Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive304

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:2.98.175.149 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Regressive left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2.98.175.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697903682 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  2. 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697903079 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  3. 18:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697865809 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  4. 13:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697865658 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  5. 02:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "No reason for this sidebar"
  6. 00:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697786312 by Snowded (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
  2. 18:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs. (TW)"
  3. 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Regressive left. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This IP is an abuser of multiple IPs and is again edit warring. They have used two IPs on Regressive Left to revert the same content. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is part of a sock farm hitting multiple articles. Summary here ----Snowded TALK 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Two more reverts since this notice was posted ----Snowded TALK 19:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Theoosmond reported by User:Drmargi (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Doctor Who (series 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theoosmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff=697865560&oldid=697863468]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1] "redundant edit"
  2. [2] "There is no need for this edit. It makes the table too complicated."
  3. [3] "Consensus not achieved."
  4. [4] "I haven't claimed consensus, the edits by AlexTheWhovian that I reverted were made without consensus."


Plus one as an IP:

  1. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8]

Comments:
This is the strangest case. Alex The Whovian added a utterly non-controversial set of sub-headings to an episode table that identifies the two parts of Doctor Who Series 7. They were neat, didn't disrupt the table, in keeping with the way the season was organized, and helpful. But for some reason, Theoosmond is determined to remove them. He's claiming no consensus, but has failed to open a discussion the talk page. This editor has been warned numerous times recently, notably by Redrose64 regarding disruptive editing, and displays little understanding of consensus building processes. He has paid little attention to the warnings on his talk page, and continues to demand consensus without engaging in consensus-seeking processes, aside from some brief discussion on Alex's talk page (linked above.) I don't see this improving, especially given the somewhat erratic rationales for removal of the headings (headings!) in his edit summaries. --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: No action for now. There doesn't seem to be a continuing war. But if User:Theoosmond reverts again, admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ephemerance reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ephemerance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698105472 by Jess (talk) Discuss in talk section. Whom is correct."
  2. 00:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Definitions and distinctions */ Whom is correct; see talk section for details."
  3. 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697814493 by Jess (talk) Consensus is defined when no one changes the edit. No one has compromised or contributed to the talk section yet. If you have objections, discuss them"
  4. 02:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697811283 by Modocc (talk) Go to the talk section and refute the cited material. The edit is accurate to the science and elaborates on the contrary philosophic opinion"
  5. 02:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697810466 by Modocc (talk) Sourced and sufficiently described/linked."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has been discussing on talk, but continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The first set of reverts stopped at 3 within a 24 hour span. There are a number of users that will revert without adding to discussion in talk. Some users began contributing to the Talk section about the edit and discussions are ongoing. The second edit shown on January 4th was a minor "who" to "whom" grammar edit with an explanation and substantiation in the Talk section (this edit was designed only to change that specific point of grammar and no content). Ephemerance (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There were, however, three reverts within 24 hr on Jan 2, and, you have been edit warring for a couple of days overall. Please stop it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Ephemerance, you're not "entitled" to 3 reverts. Read WP:EW carefully, particularly the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead. I'm glad that the edit war has stopped. Please try to lean more heavily on the talk page and establishing consensus in the future, instead of (not in addition to) edit warring. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 02:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
You are allowed up to three reverts within 24 hr. The first edit was for the sake of content. The second edit was a compromise and dealt only with "who" versus "whom." After the three reverts, a discussion has been ongoing in the Talk section and no further edits relevant to the proposed content has been reintroduced by myself. Perhaps if some of the regular users in the atheism section would choose to discuss or compromise on changes (as outlined in Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy) instead of mindlessly reverting and ignoring the Talk section there would a mutually agreeable understanding. It's not my intention to break wiki policy. There are legitimate changes that I feel are necessary for the neutrality and correctness of the article. Ephemerance (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user has made no promise to stop (he thinks he is correct) so it sounds like this behavior is likely to continue. A sincere belief that you are right is not a defence to a charge of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KK Metscher reported by User:Eteethan (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
KK Metscher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "included protest flag"
  2. 23:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Included protest flag"
  3. 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "included protest flag"
  4. 22:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Included protest flag"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Subject warned with this. Eteethan(talk) 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the user is also a seller of flags [9] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The situation at this article is completely out of control. All work by established editors has essentially come to a grinding halt as a revolving door of IP editors and SPAs on both extremes of this debate both vandalize and sanitize this article every few seconds to minutes. All work by regular editors is now concentrated on reverting and repairing edits by an expanding group of disposable accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note The page has been semi-protected by Beeblebrox ([10]). clpo13(talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:173.55.55.190 reported by User:32.218.152.138 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Steven Avery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.55.55.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )[edit]

