Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive300

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

Noticeboard archives


User: reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Irreligion by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (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 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 07:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 09:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "The 36% atheist or not religious shouldn't be split because they both mean exactly the same and if we use the 2015 Gallup Poll then we would find out that Germany is around 66% atheist not 48%!"
  3. 09:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "I think it's better to have an aggregated figure rather than a split one because the article is about irreligion by country so therefore there should be a combined percentage for irreligion as a whole."
    2. 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Irreligion by country. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User: received a 3RR warning [1], 14:03, 16 November 2015. JimRenge (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Evading previous block NeilN talk to me 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Seafoxlrt616 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of Microsoft codenames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seafoxlrt616 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2] (24 October 2015)

Next relevant diffs:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6] (3RR violation here)
  5. [7]

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

User's response: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. First attempt
  2. Second attempt


The changes borderline on vandalism. They clearly disfigure the article. This could have easily been a dispute (albeit with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues) has it not been for the user's unwillingness to do anything besides hitting the revert button. Fleet Command (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. There may indeed be a WP:CIR problem, but we can't let them keep reverting forever. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Parsa1993 reported by User:Zpeopleheart (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Siege of Mosul (1743) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parsa1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16] invitation to discuss at talk page [17]

Parsa1993 is edit warring at the count of 4 so far. Plus user made a personal attack against me by calling me a cretin simply for enforcing wikipedia policy. [18] User was warned for personal attack here. [19] User stated on the talk page of the article that I had no knowledge of histioography. User has some serious ownership issues over this article. Other editors are allowed to improve any article. Zpeopleheart (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Zpeopleheart and Parsa1993: Disagreements over the acceptability of a reference usually isn't a valid exception to the three revert rule or an acceptable excuse to edit war. I strongly recommend you both seek dispute resolution, and, as it would have it, we have a reliable sources noticeboard that can help you two settle this problem. If you continue to edit war, however, you both risk being blocked and/or the page being protected. --slakrtalk / 01:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Tba reported by User:Turnless (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [22]
  2. [23]
  3. [24]
  4. [25]

The user keeps reverting the page to the version with his file which is an exact duplicate of File:World marriage-equality laws.svg (I have already reported it on Wikimedia Commons for that reason) even though I have explained on the edit comments that the file is a duplicate and that the other file shows no other difference. I also warned him that he will be reported if he reverts one more time, however that did not stop him from doing so. Turnless (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Update - The user has finally self-reverted his edits [26]. --Turnless (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

And now the image is inaccurateTba (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the image is still accurate. --Turnless (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC) vs Tba (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
They are exactly the same. --Turnless (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. As noted, User:Tba has reverted his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Draft:Minhazur Rahman Nayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]

This IP has been blocked before for identical edit warring - removing Articles for Creation templates, history, and reviewer comments from this draft. Unfortunately, when that 31 hour block expired, the IP resumed edit warring within a few days, despite reiterated warnings on their talk page not to do so, and repeated restorations of the AfC material by myself and another AfC reviewer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [33] (original case), [34], and [35]

The previous block had no lasting effect on the IP's behavior. They continue not to engage in discussion and have extended the scope of their disruptive behavior to a second draft, Draft:Nayan-Apon Production. The AfC process would benefit from a longer block or whatever other intervention would stop the edit-warring. Worldbruce (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Football2lover reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: 31h)[edit]

Hammersmith bus station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Football2lover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690950878 by Davey2010 (talk)"
  2. 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hammersmith bus station. (TW)"
  2. 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
  • Consensus has always been to remove all lists and tables of bus services from articles as they all become outdated and most are unsourced anyway, Prosing them is considered fine, I twice pointed them to NOTDIR as well as left an Unsourced warning but to no avail, I don't believe I've edit warred as as I said consensus is to remove them, Admittingly I could've guided the editor a lot better here, Also I apologize for using Rollback on them - At the time I considered their edits disruptive but obviously it wasn't vandalism and so for that I apologize, Anyway cheers, –Davey2010Talk 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've also just realized the prose in the article states - "The bus station is divided into two sections (lower and upper stations). The routes which serve the lower station are 33, 72 (towards Roehampton), 209, 266, 283 (towards Barnes/London Wetland Centre), 419, 485 and 609. The routes which serve the upper station are 9, 10, 27, 72 (towards East Acton), 190, 211, 220, 267, 283 (towards East Acton), 295, 391, H91, N9, N11 and N97.[1] The upper station is also served by Berry's Coaches Taunton to London services.[2]" - Like the table all routes are wikilinked so the entire 2 tables are redundant to the prose directly above it anyway, Just thought I should point that out. –Davey2010Talk 01:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours While it's not a 3RR, it's clear that the user is continuing to revert multiple editors, even while logged out, and has yet to respond or engage in discussion. --slakrtalk / 02:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:LjL (Result: declined)[edit]

Page: November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [37] "Poland" did not declare anything. One politician wrote something on an online forum. Until this is official policy or such, it doesn't belong here. WP:NOTNEWS plus a host of other policies
  2. [38] uh, it's "countrY" not "countrIES" - did you even bother before hitting the revert button? And this text blatantly misrepresents the sources
  3. [39] NOT a "minor" edit, off topic, POV pushing and misrepresents the topic.
  4. [40] I'm sorry but there is no such consensus (and it's ridiculous to claim "consensus" when the discussion just started) and it's dishonest to try and claim that there is

