/15 (debatable if the original maintenance template was necessary, so I don't really consider this a significant revert if it is classified as one).
  4. 00:13 1/25/15
  5. 01:16 1/25/15


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:23 1/25/15

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nyth83 started discussion at User_talk:Asher_Heimermann#Mirro_Aluminum_Company

Comments:

Reporting this as a previously involved administrator; saw this unfolding via my watchlist. only (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Mirro Aluminum Company, I believe an image of the company building should appear in the infobox. If there is an image field in the infobox, why not use it? Asher Heimermann (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This photo was taken many years after the company no longer existed, and in fact, has now been demolished so it serves to purpose to help identify the company which is the purpose of the infobox. It is of post-company interest which is why I moved it to a gallery in the article space. Besides, the article is about the company itself and not about the building(s) that it owned. If you disagree with a change made by an editor, you need to start a discussion on the article talk page about it and not to continually revert and redo edits as you have been doing. Nyth63 02:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, the building still stands. Only a portion of the building was demolished but most of it still stands as of today's date. The pictures I added to the article were taken by myself yesterday afternoon. A picture serves the public's interest in identifying the company. Asher Heimermann (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion belongs on the article's talk page. If you disagreed with my edit, we should have started a discussion on the talk page rather than continuing with reverts. Nyth63 14:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Note to reviewing admin: I have also just warned Nyth83 for 3RR/edit warring with relation to his involvement on the infobox image edit warring. only (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Asher Heimermann is warned to get consensus before making more reverts about pictures. His last edit is more than 24 hours ago so a block may not be needed. User:Nyth83 was creating some copyvios but now appears to have got the message. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The message that I got was that some editors appear to be lazy and heavy-handed in their interpretation of Wikipedia policy. I posted about my disagreement with this to User talk:Only. Nyth63 05:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:82.20.56.162 (also uses account User:Concept4life) reported by User:PaleCloudedWhite (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Bournemouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.20.56.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), also edits as Concept4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log))


Previous version reverted to: [19] (Please note that it isn't clear to me which diff this parameter is requesting)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24] (first warning), [25] (second warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26], also please note previous comment on user's talk page

Comments:
The reported user's history of editing the article this way stretches back to 6 December 2014; the reported edits are just the latest. Note that one of the reported user's edits consisted of page blanking. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
What about the user's sock account - is that not also being blocked? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Mckmckmt reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
User talk:Codename Lisa (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mckmckmt (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 08:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) to 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 08:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
    2. 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
  2. 08:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644372480 by Claw of Slime (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 07:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC) to 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 07:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
    2. 07:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
    3. 07:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644328511 by Codename Lisa (talk)"
  5. 01:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Deleted CrystalDiskInfo from page Comparison of S.M.A.R.T. tools */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User insists on removing a section from CL's talkpage against CL's wishes. User has been warned twice, and reverted by multiple users, yet still carries on removing the section. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If this reverts were for an article on wikipedia I am guilty as charged but because it is a section on User Talk Page I have done nothing wrong. The section contains insulting statements towards me so I insist that the section be removed or the insulting statements be removed. Mckmckmt (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
From WP:3RR:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. [...] A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space.