Page
Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "rm template again; this has nothing to do with the civil was in Syria"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
[19]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
see strong warning to this user at end of linked discussion above.


Comments:

This user does not like the SCW &ISIL Discretionary Sanctions, and has voiced this on the talk page. I believe today is the 4th time they have removed the template. These sanctions exist and serve a good purpose in controlling POV editor, especially one pushing terrorist ideology or conspiracy theories. The article is about an ISIL attack. All editors deserve to be warned about the DS, making this edit's repeated removal of the DS notification template and his mocking comments towards admins in summaries quite disruptive. While the edit warring is long term, a possible good application of these very DS against the user is in order? Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I remain committed to the fact that the Paris attack has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War for which the sanctions were designed. Rules are not the purpose of Wikipedia per WP:KISS. -- Kendrick7talk 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
The editor should seem to also exclude anything about ISIL in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Afganistan and the list goes on. Editing in the ISIL topic area requires WP:COMPETENCE which appears to be an issue here. Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
See an earlier dispute of the same issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive301#User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Withdrawn). On that occasion, User:Legacypac withdrew the edit warring report on the basis that User:Kendrick7 had decided to drop the matter (See Kendrick7's answer in that complaint). If Kendrick7 has reversed his earlier decision it may be time to reopen the question of his edit warring about the sanctions banner. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:199:100:87CE:7C5F:7AD1:EDE:F38B reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page
Felicia Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:199:100:87CE:7C5F:7AD1:EDE:F38B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698129451 by General Ization (talk)"
  2. 04:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Should be able to confirm own birthday"
  3. 04:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Birth Year = Source is Felicia Day own Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/FeliciaDay OR IMBD http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1260407/"
  4. 04:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Felicia Day was originally contracted by Microsoft and if you do a BING search "Felicia Day age" you will find her birthday. BING is the source, not a link within the search engine, but the Bing site itself"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Felicia Day. (TW)"
  2. 04:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Felicia Day. (TW)"
  3. 04:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Felicia Day. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See the discussion at Talk:Felicia Day as to why these edits are especially problematic. General Ization Talk 04:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Film Fan and User:Serijvip reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Film Fan will observe a personal 1RR)[edit]

Page: Creed (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Film Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Serijvip (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
  5. diff
  6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

There's little in the way of discussion from either user. The above is just the "highlights" of this edit war - I count no fewer than nine back-and-forth reverts between 18:37 and 19:24. There is an attempt to start discussions on the article's talkpage, which both users then choose to ignore. FF's block log speaks for itself as does the history log of the article in question. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
I used the article's talk page repeatedly - pinging the other user - as well as their talk page, with no response on either, and I was only removing an erroneous AKA that they added. I asked them repeatedly to comply with WP:BRD and requested they stopped edit warring on their talk page. It ended after a couple of extremely childish retorts from the other user, and the page has been fake-AKA-free since. Of course, if reverting vandalism on top of the information given above still qualifies as edit warring (I'm unclear on this) I will pledge not to engage in such a situation again and instead take it straight to this complaints board. Please let me know. Cheers and Happy New Year - especially to you, Lugnuts. Film Fan 17:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