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

This editor has been single-handedly trying to suppress otherwise unanimous consensus that the material should stay (in this article as well as at International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks). Consensus can be witnessed at: [43] [44] [45]. I think the less-than-pleasing attitude of this editor can also be witnessed in the same places (except #1, where he didn't participate, and which formed the initial consensus). He self-reverted after the 4th revert, but at this point I think that was not done in good faith, since he subsequently sent me a counter edit-warring warning after that. Therefore, I decided to report anyway, considerin also the reverts / removals of content from the sub-article. LjL (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez freakin crist.
No, I have not been trying to "suppress" anything. I've removed material which is off-topic and which was based on a misrepresentation of a source.
No, there is no "unanimous consensus" that the material should stay. There's two editors, one of them LjL, who disagree. These two users have not really engaged in productive discussion here nor have they asked for outside input.
I did self-revert here because, as much as I disagree with the edit, I'm perfectly willing to wait for this to sort itself out. Basically what you got here is two editors who are rushing to add irrelevant and off topic material about the tragedy in Paris, with what looks like a pursuit of an agenda (blame the refugee crisis for it). Per WP:NOTNEWS there's no reason why this material MUST BE in the article now. One of them is also misrepresenting a source. I do think that in a week or two this will sort itself out as it becomes apparent that these are just sensationalist statements from some politicians. I guess in the meantime Wikipedia's going to look a bit more foolish.
Now, this report by User:LjL is clearly in bad faith as they acknowledge that I self-reverted. Somehow apparently, in LjL's world, the fact that I self reverted is proof that "I am not acting in good faith". Good grief! Catch-22. Seriously, filing a 3RR report on someone after they voluntarily self reverted pretty much IS THE DEFINITION of acting in bad faith and of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to editing. Worthy of a WP:BOOMERANG.
This is basically an attempt at intimidation. And speaking of bad faith, here is LjL trying to WP:CANVASS other editors to edit war for them "Can you please" revert for me? If that's not trying to WP:GAME the edit warring policy I don't know what is. Volunteer Marek  01:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
"There's two editors, one of them LjL, who disagree": this is completely inaccurate. Please check the 3 links given for many more editors. LjL (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
In the link you provide, one other editor says its notable, another says it may be notable but doesn't know about reliability of the source, and the third has a question about the phrasing ("who"). You call that "clear consensus", which is... false. Basically, the discussion HAD JUST STARTED, but you went running around immediately claiming "consensus". Which illustrates your battleground mentality.
And then you tried to get other people to do the edit warring and reverting for you. Which illustrates your battleground mentality.
And then, you obviously OBSERVED that I self-reverted and reported ANYWAY. Which also illustrates your battleground mentality.
 Volunteer Marek  01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Battleground like this? LjL (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring on the article by LjL

First, just so we're clear, here's the definition of a revert: " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. "

Let's pause here. That last 4th revert ... is actually EXACTLY the same edit that I made! For some reason however, when I made it, LjL decided to revert it. Puzzling, no?

Ok, now back to LjL's edit warring:

Note these three are reverts of essentially the same material.

Again, these are reverts of same nature.

Four reverts on the same issue/text.

(this edit essentially resumes the edit warring in 8th, 9th and 10th reverts)

Both on same theme.

Note that I have NOT included reversion of vandalism, constructive edits or even edits which were not clear reverts - these are NOT all the edits that LjL has made on the article, only the edit warring ones. All 19 of the above diffs are reverts made by User:LjL within the last 24 hours and they involve participation in at least 3 different edit wars (plus a few stray reversions of others). Furthermore I limited this to the past 24 hours but there was plenty of reverting before that as well.

It seems completely disingenous for LjL to report me for edit warring even though they KNEW that I had self-reverted my last edit, and AFTER they've been busy edit warring like crazy for the past 24 hours, have broken 3RR in a number of edit wars and not once even considered self reverting themselves. The frequency of the edit warring, aside from being an extreme transgression of the three revert bright line also illustrates a bit of ownership problem on the part of the user.

The reason why I am not filing this as a separate report is because unlike LjL I try to act in good faith. However, I do wish to note that after I looked at the history of the page I considered filing a report on LjL due to the high frequency of edit warring on this article but decided to warn them first instead. To pay me back, it looks that LjL decided to file this report against me PRE-PREEMPTIVELY (further evidence of WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude).  Volunteer Marek  04:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the admin to gauge using their best judgement whether a collection of mostly unrelated edits on a high-traffic article that has had a number of hard-to-follow inaccuracies introduced is equivalent to what I posted about you. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any non-drive-by editor who hasn't technically "undone whether in whole or in part" other edits on this article in the past few days. I also "appreciate" how, by not filing a separate report, you have neglected to send me the compulsory notice that I'm being reported for edit warring.
Note that I had expressed concerns about 1RR sanctions and strict interpretation of revert rules before, and in response, those restrictions were lifted by Fuzheado (while Volunteer Marek was actually asking for full article protection). Not quite the same thing as 4 reverts of the same material, ignoring of consensus and yelling all over the place, in my book. LjL (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not just "mostly unrelated edits", it's about four different edit wars. There's no exemption from 3RR for "high traffic articles". However, I do understand that in a new article sometimes people get caught up in reverting others like you did here. That's fine. But then you run and file a report on somebody else the first chance you get. It's some kind of "edit warring is fine for me but not for thee" mentality. And that is a problem. Volunteer Marek  18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be involved in numerous arguments, Marek, and your behaviour is very much rude: you attack people, you swear, you are even blasphemous. You seem to be engaged in edit warring on many fronts. Is it maybe time for a little time away from Wikipedia, Marek? -- (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Blasphemous? Anyway, the above IP is a user who has been harassing me for a few weeks now, and who 1) just jumped into a dispute only because I made a revert, 2) this dispute involves user inserting WP:HOAX material based on a non-existent source into the article Warsaw Ghetto Uprising [46] [47], 3) is a sockpuppet of another disruptive user [48]. In fact, I am really sick of having to deal with crap over and over again, with admins not doing anything about it. Volunteer Marek  08:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
See also this previous report [49]. Volunteer Marek  08:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale --slakrtalk / 03:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]
  4. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