There really isn't any wiggle room there.
Besides, your insistence on deleting CnL's reply to you is a clear violation of WP:TALK. Per WP:REDACT, you can strike out your comments, but you can't delete them once they've been replied to. And you certainly cannot even strike out anyone else's comments on their own talk page. Not even if you don't like them. If this hadn't been brought to 3RR I expect it would have been brought to AN/I.
Say, did you consider asking CnL to archive that section? Jeh (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I have filed under ANI Mckmckmt (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that the above ANI thread was closed as being pretty frivolous. This 3RR case still needs dealing with, as it's pretty blatant; 3RR applies everywhere (bar certain pages under 1RR restriction, but that's a bit different), not just in mainspace. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me summarize: I have never seen a more self-involved, rude, clueless and hostile Wikipedia editor in my life. The worst of everyone else I've seen so far were either very self-involved, or very vindictive, or very rude or extremely dumb but none of them were all four at once.) These personality traits mean that he will never accept that he made mistake, no matter how many people tell him so. So, please, block him permanently. He is a plague upon Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"I have never seen a more...". Sure you have, just look in the mirror. 108.4.2.206 (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, look! It's my Iranian stalker! Well, I have looked in the mirror. I'm just obnoxious. I'm definitely not an idiot. You are three of these, not four. Fleet Command (talk) 11:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go that far with regards to your description of Mckmckmt; I've seen a lot, lot worse, and they did at least retract some of their personal attacks. The IP above isn't really worth responding to; obvious troll is obvious. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe we should compare. I have seen Betacommand/Δ, Dogmaticecelectic, Janagewen, Toddst1 and this Iranian IP stalker above... and myself. Who have you seen worse? Mckmckmt is worse than all of them. Fleet Command (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I have seen several of the editors you list there. Mckmckmt isn't the most civil user in the world, but to claim that they're the worst you've ever seen is a tad daft, and also not helpful (as naming "worse" users would also be unhelpful, I shan't do so.) I think you're getting too invested in this situation to act in a neutral manner, and you reversions of Mckmckmt's revocation of their own personal attacks show that; I recommend you take a step back, and let other users deal with it. This is, after all, an open-and-shut case. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe. But I think you and I have a disagreement; that's all. It is no reason to think because I disagree with you, I am too invested. Maybe you are not as sensitive to harassment as you should be? Let's agree to disagree on that and leave it. But let's compare Mckmckmt with Codename Lisa instead: If she makes a sloppy edit and you tell her "your edit was sloppy", she doesn't responding by going to ANI and saying ":Sob: :Sob: Lukeno94 insulted me! :Sob:". What I am saying is, calling an edit sloppy isn't a personal attack. Personal attacks target editors, not their edits. Fleet Command (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My concern is that your actions/language are/is more likely to detract from this case than help it. Questioning my sensitivity to harassment is both bizarre and irrelevant. Yes, Lisa doesn't respond like that, but then, she's an experienced editor who is familiar with the processes here. Mckmckmt is not, and whilst their language has been poor at times, neither involved party is entirely innocent of such things (and nor are either of us two, although at least in this case I've refrained from any attacks). This board is for discussing edit warring, and establishing if there was any valid case for a 3RR exemption; in this case, there wasn't. Further discussions of conduct/language/content are not helpful. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Mckmckmt is warned that the 3RR rule applies everywhere on Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This version of the affected talk may be a compromise that people can live with. A complaint at ANI about this same dispute has already been closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Curly Turkey reported by User:MoorNextDoor (Result: both, plus User:Trackteur blocked)[edit]

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Curly Turkey (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
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff

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

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff

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

Comments:
There isn't a lot to say really, Curly Turkey seriously thinks that Wikipedia belongs to him. I don't what the exact issue is between him and the Trackteur, but the part that I've restored and that Curly Turkey keeps removing has already been discussed here and the admin EdJohnston agreed with what it said. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • No, this is a flat-out lie---the content disputed there is unrelated to the content disputed here, and EdJohnson declined as the report had become stale, not because he agreed with any party. Please don't fall for MoorNextDoor's diversionary tactics. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MoorNextDoor Note :

Curly Turkey was present at the time, he cannot claim that he didn't know about it. MoorNextDoor (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • MoorNextDoor Note :

I just restored what Curly Turkey deleted from my report (see diff below), apparently, I do not even have the right to report what I want, even here in the presence of the admins he thinks he can do what he wants.

    • This was very obviously an error, as I discuss the deleted diffs in the very edit in which they are deleted. This is exactly the kind of comment MoorNextDoor tends to make to obscure the issues. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. Diff

MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Note 1: MoorNextDoor has already been warned for both 6RR and 7RR, and has since 8RRed. He has been carrying on this edit war with both myself and Trackteur. MoorNextDoor has a history of aggressive tendentious editing on the page, and browsing through the talk page will demonstrate that he has no interest in building consensus (here is the latest of many attempts to get him to discuss—it just goes endlessly in circles as he refuses to answer direct questions).
    MoorNextDoor's is a war of attrition. Whatever the outcome, a block will not be sufficient to stop the behaviour—MoorNextDoor is poised to revert to his preferred version again once the block is over, and has proven himself unwilling to discuss or to abide by consensus. Here are MoorNextDoor's reverts:
  • 1RR
  • 2RR
  • 3RR
  • 4RR
  • 5RR
  • 6RR
  • 7RR
  • 8RR
  • Note 2: the other edit war listed is of a different veriety: an editor whose English skills are not up to the task, and who has avoided discussing it. If I have to be blocked for it, then somebody else had better step in to clean up Trackteur's broken English.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that three editors have broken WP:3RR: User:Curly Turkey, User:MoorNextDoor and User:Trackteur. Is the right way to close this a block for three people? Or do you think those involved could promise to stop reverting? EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I can guarantee MoorNextDoor will not stop. I already have, and so has Trackteur. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyone who's capable of deleting someone's report will not stop unless he's made to stop. For my part, you can clearly see that I only restored the deleted content that Curly Turkey never objected to when the definition suited him. MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Just how obvious that was an error is explicated above---and, yes, it was obvious to you, too, MoorNextDoor. After all, I discuss the deleted links in the very edit where I deleted them. You're only demonstrating your bad faith with this comment.
That link and the content discussed in it are 100% unrelated to this dispute---are you hoping that people won't click through? Anyways, you appear to have committed yourself to continuing the edit war, as long as you're only restoring "deleted content", is it? Because consensus is bunk, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please take note of the fact that MoorNectDoor refuses to promise to stop, and refuses to recognize consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I have nothing to say to someone who's capable of deleting a signed portion of a report. MoorNextDoor (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Please note just how many times MoorNextDoor is willing to repeat this even after it's been debunked. Is it even credible to assume he will take part in any discussion in good faith, abide by consensus, or stop edit warring? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The trouble with the Kouachi brothers is that they are French terrorists. We wouldn't have this problem if they were terrorists from another country or French Nobel laureates (so much for WP:NPOV). One can only guess why some would like to hide this simple fact [27][28]. Because of Curly's objection, some well meaning editor went ahead and butchered the section. EdJohnston: Whatever decision you make, please make sure this dispute is dealt with once and for all. MoorNextDoor (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I also blocked User:Trackteur for two weeks, as he was previously blocked for EW approx. two months ago. Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I would suggest that all involved editors refrain from reverting anything in this article once the blocks wears out, and use the talkpages instead. If that fails to work, please go to WP:DR. Bjelleklang - talk 20:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Bjelleklang, thank-you for your sound decision and regrettably necessary action. I am an uninvolved editor who has been reading the discussions. May I please come to you for advice and ask you one very general question: How does a reasonable editor deal with another person who has unlimited energy, who refuses to compromise, and who will stop at nothing to get their way? How could anyone? If it were me, I would have to give up; no one could possibly deal with someone who has unlimited energy, who refuses to compromise, and who will stop at nothing. I wouldn't think anything was that important, so I would give up. But that means that I would "lose" and the other person, who never gave an inch, "wins". That can't be right; I would think that reasonableness should pay off, not the opposite. Is there a simple answer? Thank-you for any thoughts that you have. Prhartcom (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:63.146.79.153 reported by User:Lesahna01 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Charmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 63.146.79.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]
  5. [34]
  6. [35]
  7. [36]

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

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

Comments:
This user has been repeatedly making disruptive edits to the "starring" parameter in the infobox of the Charmed article. The user keeps listing Alyssa Milano's name first but it was agreed at Talk:Charmed#Starring sections last year that the lead actresses should be listed in the order of the most episodes they appeared in – Holly Marie Combs (179 episodes), Alyssa Milano (178 episodes), Rose McGowan (112 episodes), Shannen Doherty (67 episodes). The IP editor has reverted in the article 15 times, with 7 being this month. A few other users have helped revert the IP's unexplained edits but it won't stop. I have also explained to the IP editor in edit summaries and on its talk page but the user won't listen. The IP editor was recently warned on its talk page by another user but it is still making reverts. I reported this at WP:ANI and they told me to come here if the behaviour continues. Lesahna01 (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that IP63 continued to edit war after I gave them a warning. Stickee (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Wstlngtime reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wstlngtime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644367585 by Neljack (talk)"
  2. 14:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644556313 by NeilN (talk) BIAS EDITING"
  3. 14:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "BIAS EDITING AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED"
  4. 15:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "Other sources are listed Undid revision 644560253 by 62.153.225.50 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2016. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "/* NPOV */ new section"
Comments:
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 and User:Mehmeett21 reported by User:3family6 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Genghis Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Mongol Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Mongol invasions of Vietnam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), List of Turkic dynasties and countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Möngke Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Güyük Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uniquark9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), 188.158.95.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Mehmeett21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [38]; [39]; [40]; [41]; [42]; [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff
  6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Note: Warning was not by me, and was given over a month ago, but for the same page and for the same type of behavior.

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

Comments: I'm sorry if I've filled out any of this incorrectly, or even filed this in the wrong place. It turned out to be a bigger issue than I thought, when I went through this user's contributions. There already is a sockpuppet investigation filed (again) for this user as well. I've included the IP address that's been active on the Turkic dynasties page, as their activity and comments seem to indicate that it was Uniquark9 while logged out. Last, on the Genghis Khan page, where I encountered a problem with this user, I ended up going past 3RR myself, and am willing to be subject to a temporary page or topic ban if that is deemed necessary.