By repeatedly you mean once? Or three times if you count correcting your own errors. The inital talkpage post was made at 18:56. The article history shows you made six reverts after that in approx. 20 minutes, with a further three reverts before going to the talkpage. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
In this particular case, by "repeatedly" I mean three times - four including the personal talk page message. And I left the first talk page message after the first revert on January 1. If you are able to answer my question above I'd be grateful, so that I can avoid such accusations in the future and peacefully contribute to Wikipedia with the clarification I seek re reverting vandalism. Cheers. And please don't hate me. I think it's time are feud ends. Grudges do no one any good. Film Fan 19:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
First Film Fan you have been around long enough to know the difference between vandalism and a content dispute which is what this is. You were removing sourced info added by Serivjip. Next you have pledged in the past to "not engage in a situation involving edit warring" - to Diannaa among others. A few weeks or months go by and then the behavior happens again so what assurance can you give that you aren't just saying this to avoid a block. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I suppose here isn't the place to rip those sources to shreds. My assurance is what I posted above. But to add to that, I can say that instead of judging for myself what vandalism is, in the future if I revert something of that nature (or indeed anything) that is then re-instated without any attempt from the other user to engage in a conversation despite my efforts, I will report it instead of trying to undo it. I haven't had this particular kind of situation before and although I haven't yet had my question answered, I'm getting the inclination that I should have brought this issue here after the ignored talk page comments and before the reverts clocked up. So my assurance is this: I will report instead of getting involved in what I judge to be disruptive editing. Even if an edit screams "bullsh*t" and the other user is blatantly ignoring protocol, I'll let admins deal with it. The truth is I wanted to deal with it myself to save admins the time and effort, believing I was actually doing the community a favour, but I was wrong, and at this point there couldn't possibly be any more kinds of situations that might be deemed by some to be disruptive editing that I could be unaware or unclear about. I take from this that no matter who made the first move, the first revert, the falsest misinformation, etc., WP:BRD will zap both sides. That's what I know now, and that's how I assure you there isn't a chance in hell I could find myself in this situation again. And I'd like to finish by saying I bring many productive edits to Wikipedia which benefit the community, and, like all of us, I'm still learning. Cheers. Film Fan 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Film Fan has been blocked 12 times in the past, for durations as long as a month which makes me question whether this good resolution will be followed in practice. But this might be closed without a block if he will agree to a voluntary WP:1RR restriction on all editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that most of the blocks only happened because of previous blocks (you never get a chance at a clean slate at Wikipedia) and because of one particular user who holds a grudge. But I can agree to 1RR. Film Fan 15:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Film Fan has agreed to accept a personal WP:1RR restriction on all pages. Though it's voluntarily accepted, this restriction can be enforced by blocks. User:Serijvip was also part of this edit war. Any admin who believes that a block is needed for Serijvip should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Renamed user 2931-018231 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Men Going Their Own Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Renamed user 2931-018231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698277750 by Night Gyr (talk)"
  2. 02:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 01:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698262572 by Grayfell (talk)"
  4. 00:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698026463 by The Anome (talk)"
  5. 13:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698016003 by Snowded (talk)"
  6. 13:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698015638 by Snowded (talk)"
  7. 13:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698014412 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
  8. 12:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698011867 by Grayfell (talk)"
  9. 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Fixing error in ref"
  10. 11:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698008716 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
  11. 11:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Fixing the article. Subsequent corrections should be made from this point. Warning: do not remove contents unless you have a reason (personal agenda not included) to do so."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Men Going Their Own Way. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User had name change and then went straight back to edit-warring on same article after block. -- haminoon (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

He also requested that his userpage and account be deleted on Jan 4, saying he didn't want to stay here anymore. Obviously he's since changed his mind because he's edit warring again. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring here (repeatedly blanking this report). Vsmith (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Perene reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Men Going Their Own Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Perene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Fixing the article. Subsequent corrections should be made from this point. Warning: do not remove contents unless you have a reason (personal agenda not included) to do so." (This is a reversion to an earlier version of article.)
  2. 11:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698008716 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
  3. 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Fixing error in ref"
  4. 12:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698011867 by Grayfell (talk)"
  5. 13:08, 3 January 2016‎
  6. 13:13, 3 January 2016‎
  7. 13:15, 3 January 2016‎
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Men Going Their Own Way. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Most of these edits have been discussed at Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Few_issues.