User notified (notification removed). DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In the resolution attempt I have tried to encourage the reported user to follow consensus-building procedures in resolving a content dispute with myself and another editor, but was met with a promise to continue edit warring. Msubotin (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: @Msubotin: Although mine edit revert count might be higher you two have reverted in edit warring too and you were the ones who started the reverting in first place without any discussion. It's funny how you complain just me but don't tell about your own behaviour. I can post all your edit history here as a proof if you want. My saying that I'm gonna revert your POV edits was in reference to in case if you keep inserting your own edits without discussion. This is a biased complaint. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I believe I exceeded 3RR once, which I regret and was because i wasn't paying sufficient attention, and undoubtedly there has been too much reverting. But the problem is, KahnJohn27, you are responsible for most of the reverting and it's all straight-from-the-hip "you are wrong", nothing's-going-in-the-article-unless-I-agree-with-it reverting. You have been edit`warring against 2 sometimes 3 other editors. On top of which there comes a point where, for example, both myself and Msubotin stop. You don't. You believe you can go on without limit because "you are right". it's a form of attempted bullying which you explicitly stated in this edit: "Let me make something clear here. A consensus cannot add or remove whatever it wants...If you try to add any more POV edits again I will instantly remove them. Now I suggest you move on. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015". This is contrary to some fairly basic Wikipedia values and policy. On top of which there are issues around your understanding of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You need to acknowledge here that if most other editors are against you, you will not try to edit war your personal interpretation into the article, but accept the position of the majority, even if temporarily', and instead seek to persuade the others to your point of view. This means sometimes leaving the article in a form which you don't necessarily agree with while you seek to persuade others to your view. There is no defence to edit-warring (leaving aside BLPs and vandalism) - being right and reverting alleged POV does not entitle any edit editor to break 3RR or edit war more generally. Do you accept that this is the right way to go? If you can do that, this can be closed and we can all get on with improving the encyclopedia. DeCausa (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: Be my guest, because your allegation about my lack of discussion is false. I've been following WP:BRD, and to be fair so have you. The reason why your revert count is higher is because you've been single-handedly trying to impose disputed edits over objections of multiple editors without following WP:DR. Msubotin (talk) 23:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: You say here that the post I quoted above doesn't mean you'll keep reverting. Does that mean if someone were to revert the last of the four reverts which I cited in this complaint (diffs above) you would or would not revert them? DeCausa (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@DeCausa: First thing's first. You didn't understand my comment. It was in reference to Msubotin repeatedly edit warring and said that if he keeps inserting his own views and keeps edit-warring and reverting then there is no reason for me to sit back and let him do whatever he wants. Not that I'll repeatedly keep reverting and edit-warring with everyone. If there is a proper discussion for the edits and if they are convincably important, then I have no complaint. The consensus part was true as well. A consensus cannot dictate everything on Wikipedia and Msubotin just using it as an excuse to be able to impose his views here as he realises that I won't agree with his edit insertions and he must get others to agree so he is able to do it. As for there is no defence for edit-warring, I think the same goes for you and Msubotin as well. And seeing as how you not even once mention your own and Msubotin's edit-warring this is obviously a completely biased complaint. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Msubotin: Completely false. You've been reverting and your edits while the discussion is going without caring for it to even reach a conclusion. As for why my count is higher, the actual reason is because multiple editors which is you and Decause have repeatedly edit-warring with me, not because I want to insert my own views. If I wanted to insert my own views then I never would have agreed with any of your edits, but I let them be added after discussion and consideration of the weight of the edits. I've even removed my own edits which I thought might be unnecessary. The problem here is not me imposing disputed edits, it's you who's doing it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
KahnJohn27, "If there is a proper discussion for the edits and if they are convincably important, then I have no complaint" seems to be your preconditions for not reverting that edit a fifth time. Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@KahnJohn27: Ok, fair enough, we all have not been following WP:BRD strictly, but this isn't why we've reached an impasse. If you followed WP:DR, you either would have been able to use appropriate channels to reach a consensus with broader participation, like we just did here [[57]] with Kautilya3's help; or, when you can't get others to support your disputed edit, you would have accepted that the consensus isn't on your side, and, as you're fond of saying, "moved on". I personally don't care if you sometimes do a second revert with discussion without waiting for an agreement. But if you continue to insist on being the judge and the jury on what constitutes editorial bias and relevance, even when two editors disagree with your sole opinion, I don't see how we can all work together on improving this page. Msubotin (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. Since 14 November KahnJohn27 has reverted about 12 times. This doesn't appear to be a good-faith search for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Oh wow so now you're gonna mock me with my statements. It meant that had you people discussed it first instead of straight away inserting edits based on your views, reverting mine and edit-warring with me I wouldn't have ever warred with you as well not that I'll revert again. As an advice if you want something changed, discuss it first instead of starting edit-warring. Don't put all the blame on me for what you started. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Msubotin: You only started a consensus when you realised that I won't agree with what you were proposing and you won't be able to force your views into the article. Had you ever cared about discussion or consensus-building in first place you would never have imposed your own edits and would have instead discussed it and waited for the discussion to reach a conclusion. I agreed with several of your edits and even removed my own which I thought might not unnecessary and irrelevant. Even though I did more reverts and might have taken it too far, the fact is that you started it in the first place by brute forcing your edits instead of properly discussing and waiting for discussion to reach a conclusion. If you hadn't started edit-warring and instead discussed it, I would have never gotten into any dispute with you. The one who shares majority of responsibility for this edit-warring is you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Loginnigol reported by User: (Result: warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [59]
  2. [60]
  3. [61]
  4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR because he was warned on other occasions [63][64] [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66][67]