Update: I'm adding User:Mehmeett21 to this, since they have been warned by another user against edit warring on the Turkic dynasties page but have continued to do so in response to Uniquark9.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


It is was user 3family6 who reverted more than 4 times after my edit. Don't accuse people without any proof for socketing. My ip is different than what he is saying as you can see my logs. Uniquark9 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

you removing even when I have references, it is only you who think the Golden Horde are not Turkic and changing without signing inTurkic_ Warrior 19:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehmeett21 (talkcontribs)

User:DPH1110 reported by User:Bbfan23 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DPH1110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]

ADDED

  1. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

This user has failed to reach an explanation as to why their version was better than the original. When asked, they only respond with inappropriate name calling as shown on my talk page [52]. The original was done for the first 2 weeks without any issue, until they started editing. I keep try to get this resolved on the talk page, but they won't attempt to, instead, they just revert, and re-do their edits. Bbfan23 (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I only see two obvious reverts by DPH1110 on 28 January. The submitted diffs are not diffs, they are only versions. (See m:Diff). Unless this report is clarified to show four reverts, I suggest the report be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I see three that are reverts. The first one is not, but got another revert. Bbfan23 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Both DPH1110 and Bbfan23 are warned that any futher edit warring may be met by blocks without notice. DPH1110 is further warned that the personal attacks in their edit summaries are unacceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and I understand. Is it possible that I can switch it back to the original, or leave it as their other version? Bbfan23 (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Salty Batter reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
The Wild One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Salty Batter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wild_One&oldid=642686603
New version
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Wild_One&oldid=644639988
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "It's in the references"
  2. 06:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644358800 by Marteau (talk)"
  3. 01:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Continued to add content and references"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salty_Batter&diff=643459128&oldid=643458647
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salty_Batter&diff=643609367&oldid=643459128
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASalty_Batter&diff=644362731&oldid=644355714
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salty_Batter&diff=644630504&oldid=644598745
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Talk:The Wild One#The_use_of_language_in_the_article
  2. Talk:The_Wild_One#The_Complete_Idiot.27s_Guide_to_Motorcycles
  3. Talk:The Wild One#AMC Filmsite
  4. Talk:The Wild One#Latest edit by Salty Batter
Comments:
  • Not sure how to make diffs of the talk page threads. There's four threads all about the same thing which were not edited consecutively. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


  • I think what is necessary to do here is look at manner in which the topic is developing and the quality of the references that are being added. To look at the actual topic
At first blush, Dennis makes an apparently justifiable complaint, and is obviously skilled in doing so, however his actions betray that this issue have become somewhat personal for him, and petty. For example, also attempting to have the first page I started deleted [53] rather than help develop it.
What is this all about? Why is he holding back the development of the page? Why are they persistently deleting my contributions? It appears to be some kind of agenda relating to the labelling of motorcycle clubs as "gangs" that he and Brianhe share. Yes, I continued developing after Marteau reverted it as their rational was unreasonable. They claimed "mob of youths" (accurate quote from a references) was some kind of unique "Varietyspeak" (after the magazine), slang not suitable for here.
It clearly is not.
It's just part of a personal vendetta for Dennis now. They are acting as a little tag team together and are refusing to discuss and take on board the issue regarding changing definitions of such words as "gang" and "outlaw" relating to motorcyclists, and the need for accuracy instead of POV grinding calling all bike club a gang by default. That is all it is really about.
In case they revert it again, this is where I have developed it to [54], please judge for yourself based on content. --Salty Batter (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:XXxfapxXx reported by User:Snowager (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Sit-in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
XXxfapxXx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 02:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) to 02:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 02:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 03:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:VAND as a vandalism-only account. No further action is needed. ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:166.137.12.28 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
ASAP Yams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
166.137.12.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

[55]

Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644588152 by Natg 19 (talk) new article/info since"
  2. 19:32, 28 January 2015‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 644593592 by Natg 19 (talk) does not meet section G4"
  3. 19:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644593912 by Natg 19 (talk) This is newly created article containing different information with different sources, and was not prev deleted. Please use talk page or nominate for 2nd rd"
  4. 02:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644644087 by Loriendrew (talk) This information was not previously deleted. Please use talk page per WP:BRD or nominate or"
  5. 02:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Remove - this is not a "repost""
  6. 03:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 644648689 by Stickee (talk) per WP:BRD please nominate or use talk"
  7. 03:33, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 644649009 by Stickee (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:58, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ASAP Yams."