Comments:

This user is removing the entire contribution I made instead of making the proper changes. He is the one that should have been reported here. If there are mistakes, fix them, do not remove 100% a valid contribution. Perene (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected by Ymblanter. -- GB fan 12:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I only semi-protected it, and edit-warring between auto confirmed users is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I looked at it wrong. -- GB fan 13:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Looks like only a block will work. At least two more reverts and messing around on talk pages ----Snowded TALK 13:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
No, what will work is for you to fix the article with the necessary changes instead of defacing. Perene (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Strongly suggest you self-revert and engage on the talk page before it is too late ----Snowded TALK 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Article content is under discussion here. Perene appears not to have contributed there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
If the article can't be ever edited anymore, then lock it for everyone. That's what I call fairness. Is anyone barred from trying to make valid contributions? You are removing 100% of what I inserted, so it is you that are completely wrong. I don't deserve any punishment. If there are mistakes in what I published, fix them, bit by bit, instead of reverting the whole thing and vanishing with everything. This isn't very encyclopedic from your part, it seems to me you are all following an agenda.Perene (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The "agenda" is this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
This is what is actually happening here. You simply refuse to fix this article and wants your biased, polite and carefully-devised-filled-with-feminist-propaganda-version suited for the media interests to prevail. Like I said, this isn't encyclopedic, you aren't doing any of those edits to fix anything, you are removing the WHOLE CONTRIBUTION and you all have a clear agenda to me. Wikipedia is the best disinformation tool ever created thanks to people like you, who have nothing better to do besides bullying users who don't side with your views and spoiling what could have been good articles. This is exactly why the number of valuable contributors has decreased over the years and no one in his right mind takes this site seriously. Once again: the article isn't preventing registered users from editing, so if you are going to punish contributions, then lock it 100% until you decide when and how it should be edited. Referring to endless blather in the TALK pages isn't going to cut it. It's just another ploy.Perene (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Perene is still at it. This appears to be a case of WP:DIDN'THEARTHAT with a side-order of WP:RGW. I've given them a warning about WP:3RR, and reverted their latest edit. There's a clear case for blocking them at this point, but I'm not going to block them myself, because I've previously made substantial edits to this article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
He's back at it again and doesn't seem to have learned his lesson at all. (He also seems to have renamed his account in the meantime, which is why I didn't realize it was him and thought he was a sock at first). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Renamed user 2931-018231, who is the renamed version of User:Perene, has been indef blocked by User:Worm That Turned. People who ask to vanish are expected not to edit Wikipedia any more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by User:123Steller (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26] - the article was full-protected and when the protection expired a one revert per 24 hours rule was imposed by administrator User:KrakatoaKatie. The 1RR was broken by User:KIENGIR today.