Would probably have blocked if I had noticed this yesterday, but now it's been 24 hours and noo further reverts have occurred. So I will close this with a strong warning to User:Loginnigol to avoid edit warring in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Popcornduff reported by User:Capuchinpilates (Result: no action)[edit]

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

Page: Ex Machina (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Popcornduff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to on Under the Skin: [68]

Diffs of the user's recent reverts on Under the Skin:

  1. [69]
  2. [70]

Diffs of the user's older reverts on Under the Skin:

  1. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Under the Skin talk page:

  1. [74]
  2. [75]
  3. [76]
  4. [77]
  5. [78]
  6. [79]
  7. [80]
  8. [81]
  9. [82]
  10. [83]
  11. [84]
  12. [85]
  13. [86]

Link to attempt to resolve Under the Skin dispute on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: [87]

Previous version reverted to on Ex Machina: [88]

Diffs of the user's recent reverts on Ex Machina:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]

This 4th time @Popcornduff: (PCD) took out 7 these edits of mine for the second time:

  1. "high-security"
  2. "Each day Caleb talks with her, then later discusses the results with Nathan"
  3. "one android breaks off its forearms by banging against the wall, demanding to be released."
  4. "At their next meeting, Ava cuts the power and Caleb tells her his plan"
  5. "The next day Nathan declines to drink"
  6. "but is fatally stabbed by Ava."
  7. "Caleb tells her that, he will get Nathan drunk, he will reprogram the system to open all the complex's doors at the next outage, she will create an outage at 10am."

For edit 7 above, PCD thrice changed it to an inaccurate edit, even after I informed PCD on talk and PCD agreed [93]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on Ex Machina talk page:

  1. [94]
  2. [95]
  3. [96]

Last week I filed a similar edit warring report [97] but it was not responded to by an administrator. The WP Help Desk suggested that this is because there was too much explanation, and I should redo it and re-submit it. Popcornduff is reverting, deleting, or corrupting my edits of me and many others over many pages over many months. This is not a matter of bold editing; there is a long, systematic, destructive pattern. I can provide more diffs and evidence. If I did this report wrong, or it should be submitted to the Incidents noticeboard, please advise. Capuchinpilates (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Capuchinpilates, but this is not edit warring by Popcornduff. He/she always explains their reverts in edit summaries, participates patiently in talk page discussions and seems willing to make compromises. I am not familiar with either of you, but this is my assessment based on a casual look at the links you provided above. Please continue to discuss and try to reach a compromise. He/she is an experienced (4 year) Wikipedian and you should be able to learn from them, if you are willing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami and User:J. 'mach' wust reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: warned)[edit]

Template:Infobox language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "adjust wording"
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690976418 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) take it to talk"
  2. 21:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690817558 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) of course there is: the article is based on sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
  • Those aren't even reverts you posted under "reverts". The wording I posted "per talk" was the suggestions of several other editors on the talk page. Mach, on the other hand, is at 3RR after being reverted by more than one person explaining how his edits are inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The diffs don't lie Kwamikagami, you've been undoing eachother's edits repeatedly, go through your edit contributions and you'll see what you've been doing.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 23:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Kwami is right about 3rr here. This is not a revert. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed that diff from the list, he's still on 3 reverts though.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Three reverts is not a violation. --Taivo (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Lerdthenerd, this is not a revert either. It's the original edit. I reverted Mach twice, Taivo reverted him once. He reverted us three times. Funny that you didn't post his diffs when he's actually at 3RR.
If you're going to style yourself "wikidefender" and report people for reverts, you should know what a revert is. — kwami (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would suggest closing this as "no violation", at least on kwami's part. Two reverts, with discussion on talk page, really? LjL (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Which talk page are you revering to, I started the thread on the templates talkpage, ME, not either parties.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 00:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You started a thread on the template's talk page; however, a long thread about the issue already existed, where various editors had debated the various merits, and kwami definitely took part, but User:J. 'mach' wust, despite having been "ping"ed by kwami to discuss, did not. LjL (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @J. 'mach' wust and Kwamikagami: Guys, repeatedly reverting on a template with ~8k transclusions is a bad idea anyway. I strongly recommend everyone stop and take it to the talk page, regardless of the current state of the template. At this point, 3RR or not, continuing to revert without discussion is going to be considered edit warring. --slakrtalk / 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
See what I said above, though, please: they have taken it to the talk page, "they" being User:Kwamikagami (who nevertheless is being singled out here) and several other editors, but not User:J. 'mach' wust, who has, however, been asked (by Kwami) to take part in the discussion several times, but didn't. Check the talk page, please. LjL (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: What I'm saying is that this is everyone's opportunity to take it to the talk page, and ignoring that opportunity may be unwise. --slakrtalk / 03:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the reporting editor should themself be reported for WP:HARASSMENT. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
How the heck am I harassing him? Just because I filed a 3rr report and cocked it up? Nice to see an angry mob gathering...--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 10:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Neither editor has actually breached 3RR but both have been edit warring on a high risk template. Both User:Kwamikagami and User:J. 'mach' wust are hereby warned to not to continue or repeat these actions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't have a grudge against any particular user here, not even Kwamikagami. So I'm not interested in dragging his name through the dirt as some people think I'm doing here, let this go and be sure to learn from this Kwamikagami and Mach.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 13:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, warning received.
@LjL: You must have overlooked that I had already been participating in the discussion on Template talk:Infobox language#Wording when we have no population data.
I do confess that I react strongly upon kwami’s edits. I have learned that he does not hesitate to using highly disruptive edits when he wants to force his POV on an article (related to this issue e.g. [98] where he set “Native speakers” to “none” or [99] where he set it to “[deleted]”). I have also learned that stirring up other editors by boldly reverting works for countering kwami’s disruptive edits, even though I know it is not nice. Is there a better way? Since he is over the place, he tends to get his way even when he does not have any sources. I have not yet seen any useful tool for countering an editor like him. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 16:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I amend what I said about you not having participated, I was looking for the wrong signature. LjL (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Aspects (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Phantasy Star Online 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 8 May 2014
  2. 17 May 2014
  3. 28 May 2014
  4. 1 June 2014
  5. 2 June 2014
  6. 31 July 2014
  7. 29 October 2014
  8. 12 July 2015
  9. 25 July 2015
  10. 8 October 2015
  11. 26 October 2015
  12. 5 November 2015
  13. 11 November 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 5 November 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Star Online 2#Uploading Personal Screenshot]


This is a long-term, slow edit warring, with the IP address eliminating an image thirteen times out of their total eighteen edits. Only twicee do they offer an edit summary stating, "removing arrogant spoilers from page" and "Do not revert my edit. Personal screenshots randomly placed in the article don't have a place" with their first two removals. Since they they have not used any edit summaries, joined the article talk page discussion or responded to warnings on their talk page. Aspects (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Result: Article semiprotected two months. The IP has been removing this image from the article for more than a year. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Cassianto reported by User:DD2K (Result: No action)[edit]