Comments:
There is a dispute that is taking place on several articles. User:KIENGIR was also involved in edit wars on the same topic at Austrian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 123Steller (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically the whole thing began here. USER:KIENGIR reintroduced text (with some adaptations by himself) that was removed in May of this year after a lengthy discussion, in which I and user:82.119.98.162 and user:Prudoncty and at least two other anonymous editors took part. We removed the text that was partly written by user:prudoncty and with some adaptations restored text that I had added back in 2009. On the 23. December KIENGIR reintroduced the removed text for reasons I fail to understand. Another problematic aspect is that the text was partly authored by Prudoncty, a confirmed sockpuppet of blocked user:Stubes99. This means that there is a WP:DENY aspect involved in this case. Of course the conflict is a spillover from the conflicts at Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867). What makes KIENGIR's actions even more difficult to understand is that yesterday evening, KIENGIR and I actually agreed on text for the Hungary article and are (the way I see it) on the verge of agreeing on text for the Austrian Empire article as well. Why go on with text that we have now both decided to remove from other articles here on this one? Frankly I've been baffled by the way this user operates, for some time now! On his most recent revert User:KIENGIR wrote: "If you are debating an edit, before changing it you have to reach consensus first, so long keep the article unharmed and follow DR". Shouldn't he have thought about that on the 23d of December, while this matter was already going on concerning the other two articles, before reintroducing the removed text on the article involved here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I have now wrote to User:KIENGIR on this matter here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Collapsing some post-close comments by User:KIENGIR. It's unlikely you will get any admin attention for this, though WP:ANI is theoretically open to you. It is more useful for you to persuade the other editors on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My punishment has been expired, so I'll take the chance for a reaction:
I am sorry, braking 1rr was not willful, although not any Administrators reacted directly my question, I came to realize regardless of my current time any edit will be registered with UTC(+0).
If Gerard von Hebel would give totally accurate information to the Administrator's he would mention these and/or write these instead of what he have written:
- Regarding the Austrian Empire page, Hebel had 8 contributions vs 5 (me), regarding the Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 article it was 2 vs 2. Barely to be able call it as an edit war, since 3RR, the bright line was not broken. Moreover the definition of edit warring clearly states: Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. However, editing from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism. He should have say only in those two pages we started to debate on the content but the debate took place in the talk pages, and since I or anyone having a counter opinion did not edited the page after that, but Hebel in the Austrian Empire article - and also the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 - still made edits during the discussion that is against the "status quo ante" policy regarding BRD.
- Regarding the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 article I made clear the referred consensus I don't see on the talkpage and also I did not revert anyone's edit and I added a new & modified content thus Hebel does not tell here the truth if I'd reinstate something that was removed earlier by "consensus" (even if some parts may be identical partly, but we speak about more and longer material regarding different pharagraphs). I could again raise what kind of "consensus" is that is made by some "IP Addresses" that - maybe with one exception this case - are totally not neutral and act as a support against any Hungary related case. In any relevant resolution at least more users or Administrators from both sides, by an ANI discussion, even involving Wikiproject's should be carried out and then we can speak about real consensus.
- Hebel was informed on more pages about the reasons since if a matter is heavily discussed this is truly that, not any surprise should catch him unexpected. Despite, that is again a non-good faith act from Hebel he again referring to banned sockpuppet's but at the same time he silences about - that was already cleared by our discussion on his talk page - that the original text was introduced by user Fakirbakir - Hebel told me this on his own, and I supported/support always Fakirbakir's version and interpretation, and not any sockpuppet's interpretation. So his "concerns" stress patterned to wash again the things together with the fear of sockpuppet's, but meanwhile not mentioning the importance of the totally different root cause and approach concern's me as a way to distract Administrators!
- Hebel puts more oil on the fire by again with a non-good faith allusion that after we reached consensus on one page after I would reintroduce something against in an other page, that is a totally false approach as mentioned above, since the three pages may have contain similar details or undoubtedly similar or simetimes identical contents are debated, but every article should be judged on his own, and I asked him too keep the rules of fair play and at least on that page he should not introduce any revert policy and respect the "status quo ante" principle, that more of us did on the other two pages.
- "Why go on with text that we have now both decided to remove from other articles here on this one? Frankly I've been baffled by the way this user operates, for some time now!" -> such kind of manifestations and the latter part until the end is again more oil onthe fire based on a false premise, since as it was told the three pages may contain some identical or similar content, but it can be easily checked my edit was not restricted to such a thing, I added a content that was practically never the part of the other article, similar version could be only found only in the talk pages details per discussion. So Hebel's continous stress pattern on something that clearly not happened is again concerns me very much since Administrators have been again distracted! To say nothing of such "baffles" we have met regarding Hebel if we carefully check since 2009 his discussions up to recent times that he clearly denies some things he cannot deny anymore diluted with confusion, lack of accurate information a fixa idea seem like struggle with many false interpretation of the sources. However, a clear evolution we saw in a good way, it is still haunting after more proofs and demonstration he acted still not to understand things or regard the other party as a fool, and our good sense needed also to accept i.e. the first consensus where almost 90% of the material was his text and still regarding the clear statement of the sources he tends to avoid some things to mention he does not like.
- Finally, I am aware of not all Administrators will read all the content of the talk pages'/edit's content or make a total accurate check on Hebel's claims, and unfortunately they act without really checking the situation in the whole. Since by mistake a broke 1RR, I acknowledge the cause now is secondary and I get the punishment, but I urge all Administrator's to carefully check in the future even the reporters/accusers statements before quickly believing all content. Why other's were not punished by continously reverting my edit - check history -? Maybe the answer would be not braking 1RR or 3RR or also outside any time limit the number of reverts would be the answer, since the opposing parties more reverts was distributed among an IP address and a user that joined Wikipedia and created an account especially to join our debate...interesting, yes?
- I think if I'd revert anything in the future - even those contents that were added obviously meanwhile/after the the ongoing resolution - again I would be punished - although not such additions contributed by Hebel in the three articles were reverted by me - that concerns me because not any user can act in such a way that he has the right anytime to add and revert without consequence, but if other's would be just partly do such an act with not an equal weight, that is immediately reported, accused and arbitrated. Unfortunately I sense double measure in many cases, though I will follow and co-operate to also resolve the remaning two article's. Not any IP adresses or on-the-fly created users supporting me, I can count only user Fakirbakir, who is a polite and well-experienced Wikipedian and will not be involved in some revert/edit attack compromise.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