User talk:Kevin Gorman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Wrong again */ new section"
  2. 20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* So which is it? */ new section"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690961593 by Kevin Gorman (talk) so which is it?"
    2. 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */ stupid or troublemaking?"
    2. 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
    3. 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:Plus several personal attacks, some in edit summaries, others in text. User has been blocked several times for both personal attacks and edit warring. Dave Dial (talk) 20
31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • /sigh, I really am surprised to see an experienced user editwarring with me in my own userspace when I hadn't started reverting his comments until they'd hit the level of just insulting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As Cassianto his final reversion, he has not breached 3RR (See point 1 of WP:3RRNO) He did this five minutes before this report was filed, which makes me wonder why that very pertinent fact wasn't included in the initial report, except to show a very distorted and incorrect view of events. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That is absolutely inconsequential. Add in the other edits with personal attacks, and the fact that edit warring is not only defined by breaking 3RR, the editor should obviously be blocked for edit warring AND personal attacks. Both of which the editor has been blocked numerous times for. Dave Dial (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Rubbish in many ways.
        1. Self-reversion is always taken into account. It shows an editor has stepped back from their position. This is the board for reporting breaches of 3RR: because of the self-reversion this user has notbreach 3RR.
        2. A users prior block log has little to do with deciding if they have edit warred in the first place, and I wonder why you are so keen to throw it round quite so much. The block log may be used to determine the severity or subsequent action, but not if an infringement has taken place. – SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't particularly care whether or not he's blocked, but there's a reason this is AN/EW and not just AN/3rr. Editwarring in a user's own talk space throwing in personal attacks when you start doing so after the user reverts someone who is categorically unwelcome in his talk space is, well, editwarring - even without breaking 3rr. Note that I'd been perfectly happy to engage with Cassianto in my userspace before he started in on the NPA type stuff. It should be obvious to anyone who didn't start editing yesterday that restoring what is at best uncivil behavior in another person's talkspace after they've reverted it is a no-no Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Perhaps if you had approached the ANI thread that started all this off with no WP:AGENDA things may have been a little different? To me, stirring the pot unnecessarily at ANI is a no-no, bout I doubt you'd agree. – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Schro, I didn't approach it with any particular agenda other than except to stop active disruption it's bad practice to indef without consensus someone who has an ongoing ANI thread about their behavior, and to point out that in other recent ANI threads where the editor in question has self-identified differently, it's been instantly pointed out by quite a few people that throwing a punitive indef in the middle of an active ANI thread isn't best practice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @SchroCat: What you say about self-reversion doesn't ring true. This does: "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake." (WP:3RR), which suggests to me that self-reverting is desirable, but in no way an automatic un-breach of 3RR. LjL (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • There is nothing you have written that counters what I have said (ie "self-reverts are taken into account", etc) – SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Uhm, what about "because of the self-reversion this user has notbreach[sic] 3RR."? That just seems inaccurate. The user has breached 3RR anyway, then admins may not sanction that because of the circumstances of the self-revert. That's what policy says. LjL (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
          • You don't need to break 3rr to be editwarring; it should be pretty clear that when someone is reverting attacks in their own talk space that continuing to restore them is editwarring. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
  • OK, a different forum, but one Gorman can't revert on. Kevin, why don't you answer my question with regards to who actually started the gender issue on RO's ANI thread? I see your pal Dave Dial has filed this for you; a report which is inadequate seeing as I only reverted twice. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. CassiantoTalk 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Cassianto was merely defending himself against unfounded allegations made by Kevin Gorman, namely that Cassianto had hijacked a thread by bringing up the subject of gender. This was blatantly false. Kevin refused to even acknowledge this - an apology from him would have been in order, but instead we have the victim hauled here. Wikipedia seems to be becoming a very Stalinist and unpleasant place. Perhaps if Kevin spen more time looking at what's happening on Wiki than in private emails [101]; he may make less mistakes and cause less trouble.Giano (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Gorman could've even told me to "not post here again", a direction I would've adhered to. But he didn't. Simply reverting me without an edit summary is NOT the same as telling someone they are not welcome. CassiantoTalk 21:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I see he has now acknowledged that I didn't start it, an answer he could've given me on his talk page. But no, instead here we are going through this bullshit in order to get to the truth. This whole fucking mess has been caused by Gorman not giving me a simple answer to a simple question; a question, I might add, which was asked in good faith. It might also be pertinent for someone to remind him that talking about someone who he keeps reverting his talk page, is wrong as they are not allowed a right of reply. CassiantoTalk 21:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • No one is owed a response to anything. If Kevin doesn't want to reply, he doesn't have to, even if it's rude. clpo13(talk) 21:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • Well he can expect problems then. If one behaves like a dick, then the consequences will enevitably follow. My point is this whole farce could've been avoided if he either answered my question, which he has since done to someone else, or told me to not to post at his talk page; either on his talk or in an edit summary. CassiantoTalk 22:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Cassianto, did you really expect me to respond to a question in which you asked if I was a moron or just pretending to be one? I never suggested you were the first person to bring up gender in the thread as a whole, just that you were one of two people continuing to bring it up in sections after 28's unblock that would be much more productively focused on the behavior of the editor involved. Kevin Gorman (talk)
      • See, bullshitting again. What I actually said was this, which incorporated an adjustment here and there. Also, I archived the thread as I was so fed up with people discussing gender and Eric when both had nothing to do with what we were talking about. Why do you fabricate things Kevin? Do you not see how foolish this makes you look? CassiantoTalk 22:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • All you and Giano have made clear is that despite your claims that the project is falling apart or 'Stalinist' because of others, that the continued campaign of harassment, bullying and continued inability to realize that this type of behavior is unacceptable. Despite being blocked mutliple times for the same type of behavior, you refuse to stop and insist you are 'right'. Endless Battleground behavior and Tendentious editing. In other words, you could have simply stated your error in edit warring on another users Talk page, harassing and making personal attacks, but instead have doubled down. If this isn't cause for a long block, I don't know what is. Dave Dial (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
        • The project is falling apart. Ask any content contributor that. Meanwhile, those who edit this site with their rose-tinted spectacles on, whist sucking on marshmallows and listening to the theme tune to the Little House on the Prairie on loop, will assume that it's getting better and better. My block log, Mr Dial, has nothing to do with this case, so wind your neck in. CassiantoTalk 22:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. The reverting seems to have stopped. User:Cassianto self-reverted. Kevin's edits within his own user space are exempt from 3RR per WP:3RRNO. An admin who wants to block anyone for personal attacks ('playing stupid', 'moron') can still do so. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (e/c) Considered Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned for the edit warring, though given what's going on above, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if a block for other reasons resulted. @Cassianto: To be perfectly clear, re-adding comments to a user's talk page is usually considered obvious edit warring and clear disruption. In this instance, it's borderline harassment. Point is, when a user is clearly disturbed by your comments and has obviously read them on their talk page, you've made your point on the first post, and regardless of the situation, when someone reverts a comment you make on their talk page—especially if it could be considered offensive or hurtful, like, you know, calling someone "stupid—" I strongly recommend that you do not re-add it. As far as edit warring is concerned, I'm assuming that a block isn't needed and that you'll stop, given your self-revert—but make no mistake, a self-revert isn't magic protection, particularly in cases like this. There will not be another warning if you continue or ever do anything remotely similar again, as far as I'm concerned. As for your behavior in the collapsed text above, I can say that it's completely inappropriate and exceptional—in a bad way—for this particular noticeboard. --slakrtalk / 02:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so you think I self reverted to "protect myself"? Hilarious! CassiantoTalk 05:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I genuinely couldn't care less what your motives were. I was clarifying in response to the wiki-lawyering others were doing earlier in the thread and contradicting it (i.e., someone self-reverting isn't a guaranteed way to avoid a block). If anything, though, I was assuming—or at least hoping—that you were doing it because you realized doing so was a better course of action than continuing the former one. Glad you found it hilarious, though. :P I'm just relieved I didn't even have to break out the rubber chicken. ;) --slakrtalk / 02:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Well this is embarrassing. I think you'll find that this conversation died a death a few days ago. CassiantoTalk 08:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [103]
  2. [104]
  3. [105]
  4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not need, this is a troll making vexatious edits. Told him to take to talk page per WP:BRD and he has declined.

I did open a discussion on the talk page. I don't expect him to talk dispassionately instead of edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a dynamic IP which has trolled in the past Christianity-related articles from different IPs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Example of trolling: [108] Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Another example: [109]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Edit warring did occur, but this is almost a vandalism-only account, so WP:AIV may be worth looking at? Face-smile.svg samtar {t} 13:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Block evasion. NeilN talk to me 15:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:IgnorantArmies reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Duplicate report)[edit]

Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
IgnorantArmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ranjan s nayak (talk): Removal of sourced content (btw, The China Post is a Taiwanese publication, not Chinese). (TW)"
  2. 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ranjan s nayak (talk). (TW)"
  3. 15:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ranjan s nayak: Please take your proposed edits to the article's talkpage, and don't edit war – if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. (TW)"
  4. 14:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Ranjan s nayak: Sorry, but Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view. We can't present information that favours the view of one country, as your edits do. (TW)"
  5. 13:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ranjan s nayak (talk): The fact that Kashmir was majority Muslim before partition is pretty important. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


The user edit warred with a newbie and gave him a warning [110]. Never opened a talk page discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The "newbie" is a single-purpose POV-pusher who deleted content on multiple occasions. Would you prefer that I just let disruptive editors have their way on a high-profile article until another editor comes along? Try showing a little good faith next time before trying to get people blocked. IgnorantArmies (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If anyone's in doubt as to how I interact with new editors, I would point to this recent interaction I had with a belligerent IP editor, which only had a happy ending because I did more than others usually do with IPs. I'm a strong believer in bending over backwards to include new editors, but I have zero tolerance for those who aren't here to build the encyclopedia. I should also note that I have never before been taken to EWN, let alone been blocked. IgnorantArmies (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I will note, in passing, that Ranjan s nayak has claimed lack of knowledge on how to use the talk feature, but in fact, that was stated on a talk page, and they also wrote on their own talk page, on Kautilya3's talk page, and on another user's talk page - basically everywhere except on the article's talk page. LjL (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not unusual for new users to take a while to find the article talk pages. They can respond to our talk page posts by clicking on our talk links. How this user found the AIV talk page is a bit of a mystery. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I am sorry sir. There are no separate sets of rules for the newbies and us. You gave a 3RR warning to the user at 15:05 and then did 3 more reverts yourself. In my world, we try to set a good example to the new users by following the rules ourselves! - Kautilya3 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But there is a separate set of rules for those who are WP:NOTHERE, and IgnorantArmies seems to believe that Ranjan falls under that category. LjL (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I accept that it is a plausible explanation. Then perhaps he can be just warned not jump to such quick conclusions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Duplicate report. See above. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Happy sage reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Two editors warned)[edit]

Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Happy sage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "making wikipedia neutral would mean presenting all relevant fcts,deleting facts would make it partial,so i have reverted your deletion of contribution :)"
  2. 15:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691079621 by IgnorantArmies (talk) well , the article does not become non-neutal if all relevent information regarding it is given ."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 14:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) to 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    1. 14:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691072037 by IgnorantArmies (talk) Being a muslim majority does not mean you can insert it anywhere ,moreever there was not a need to delete my contributions too"
    2. 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "added information"
  4. 13:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) ""population information not in proper position.comes in between story telling""
  5. 09:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "addition"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jammu and Kashmir."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