User:Motoe123 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Century break (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Motoe123 (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] (December)
  2. [29] (December)
  3. [30] (December)
  4. [31] (December; edits under anonymous IP after I warned Motoe about his conduct)
  5. [32] (January)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
Motoe123 persists in changing the statistics sourced to reputable publishers such as the BBC and Eurosport so that they match his preferred blog. It has been pointed out that non-professional blogs are not reliable sources and he has been warned by two administrators about his actions. He refuses to engage on the talk page. The article came out of protection a few days ago and unfortunately the activity has resumed. Motoe hasn't technically violated 3RR, but I am filing the case due to the fact he has been explicitly warned by an admin and he refuses to engage on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 days. Your report implies that 130.115.84.17 (talk · contribs) is the same person. That IP doesn't need to be blocked unless the problem resumes. But it doesn't sound like this editor is open to persuasion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-war between User:Vellusammy and User:Xenophrenic (Result: No action, please file a standard report)[edit]

I am a new editor and I'm not sure if this is the place to report these two users. They have been edit-warring between each other since a relatively long time. They have edit warred in List of wars by death toll and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. They keep reverting each other all time. [35] and [36] It's also important that User:Xenophrenic has been blocked seven times in the past, while User:Vellusammy created his account on 2 September 2015 and since then has edited only these two articles. This means he has edit warred in all (two) articles he has contributed to.Lostrigot (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: No action. Please file a standard report (see the instructions at top of this page). There seems to be a moderately cooperative discussion at Talk:List of wars by death toll. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User:75.184.102.196 reported by User:32.218.152.125 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Oshkosh, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.184.102.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43], [44], [45]


Comments:

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. The 75.* IP was warring to add unsourced temperatures. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:8-f4t-r4t-8 reported by User:BoxOfChickens (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Crim3s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
8-f4t-r4t-8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "CHECK THE ARTICLE!!!!! http://www.ssgmusic.com/best-of-2011-sean-palmers-top-25-underrated-acts-of-2011/2/ YOU ARE ADDING INFO THAT DOES NOT EXIST ON THE ARTICLE YOU ARE SOURCING FROM. CHECK YOUR REFERENCES!!!!"
  2. 18:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "STATEMENTS HAVE NO SOURCE!!! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!! CHECK YOUR FACTS!!!!) HELLO??!!!!! !CHECK THE SOURCE, YOUR INFO DOES NOT EXIST!!!!! WHYYY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!!!!"
  3. 18:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "STATEMENTS HAVE NO SOURCE!!! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!!! CHECK YOUR FACTS!!!!"
  4. 18:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "THIS INFO IS FALSE AND HAS NO SOURCE - CHECK THE SOURCE LINK YOU ARE QUOTING - SENTANCE DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!"
  5. 18:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "DO NOT REVERT! REMOVAL OF UNSOURCED FALSE INFO. THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT EXIST, NO SOURCE! PLEASE CHECK BEFORE YOU TRY AND REVERT AGAIN TO FALSE INFO!"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 05:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) to 11:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    1. 05:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "removal of false and un-sourced information."
    2. 11:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "SOURCE ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED WITH FALSE INFORMATION REMOVED, SO I HAVE REMOVED IT FROM THIS WIKI."
    3. 11:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "name updated from article that was corrected"
  7. 04:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "INCORRECT INFORMATION! ETHAN DID NOT NAME THE BAND! LEGAL NAMES ARE ROU AND SADIE PINN."
  8. 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Ethan Kath had NOTHING to do with the bands name or anything else.Stop entering this as it is spreading INCORRECT info.Also, Rou's legal name is Rou, Sadies is Sadie Pinn. I booked their flights for a show,I have seen passports.Facebook the band for facts"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
  2. 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
  3. 15:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
  4. 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
  5. 18:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
  6. 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "/* The internet changes */ new section"
  7. 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Crim3s. (Twinkle)"
  8. 19:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:8-f4t-r4t-8. (Twinkle)"
  9. 19:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */"
  10. 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users. (Twinkle)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Persistently removing properly sourced info and yelling at me that it is false. I have warned them for adding unsourced material (since there is no warning for removing properly sourced material) and harassing me with sharply worded comments on their talk page. They are removing information from a web source that has changed since it was cited, and saying that it does not contain that information before. I don't think they realize that the access date of a web source is important. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 19:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

He is now stating that if an online article is updated, it is updated for the purpose of removing false information even if that is not explicitly stated. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
* Please note that the reporting user place seven final warnings on the IPs talk page before coming to this talk board, as well as talking in caps/bold, edit warring, and being in violation of WP:CIV. Boomer Vial (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have placed the multiple final warnings because the behavior has been continued and he has continued to yell at me. I started using large bold text in order to differentiate my comments from the many unsigned comments and warnings on the editor's talk page. I am trying to remain calm and handle this issue in a civil manner. I apologize if my attempts to warn the user and get them to understand the concept that websites are updated for many reasons other than to remove false information make it appear that I am being uncivil. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It now appears that there may be sock puppetry involved. See Pott.noooodle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/8-f4t-r4t-8. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 20:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – by User:Bbb23 for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:217.22.190.233 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Irreligion by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
217.22.190.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 12:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Germany should be 62% not 59% and it has always been like that and only recently it is erroneously being changed to 59%."
  4. 06:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. 07:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Irreligion by country‎‎. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Previously blocked twice (16 & 24 November 2015, both for one week) for block evasion. User:141.8.61.233 was blocked for 6 months on 19 December 2015 for identical edit-warring. NebY (talk) 08:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

NebY and I both reported the user within minutes of each other. I've removed my almost identical report and add the comment from it here: Repeated addition of unsourced number. The IP has a history of edit warring and vandalism on religion-related articles. Warnings given on user's talk page. Sjö (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 months by User:Materialscientist for persistent addition of unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2A02:582:709C:300:80EC:EF1:7A19:BE4D reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2A02:582:709C:300:80EC:EF1:7A19:BE4D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Using the name Macedonia for a country violates UN treaties"
  2. 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "The use of the name Macedonia for a country violates UN treaties."
  3. 22:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "There is no country named Macedonia there is just FYROM. The use of the name Macedonia violates UN decisions."
  4. 21:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Historical truth"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Macedonia . (TWTW)"
  2. 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Arbcom Balkan DS warning"
  3. 22:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Macedonia. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