  • Repeated attempts to add non-neutral (read "pro India") material on a highly volatile article. Thomas.W talk 15:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Single-purpose account. Judging by the user's belligerent edit summaries the chances of getting positive contributions are slim and none. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is hard for me to see more than 3 reverts here. The editor is a newbie, and he was trying various things to get around the reverts being done by IgnorantArmies. If anybody is guilty of edit-warring here, it seems that it is IgnorantArmies. Opened a separate discussion him or her below. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: To quote WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". It doesn't have to be a direct revert of someone's edit to count as a revert towards 3RR, both edits that remove material that is already in the article and edits that replace existing material with new material also count since it "undoes other editors' actions". Thomas.W talk 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I can add that it's obvious that they're not an inexperienced user but someone who is very familiar with how things work here, and should know about 3RR, because new/inexperienced users don't add new infobox parameters and perfectly formatted references as some of their first edits... Thomas.W talk 19:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
When I reviewed his edits at Talk:Jammu and Kashmir#Today's edits, I found 5 different substantive edits. From his contribs page, he made a total of 9 edits since 09:31. The other 4 might have been reverts. I see 3 of them above in your list. I don't know what the 4th one is. In any case, I am giving him credit for the fact that he was trying different things. He wasn't simply reinstating the same old content. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Kautilya3: Whether some of their edits, or parts of some of their edits, were "substantive" or not is irrelevant, their edits were reverted by four different editors, including you, and they were repeatedly told to take it to the talk page of the article and get support for it there before making any further edits, but chose to just press on. That's why they were reported here. Thomas.W talk 20:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think 2 editors have done edit war in this case. One experienced user may have been unconsciously ignorant towards 3rr rule. Ranjan was not doing any vandalism so repeatedly reverting him and violating 3rr rule by other editor is also not just. I think both editors deserves block but IgnorantArmies have clean block log and have good contribution to Wikipedia so he may get some leeway, then why Ranjan should not get that leeway? I think it doesn't matters if Ranjan gets blocked or not because anyway he is not active editor, as he said below, he is student and don't have much time for Wikipedia, so blocking him for 24-48 hours will not matter to him also, rather Ranjan will learn from this block. But still question remains regarding other editor who was also involved in edit war.--Human3015TALK  20:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree with this attitude. I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia giving welcome messages to new users and showing them tips in the hope that at least some of them become active contributors. The responsibility to open talk page discussions lies equally with the rest of us. We cannot simply keep reverting. Singling out a newbie for punishment and letting the others go scot-free is not on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Then why didn't you start a talk page discussion? You were the first to suggest it. Thomas.W talk 20:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have opened one if I was around when the edit-warring happened. I am surprised nobody did. In fact, it is a requirement for filing an AN3 complaint to have opened a talk page discussion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No it isn't, it's strongly suggested but it's not an absolute requirement, as can be clearly seen on this page. Thomas.W talk 20:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You suggested it in an edit summary where you reverted someone, just as other editors suggested the same in their edit summaries when reverting. It's just that nobody did it. LjL (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:BRD which is the recommended protocol, and the one I follow, says that it is ok to revert a bold edit, but one should discuss when it becomes clear that that there is a dispute. If the other editor fails to join the discussion and continues to make edits then he or she is guilty of edit-warring. I did open a discussion at the first opportunity I got, which is more than I can say for the others. (In any case, I am not sure why I am on trial here.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You aren't, you joined the discussion of your own free will. The comments above were just a reminder "not to throw stones if you live in a glass house". Or in other words, don't criticise others if you've done the same thing yourself. ;) Thomas.W talk 21:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not a single purpose account[edit]

You may say that i am belligerent and single purposed sir . But ,unfamiliarity with rules of wikipedia ,may have made me act so .Please ,if you think i am only trying to make it just pro-Indi ,you are highly wrong sir.with all due respect ,with the knowledge i have had and read (you have already decided that i don't have good chances for a positive contribution) ,i felt the article was strongly biased.I did not know how else to change such a bias . I dont even know now .Because ,even the contents i had put with good quotations have been reverted, due to various reasons.only if i was guided rite,i wud have made good contributions too...And dat porported agreesiveness was also due to unfamiliarity and helplessness about ,genuine points not being accepted . i can give u examples of tag-bombing too in the article sir.6-7 tags have been added to make a single point that Indian army is raping etc. N sir,please dont assume from a single day's instance that ,my only aim is to damage the content.Definitely not.Being a student i dont have time for it.My approach according to wikipedian standards ,may be wrong but your comment that " chances of making good contribution is slim" is hurtful ..because that is being judgemental ...definitely everyone can make a good contribution and u cannot comment like dat sir .that will only make new editors go disheartened even before they can make any good .if you sir,cant agree with points i stated ,why dont you subject the articke to independent and neutral review ? So that no side feels the bias ? Thanks Ranjan s nayak (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Both Ranjan and IgnorantArmies seem to have broken WP:3RR at Jammu and Kashmir. It would be logical to block both of them unless they will agree to stop warring and wait for talk page consensus. It is obvious that Jammu and Kashmir could be the occasion of national disputes. The comments of Ranjan suggest he wants to fix what he sees as strong bias in this article. What could possibly go wrong? EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I like your complete lack of sarcasm here. I am confident they will now work together in an encyclopedic synergy. LjL (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Salah Abdeslam reported by User: (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page: Abdelhamid Abaaoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Salah Abdeslam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Someone is posing with the name Salah Abdeslam. Abdeslam has been on the run ever since authorities questioned him at the Belgian border hours after the bombings and shootings in Paris! -- (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't look like edit warring... you should probably post this to WP:ANI as a possible inappropriate name, but I'm not sure it is one. Perhaps their edits should just be watched. LjL (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it is okay to have the user name Osama bin Laden! And to post: An individual named as Sheraz Sheik is reported to have said of bin Laden, as a "really nice guy". - From the point of view of someone living in Paris: I don't think so! -- (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's good, but I'll say 1) I'm not an administrator 2) this is not the right place to report it 3) I'm not familiar enough with the username policy to definitely say it's acceptable or not 4) I've placed a COI-username warning template on the user's talk page and that's about all I can do. LjL (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely LjL is right, not the proper venue for this type of report (see WP:UAA). The username, however, does violate our username policy. NeilN talk to me 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:Kingsindian (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Denial of the Holodomor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [112]
  2. [113]
  3. [114]
  4. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]


The user has been repeatedly changing the text in the middle of the rfc and continues even after repeated pleas to stop by two people including myself. It has not reached the level of 3RR but the diffs above show repeated edit-warring. Kingsindian  19:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • There was no 3RR violation because two last diffs are dated November 16 and November 14, i.e. two and four days ago. However, I self-reverted, no problem. I am not sure why user Kingsindian makes such a big issue of this. All concerns have been properly responded on article talk page, and the text that was included in the original RfC, remained exactly as it was. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This page is for reporting edit warring as well as 3RR violations. I am happy that they self reverted but a glance at the talk page shows that they think they did no wrong. If I had not reported them they would have kept it up indefinitely. At the very least I want an assurance that this behaviour will not continue. Kingsindian  19:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
At first glance,