POV edits in violation of Arbcom DS on Balkans. Will not stop despite warnings. Dr. K. 22:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sadda14 reported by User:Titusfox (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
CCN Digital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sadda14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "shut the fuck up!! .. .just delete the article..that's it!!"
  2. 16:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698193816 by FourViolas (talk) .. ..I'm asking for the admins over here to delete the page!! (they know who) ..!"
  3. 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698193710 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
  4. 15:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Blanked the page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on CCN Digital. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Blatant sock of Voda9 - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Voda9. Bazj (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

stray thought... If we accept it is a sock of the article's creator, is the blanking a valid G7? Can it be deleted and salted? Bazj (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: User has been indef blocked by User:Ymblanter per WP:NOTHERE. There is also an SPI report. Since an AfD is running, we might as well let it finish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:66.152.115.226 reported by User:Thomasmallen (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.152.115.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 01:23, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "Undid censorship"
  2. 01:13, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "Undid censorship. keep calling it vandalism, but this is USDA Certified Grade A Censorship"
  3. 01:22, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "memoryhole pls stop"
  4. 01:49, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "Undid persistent vandalism by Thomasmallen (talk)"
  5. 03:08, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "fixing corporate-monopoly on the coverage here.... and undoing persistent censorship"

There are many many more.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

  • User calls it "reverting censorship" in some edit messages. Thomasmallen (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • As per Thomasmallen, the situation at this article is completely out of control. All work by established editors has essentially come to a grinding halt as a revolving door of IP editors and SPAs on both extremes of this debate both vandalize and sanitize this article every few seconds to minutes. All work by regular editors is now concentrated on reverting and repairing edits by an expanding group of disposable accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note The page has been semi-protected by Beeblebrox ([48]). clpo13(talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:37.217.133.213 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Anushasana Parva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.217.133.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [49], 26 Dec 2015, as IP 37.217.77.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50], 30 Dec 2015 as 37.217.133.213
  2. [51], 31 Dec 2015
  3. [52], 6 Jan 2016
  4. [53], 6 Jan 2016
  5. [54], 6 Jan 2016
  6. [55], 6 Jan 2016
  7. [56], 6 Jan 2016 after 3RR warnings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57] by myself, and [58] by user Boomer Vial.

Article talk pages never used.

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Katietalk 22:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:84.143.229.44/User:84.143.229.135 and User:91.44.83.84 reported by User:Peter Isotalo (Result: protected )[edit]

Page: Dead or Alive 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s) being reported:


Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]

Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: link

Comments:
Three IP-users are engaging in groundless reverts of referenced content regarding sexism in Dead or Alive 5. At least two are most likely the same individual. No attempt has been made to use the talkpage.

Peter Isotalo 16:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Katietalk 22:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Vellusammy and User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Lostrigot (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: List of wars by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


Previous version reverted to: [64] Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [65] (January)
  2. [66] (January)
  3. [67] (January)
  4. [68] (January)
  5. [69] (January)
  6. [# [70] (January)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Comments:
They have been edit-warring between each other since a relatively long time. They have edit warred in List of wars by death toll and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll. They keep reverting each other all time. [72] and [73] It's also important that User:Xenophrenic has been blocked seven times in the past, while User:Vellusammy created his account on 2 September 2015 and since then has edited only these two articles. This means he has edit warred in all (two) articles he has contributed to.Lostrigot (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(This is a duplicate of this report filed just above.) There was indeed a lot of hectic back and forth on those two articles between myself and the SPA, but all remaining editing concerns were hammered out and resolved (both in-article and on the Talk page) a couple days ago. I haven't touched the article since then. (I'll reserve comment about a 4-day old account with fewer than 50 edits filing AN3 reports and templating editors.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Xenophrenic has explained more about his use of reverts for record-keeping on my talk page. I share his view that this is 'not optimal' and am wondering if this report should be closed with warnings to both parties. We don't usually sanction for wars that have stopped, assuming they have really stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Both User:Vellusammy and User:Xenophrenic are warned. At Talk:List of wars by death toll there is over 100,000 bytes of discussion with only the two of you participating. At the same time, both of you keep reverting on the article itself. This is not good. If the two of you have strong feelings about this article you need to get opinions from more people. Consider WP:DRN or WT:MILHIST. If you just keep reverting each other (week after week) blocks will be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Euphiletos reported by User:5.198.127.32 (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Authorship of Luke-Acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch |