Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

User:Randy Kryn reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Both blocked)

Page: St. Augustine movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Randy Kryn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Randy Kryn#Not vandalism

Comments:

Randy and I have been in an edit war, I confess. The difference is that he didn't stop after the 3RR warning. Dicklyon (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon is now going after individual movement names. I asked him to take it to the talk page, and he did not. He also has changed the name of the page to lower case, which I changed back once over a redirect. Dicklyon has focused a concentrated effort to lower-case the names of social movement on Wikipedia. I'm not savvy of all the rules, but this seems to be a violation on both sides of this question, and if I am or am not banned may I also request an investigation of Dicklyon's efforts on these pages. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:53 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

My style gnoming has no subject-area focus. Randy is the movements guy, and doesn't like following the guidelines of MOS:CAPS when they affect areas that he holds dear. Dicklyon (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

After this exchange Dicklyon went after the name 'Birmingham Movement', which is the preferred name on search engines. I asked him to take that to the talk page as well. And more people and editors than I hold the CRM dear, like, for instance, much of the world and world's major institutions as a whole? Randy Kryn 19:07 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with people who hold these topics dear; but that's not a reason for capitalizing on WP. The evidence from sources is linked in the discussion at User talk:Randy Kryn#Not vandalism.

• Dicklyon, as you've been told before, the proper thing to do when someone objects to your bold change is to move to the talk page. The burden is ON YOU to present justification for the change to other editors, and attain consensus. You need to file a requested move. Instead, you are charging forth with changes that have no consensus, whereas Mr Kryn has simply attempted to defend the status quo per WP:BRD. I think a boomerang is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 19:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

From very selected sources not counting search engine results and other proper tools. Í can't revert on the Birmingham campaign page because of this 3RR rule, can an admin do so? Thanks. And if you read the discussion on my talk page Dicklyon says that the Chicago Freedom Movement is a proper name, and he wouldn't try to change that. How is that any different than St. Augustine Movement, or Birmingham Movement, or Selma Voting Rights Movement? If 'Chicago Freedom Movement' is admittedly a proper name...then, huh? Randy Kryn 19:32 18 January, 2015 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Resumption of edit warring

On the expiration of our mutual block, Randy has come back reverting again, here. I have advised him on his talk page that this resumption of warring is risky behavior. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I've blocked him for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MoorNextDoor reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: No action)

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MoorNextDoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7] (reverting [8] by Gamebuster19901)
2. [9] (reverting [10] by myself)
3. [11] (reverting [12] by myself, following several invitations to join a discussion opened several days ago and a a 3RR notice)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: an RfC has been open for three days that MoorNextDoor has neglected to participate in.

3 days are hardly sufficient. Like everyone, I have other responsibilities, I cannot be in here 24/7. Furthermore, the exclusion of that paragraph has already been discussed. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The inclusion of the paragraph has been discussed at least as much as the exclusion, and nothing resembling a consensus to remove has arisen. You've been invited several times to discuss—you've chosen instead to revert without contributing to a consensus.Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
discussing the issue with the editor is an exercise in frustration, being confronted with the same questions over and over. The editor shows little evidence of having even read the content he's been reverting—his questions are non sequiturs about things that are not even in it. I think he's been confusing this content with some other related content that he's also spent time reverting, but despite repeated requests to read it before reverting, it doesn't appear he's willing to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing the issue with an editor who thinks that we should include a whole section about Muslim demographics "so that it is not surprising that a Muslim might speak perfect French", is very hard to say the least. MoorNextDoor (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There have been no more reverts by this editor since 19 January. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Cathry reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Robert Parry (journalist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cathry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643123959 by Iryna Harpy (talk) it is subject of his article"
2. 04:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643147357 by Iryna Harpy (talk) it is not polemic question,"
3. 04:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643156296 by Iryna Harpy (talk) it is same theme to others with same links,"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Wolfsangel. (TW)"
2. 00:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Wolfsangel. (TW)"
3. 00:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wolfsangel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Time to take the rack down? */ new section"

Comments:

The user has been introducing articles from Consortium for Independent Journalism to a number of articles surrounding Ukraine and recent events in Ukraine as part of a prolonged campaign as a WP:SPA. I am not alone in trying to conduct discussions as to content with the user, but am thoroughly convinced that he's WP:NOTHERE.

Please see my talk page for the most recent exchange. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1)Robert Parry theme - it is obvious, that he writes about Ukraine, my link is similar to other links in article

2)Wolfsangel theme - Iryna Harpy thinks that Andreas Umland opinion about Wolfsangel use is promotion (of what?), and so is ADL information about Aryan Nations. - what can i say?. Cathry (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

3)"The user has been introducing articles from Consortium for Independent Journalism" - it is lie. Where are links? Cathry (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

4) Iryna Harpy thinks that Open Democracy is essentially Russian news blog. It is confusing information to me. Also she thinks Anton Shekhovtsov (which is named by her as "Shestakov") "is not a notable academic nor journalist. " But he is treated as axpert by http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/ukraine-still-failing-on_b_6380726.html and ukrainian media http://gordonua.com/news/election2014/Politolog-SHehovcov-Ukraincy-v-usloviyah-chastichnoy-anneksii-territoriy-i-voyny-progolosovali-za-reformistskie-sily-48687.html There are plenty other links about his reliability, these two I added to talk page of Wolfsangel before second revert by Iryna Harpy (she did not take part in discussion). Cathry (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

5) [[Topic]] i have open on the queation about "promotional links". Iryna Harpy was informed (by using her username) but mentioned nothing there. Cathry (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Issuing myself a trout slap and apologising for using the 3RR to report this, and a request to retract the report. My watchlist has gone through the roof with alerts and Cathry's addition and removal of content in several articles has resulted in my conflating at least two articles (others aside) in this single report. In reality, this actually has become an issue for an ANI but, as he has just opened a discussion on the RSN, it's best that I start from there. Again, my apologies. Please feel free to toss me a whale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Whales are rightly considered protected species, much as you yourself.:) Just eat jish and fips (I recommend flake) penitentially next Friday night.Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I did my fips last night. Does that mean I can go back to my beloved egg loaf on Friday? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per the submitter's request to withdraw her report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:109.77.29.154 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Semi)

Page: UFC Fight Night: McGregor vs. Siver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.77.29.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:

Those links were just a few examples, as there are plenty more within the article's history. This IP user has been disruptive editing the article's page with vandalism and edit warring users that correct those poor edits. Won't stop until blocked. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:Bgwhite. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Qara xan (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22] [23]
4. [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Atabeg#Atabeg_is_a_Turkic_title.

Comments:
This user deleted reliable sourced (Encyclopædia Iranica) 1 information from the article 4 times. This user has also been blocked 7 times. 4 of its 7 blocks were because of Edit warrings. --Qara khan 13:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours. Long-term edit warring and misleading edit summaries. For example, this edit with the summary "Restored sourced information." Under that edit summary he removes the citation of Encyclopedia Iranica from the lead. Settling this matter needs a consensus on talk not a revert war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:85.247.82.66 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Semi)

Page

2011–12 S.L. Benfica season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

85.247.82.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Roberto was sold twice?"
2. 17:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "How is that possible? According to my research, he was sold for 8,5 M but Benfica received no money and then he was sold for 6 M, so we should delete him from this season."
3. 17:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "My source: http://visaodemercado.blogspot.pt/2013/07/benfica-comunica-cmvm-que-vendeu.html"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC) to 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "It mentions CMVM... http://web3.cmvm.pt/sdi2004/emitentes/docs/FR46214.pdf"
   2. 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Forgot to delete this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
2. 17:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on 2011–12 S.L. Benfica season. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

85.247.82.66 (talk · contribs) has tried to remove the same content before, see 85.242.88.88 (talk · contribs) , 81.193.33.116 (talk · contribs), 85.243.159.93 (talk · contribs), 85.243.159.85 (talk · contribs) and 81.193.2.151 (talk · contribs). Anonymous user has a report at WP:ANI. SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous user has changed IP. 85.247.74.165 (talk · contribs). SLBedit (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected two months. IP-hopping edit warrior has made no use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:24.63.85.142 reported by User:OccultZone (Result: Semi)

Page

Estimates of sexual violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

24.63.85.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Poor source with flawed, controversial methodology. See talk page analysis and reach consensus before reverting."
2. 06:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Results of this study have been widely dismissed due to biased methodology. See talk page."
3. 20:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Revision is using data from a widely discredited (both in academia and in media) source."
4. 19:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC) "See talk page. This source does not meet standards of quality. It is sloppy advocacy research with slanted methodology."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[25]

Comments:

IP is also edit warring on Rape statistics. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a retaliatory report. OccultZone made repeated revisions without engaging in discussion on the talk page of Rape statistics despite all edit notes referencing said talk page. As such, reporting user is retaliating, despite the onus to engage, discuss, and reach consensus falling on the other editors for being the first to revert an edit. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. Whether the study in question is credible enough to be used in this article is up to editors to decide. Edit warring is not a respectable phase of dispute resolution. The IP has reverted six times since 13 January. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Izmisluvas reported by User:Vodnokon4e (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Izmisluvas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is ongoing issue for years. Talk page was archived several times. This user in particular, havent reply on his talk page to previous questioning as well.

Comments:Every time user is removing the edit with some comments, but without providing sources. Removed sources for the statements were provided by me - 3 different and neutral sorces. There were no comments are they reliable, are they neutral - they were simply removed. Last time I put notice to avoid reverting without explanation or good resource for his statement. He reverted the page again, for the fourth time, without explanation.

Could you take a look and revert to the last neutral point of view? There might be provided more resources, but I am afraid the result will be the same - user will revert it every time, doent matter of the resources.--Vodnokon4e (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. User has reverted eight times since 14 January on the question of the ethnic identity of a group of people who supported the rebellion. Because of the ethnic aspect I'm also alerting the user under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pt78 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Warned)

Page

S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pt78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) to 00:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 13:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) to 12:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 11:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
   2. 11:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
   3. 12:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
   4. 12:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
   5. 12:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
   6. 12:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
4. 12:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA and recognized by the Guinness Book of Records (quotations on page)."
5. 12:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Changed because Benfica is the biggest club in the world (most members), according to the FIFA. Quotations on page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"
2. 17:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on S.L. Benfica. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Concensus was established in Talk:S.L. Benfica and Talk:FC Bayern Munich. SLBedit (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. Pt78 made five reverts since 19 January. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MJDecker reported by User:McVeigh (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Tierra de reyes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MJDecker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:07, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "Adding useful production information. All sources given."
2. 19:52, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "Adding useful production information, All sources given."
3. 19:31, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "Fixing poor English skills. Adding relevant information. All sources given."
4. 19:18, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "Based on TWO telenovellas which is relevant to the Background of show. That the information is another section makes no difference to the Background information it would be like removing a character from the cast because they are previously mentioned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:49, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
2. 19:57, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "/* Enough */ new section"
3. 20:01, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "/* Enough */"
4. 20:04, 20 enero 2015 (UTC) "/* Enough */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Although in my reversals I have indicated that what is already placing since the introduction of the article. The user simply does not care and imposes editing at any cost. I am already tired, and forgiveness for having fallen into an edit war, I know I did wrong, because it was not right, so I leave this in the hands of an administrator who can take action on the matter. I ordered a verificanción all, since the behavior of this person makes me like another. McVeigh / talk 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

All added information was properly cited. All information added came from the reference articles already listed in on the page. I am fluent in both English and Spanish and simply read the articles and added relevant information or corrected incorrect information. Other edits were do to the poor English skills of the article for needed fixes in misuses and errors in pronouns, sentence structure, grammar, etc. Many parts of the original page were almost unintelligible to English speakers. All edits were continually and within minutes of posting reversed. All edits and additions were made to add referenced information and improve the readability for English speakers. Then came accusations of no citation, when citation was clearly given from sources already given. Then came threats of getting me blocked and suspended. Then came deleting entire pre-existing sections of the page just avoid having them changed. This page should not be the fiefdom of a self-appointed administrator. I began altering the page when friends who have begun watching this show came here for information and found almost nothing useful and such poor writing that they couldn't understand it. I have to assume others have had the same issue. And that is what I was correcting.MJDecker (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing is repeating the same thing that is already in the introduction of the article. For example, see that:

Introduction of article

Tierra de reyes (English title: Land of Honor),[1] is an Spanish-language telenovela produced by United States-based television network Telemundo Studios, Miami. It is based on the telenovela Pasión de Gavilanes, written by Julio Jiménez.[2][3]Production of the telenovela was announced in September 2014. Filming began in Miami and Houston on October 22.

Production

Production of the telenovela was announced in September 2014. [10] Filming began in Miami and Houston on October 22.[11] It is based on the Colombian 2003-2004 telenovela Pasión de Gavilanes' written by Julio Jiménez.[12][13] Which itself was based on an earlier Colombian 1994 telenovela “Las Aguas Mansas.” This latest adaptation is written by Rossana Negrín, who has adapted other telenovelas for Telemundo such as Mi gorda bella, Alguien te mira and La Patrona.

I do not understand your need to repeat the same 2 times?.--McVeigh / talk 21:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I updated the original production information (when it was labeld "background") because it was barely understandable and added reference to both novellas the show is based on since the section only mentioned one. That information was then cut and pasted into the introduction section. Then the claims of redundant information began. The redundancy was created to delete the rewritten entry.MJDecker (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:Qed237 (Result: 1 week )

Page

Claudio Marchisio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vaselineeeeeeee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643381512 by ToonLucas22 (talk) I would appreciate it if you would stay out of this, as it does not concern you"
2. 01:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643277687 by Qed237 (talk) Having it not updated is not an EXCUSE, as that can be said for anything such as the possible change of a jersey number, how do we know that will get updated??"
3. 22:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643275586 by Qed237 (talk)"
4. 22:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643256294 by Qed237 (talk)"
5. 01:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also on articles Sebastian Giovinco (where it started), Alessio Cerci and Andrea Pirlo

I attempted to discuss at Talk:Sebastian Giovinco#Inclusion of league but instead user went to my talkpage User talk:Qed237#Giovinco with uncivil edit saying you must be slightly IQ challenged [32]

The discussion is about whether league or not should be included on player pages. And discussion went on at my talkpage at the same times as some reverting.

When I realised I might have reverted to much I immediately stopped and said he should stop to [33] but the editor continued and has now started same dispute with an other editor User:ToonLucas22 and that editor warned Vaselineeeeee for edit warring which was not recieved well.

Also Vaselineeee thinks he beats the system because he edited on a new day [34] but despite the fact we told him it is still edit war [35] he has still continued after that.

I know I probably have not been perfect in my reverting and I am sorry for that but I stopped when I realised where we were going while the other editor did not. And I believe that the pages should be restored.

I believe that the editor has been warned in our discussions, he refuses to listen to arguments, and should be blocked for continuing edit war. And he has also been blocked for edit warring in the past and I believe he thinks he can continue because I am not administrator [36] QED237 (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: See also here. 5 reverts involving the same content and in less than 24 hours (23 hours have past). That's a clear violation of the three-revert rule. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a week by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237 reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Submitter blocked)

User:Qed237 Page: {{pagelinks[Sebastian Giovinco}}
User being reported: User:Qed237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:53, January 19, 2015‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk): Can you predict future, we can not know that for sure.
2. 15:48, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,860 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk): There are thousand of fottballers that dont get updated when their team is relegated .
3. 15:36, January 19, 2015 (Undid revision 643255144 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) WP:WHATABOUTX and as I said, we avoid league as it may change without articles being updated (especially for less famous footbal)
4. 13:40, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,798 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (As said before not only Serie A)
5. 15:27, January 19, 2015‎ Qed237 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,746 bytes) (-4)

Comments:

The last edit, even though does not say revert is still the removal of my Serie A edit.

This user has repeatedly reverted my harmless edits to Sebastian Giovinco, as I add Serie A to the lead because the player plays for Juventus, which is a soccer team in the Serie A.

I tried to go about telling the user that it should be mentioned as it Serie A is mentioned in the lead on several other articles such as, Gianluigi Buffon, Cheillini, and even less famous players such as Angelo Ogbonna and more. I did not think that this player's page should be any different than the reset.

This user seems to think that the level of fame of the player dictates what should be added, and that it may not get updated in time to change the league if he were to move clubs. However I insisted that this could go for virtually anything such as club, jersey number etc. We have very dedicated editors on Wikipedia that would surely update on this matter, and I do not think that this is a valid excuse.

This user continued to revert my edits and seems to think that his opinion on this matter is more important than mine, as he continued to threaten blocking me, when the exact same could go for his reverts and edits. I believe that I expressed to this this user in our discussions, but refuses to listen to arguments, and should be blocked for continuing edit war.

This user along with another user, User talk:ToonLucas22 have begun to team up on me throughout our discussions and insist that their opinion is at a higher position than mine. I find this very unfair and was exposed to a very upsetting feeling.

I meant no harm by doing these edits and strongly feel that it should be included.

I know that I may have started off the discussion with him a bit too aggressively, however I thought it was the only way to get him to listen, and am sorry now in hind sight.

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

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

• {{AN3|novioexplain}} ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of a week ToonLucas22 (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Note this is some sort of response to report immediately above. I realise I may have done one revert to much and I am genuinly sorry for that, I have never been blocked before and font intend to so I hope you take that in to consideration when decideing my faith. I also immediately stopped editing when I realized what was going on and has not edited since yesterday (when the nominator here continued against an other editor). It is all explained in my nomination above. QED237 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Also editor kept talking about other article with this info, but failed to see other articles that dont have it like the big articles Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney, Mesut Özil and more. QED237 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Slooppouts34 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Agreement)

Page

Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Slooppouts34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643316589 by Kiatdd (talk) BBC is a reliable source + there is another source cited also+ it's a common knowledge to Muslims & everybody & millions of sources exist"
2. 18:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643391740 by Wiqi55 (talk) Per talk, perfectly sourced, relevant & represented. Many editors reverted to keep this, meaning there are objection to removing this, so discuss on talk"
3. 04:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Family life */"
4. 04:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643473795 by Kiatdd (talk) You deleted the whole section contributed by 5 editors after talkpage discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Islam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

More discussion: [37] [38] NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User Kiatdd first removed a BBC source by saying that BBC is not reliable, then he removed a whole section that was contributed by 5 editors after long discussion, to push his POV. User Toddy1 also reverted this kind of vandalism--Slooppouts34 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not vandalism and there's definitely no consensus in that discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another revert [39] mislabelling an edit as vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet another. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User: CallAng222 is a new editor with 10 to 12 edits, started editing yesterday night, however account was created on 17 January.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

File a WP:SPI if you want. None of the four edits in the initial report involved them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, you have to establish consensus to change/delete a fully sourced section that has been in place for a long time, when there are objection by several established editors.--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Slooppouts34, you have now made four reverts in 24 hours, which breaks WP:3RR. If you will agree not to edit the Islam article for seven days it might be enough reason to close this complaint without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Thank you very much EdJohnston (talk).--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it ok if I continue editing on the talk-page during the ban?--Slooppouts34 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not Ed, but I think he would encourage that (as do I). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: To address the 3RR, Slooppouts34 has agreed not to edit the Islam article until 20:45 on 28 January, but he may still use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:71.15.46.27 reported by User:Dman41689 (Result: Semi)

Page

2014 in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

71.15.46.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Highest-grossing films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

edit waring even after they were warned Dman41689 (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two weeks. A lot of changes by IPs who are not using the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pesa123456789 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

M4M (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pesa123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Terry, it's a news site. You could be considered liable for libel for making such a comment."
2. 22:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "Random86 can keep his fingers off as allkpop is more reliable and active than Soompi, which is used on his pages as a source."
3. 20:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "1) There is a specific set of guidelines for music notability, of which they cover more than the minimum one. 2) If you'd took the time to actually read, you'd know that the sources of those sources are official media. Of which, I can corroborate."
4. 20:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC) "1) They do meet the criteria

2) Everything is cited from reputable sources."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Making legal threats on M4M. (TW★TW)"
2. EW warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tendentious editing. Removal of maintenance templates. Legal threats. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The editor's constant removal of maintenance templates is hard to swallow, regardless of who is right about the quality of sources. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lazord00d reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page blocked)

Page

Etizolam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lazord00d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643091989 by VQuakr (talk) no citation or reference for image Etizolamstick3d.png, reverting to ball and stick model which has citation. Do we require citations here or not?"
2. 05:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643157285 by VQuakr (talk) Provide citation for your content. Don't edit for personal reasons."
3. 07:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643485461 by JWBE (talk)Replaced with uncited image. Reverted. Also not your battle.. choose wisely :-)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Etizolam. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussed at Talk:MDMA#Image in header and Talk:Etizolam#Molecular structure. Editor has made it quite clear that they are not here to edit collaboratively. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

You reporeted me becasue I won't submit to your false consensus? Cool. Rest assured DMacks that until you or anyone else provide cited proof for your position along with suitable replacement images for all molecules I've modeled OR I am blocked, I will protect my CITED images from your vandalism. I'm persistent too you know. This could become a hobby for me lol.. Lazord00d (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Have I? From my view you were exactly the same to me when you first took issue with my input,. and have been progressively more aggressive in your tactics the more I resist you. You saw that I'm not your bitch and it pisses you off no end. I've provided solid citation for my position here: "I have provided this as proof: http://www.springermaterials.com/docs/substance/MJRKAJZYCIWMFSIA.html# The exact same type of molecular models are found in Springer's Landolt-Bornstein database. These images are not unusable, instead they convey the idea just fine and unless something with better citation than above on any existing image replaces them they should be left alone." Not gonna let you win this arm-wrestling match without some elbow grease though VQuakr.. just sayin. You have to do some work for it.. otherwise you look like an idiot talking shit.

Lazord00d (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. No 3RR violation here as far as I can tell. Bjelleklang - talk 11:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Reported by User:Altenmann (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am working on the rewriting the article Militant atheism, but my work in progress is being stonewalled by a bunch of editors, who keep reverting to a incorrect redirect and refuse to engage in the discussion in article talk page (ignoring direct requests in user talk pages), and their only argument is "no consensus" without further explanations. Please intervene. -M.Altenmann >t 09:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Not involved, but I count four reverts by you, all within 4 hours against 3 different users:

• [40] restored old good article. The current redirects shows militant ignorance of wikipedians. It is ages old political term
• [41] Reverted to revision 643485410 by Altenmann (talk): There is no consensus to delete valid articlde content. (TW)
• [42] please shop interfering with article improvement and use talk page
• [43] (no edit summary)

Be careful, that already places you over 3RR. Stickee (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Recommend longest block possible per block log. Altenmann quite purposefully and deliberately violated the 3RR 1.5 hours after he was warned about the consequences of doing so on his talk page.[44] He then purposefully filed this report to disrupt the valid report which was to follow. Furthermore, the user appears to be purposefully trolling Wikipedia, as he complains there is no consensus for the redirect while at the same time 1) ignoring the current consensus on the talk page,[45] as well as the 2) community consensus established at AfD.[46] If there is one single user that deserves a block at this very moment, Altenmann is their name. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bjelleklang - talk 12:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:106.37.236.171 reported by User:Lor (Result: Blocked)

Page

Multiplayer online battle arena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

106.37.236.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643510131 by 59.50.72.82 (talk)"
2. 12:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643509726 by 59.50.72.82 (talk)"
3. 11:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643504040 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
4. 10:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643501623 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
5. 10:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643500715 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
6. 10:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643500178 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
7. 10:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643499826 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
8. 10:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643499512 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
9. 09:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643499304 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
10. 09:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643498996 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
11. Consecutive edits made from 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) to 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    1. 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643498081 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"
    2. 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643497853 by 112.66.157.8 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Multiplayer online battle arena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP will not stop reverting edits, not too sure myself on what's the "Right" revision, but this will not really help in any case. Lor^Talk 12:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:RegistryKey (Result: No violation)

Page

Caisson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Restore the correct link Undid revision 643510007 by RegistryKey (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Caisson */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly has reverted a change I put in place to remove a red link from a disambiguation page that is already covered by a blue link on the same disambiguation page. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 12:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. No evidence that RegistryKey has attempted to work this out on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley reported by User:82.132.233.233 (Result: Reporting IP blocked)

Page: Caisson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Caisson (lock gate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

This began at Caisson where he edit-warred to insert a duplicate link. This was reported today http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Andy_Dingley_reported_by_User:RegistryKey_.28Result:_No_violation.29 but Dingley had his admin friend close it as No violation because 3RR needs 4 reverts. Work that one out.

Now he is doing it again and also keeps re-adding his WP:OWN article at Caisson (lock gate). This article has been deleted twice already this week when he was edit-warring to add the link.

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

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

Comments:

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week Reporting IP blocked for bad-faith report. The article was re-created appropriately and expanded by Andy Dingley (this is an encyclopedia, everyone) and RegistryKey discussed it with him,. This appears to have been attempt by an IP with a history of disruption to manipulate AN3 into a sanction against Andy.Acroterion (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sport and politics reported by User:Verzarli (Result: No violation)

Page: Gedling Borough Council election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sport and politics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps deleting infomation, reverting information. Trying to own page.

cur | prev) 21:30, 21 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,006 bytes) (+172)‎ . . (By-election tab added back in - as these will relate to same elections cycle.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:18, 21 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,834 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (Undid revision 643571618 by Verzarli (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:17, 21 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,863 bytes) (+29)‎ . . (Undid revision 643239392 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo) (cur | prev) 18:53, 19 January 2015‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,834 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (hidden until templates can be filled in and reliable sources can be sourced for the information (this is not blanking or deleting)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:51, 19 January 2015‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (26,832 bytes) (-29)‎ . . (→‎Ward Results) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 18:50, 19 January 2015‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,861 bytes) (-843)‎ . . (Bye-elections go on generic local elections page, council leaders and individual group leader are not notable, unrepresented parties leaders are even less notable and not included in infoboxes, do not add candidates without reliable third party sources.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:44, 18 January 2015‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,704 bytes) (-82)‎ . . (undo)

(cur | prev) 16:20, 30 June 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,071 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (Undid revision 614843774 by Nottingham Politics (talk) reliable sources please) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 04:45, 29 June 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,119 bytes) (+48)‎ . . (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:34, 16 June 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,071 bytes) (-27)‎ . . (Undid revision 613195360 by 90.200.96.1 (talk) reliable sources please) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 18:34, 21 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,083 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 604578799 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 10:52, 17 April 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,139 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603365812 by Nottingham Politics (talk) redirect as per Wikiepdia Norms and there is also no deletion, removing this redirect may though lead to deletion) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:14, 8 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,083 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603311826 by Sport and politics) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:08, 8 April 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,139 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603262557 by Nottingham Politics (talk) the article edits violate WP:Crystal redirected so as not to violate WP:Crystal) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 11:10, 8 April 2014‎ 80.254.158.4 (talk)‎ . . (26,083 bytes) (+88)‎ . . (added in named Conservative candidates.) (undo) (cur | prev) 05:57, 8 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,995 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 603214094 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:47, 7 April 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,051 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Wait until way closer to the elections are going to happen.) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:02, 7 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (25,995 bytes) (-55)‎ . . (Undid revision 601643834 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:00, 7 April 2014‎ Nottingham Politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,050 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (Undid revision 601643943 by Sport and politics (talk)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:14, 28 March 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,051 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Elections in the United Kingdom) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:13, 28 March 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,050 bytes) (+55)‎ . . (to far in the future restore closer to the event) (undo | thank)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

No violation – It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break 3RR. Successive reverts by the same person count as one. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnsonjack50 reported by User:Tabercil (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Laura Dern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsonjack50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]
5. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Comments:

User has been steadfastly removing two films from the filmography of Laura Dern. The most coherent statement about why those films should be removed is "Those Films Have To Stay Off The List Because Of A Lack Of Ratings & A Violation Of Governmental Authority." Additionally the use attempted to have the two films deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Season for Miracles, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novocaine (film) (2nd nomination) - which were all speedily closed as "inappropriate deletion nomination". After those nominations, the user's right to nominate was restricted by a different administrator. Tabercil (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Numerous attempts have been made to engage this editor about their editing behavior on the article in question, see Talk:Laura Dern. Also multiple notices about their editing on this and on other articles have been left on their talk page. Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

User:CallAng222 reported by User:NeilN (Result: )

Page

Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CallAng222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Slavery is ilegal everywhere, in every country of the world, and does not reflect the “family life” of 1.6 bilion muslim, from morocco to indonesia. So please be serious when editing this page, that needs to be as representative as possible."
2. 14:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643518670 by DeCausa (talk)"
3. 20:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Changes like this should first be discussed in the proper page."
4. 00:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC) "Slavery is illegale in in every muslim society of the world, and this page needs to be as representative as possible of th 1.6 billion muslim community worldwide. Something that is illegal everywhere is not representative of anyone."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Islam. (TW)"
2. 20:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Islam */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

And now we have the opposite side on this article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, i was wrong. But there is a real problem in that page, and by the way most of this problem come frome the same user that posted the slavery thing among others.The fact is that we have 22 or more muslim countries -some even theocratic - were slavery is illegale, and a web page Q&A where one person say what supposedly a muslim must do with slaves. And all of this in the "family life" section! Does not make sense i think. So i reverted because this person must prove that slavery is widespread in muslim families, otherwise we are offering inevitably a distorted image of muslim families. I recognize it was wrong but the situation was really absurd, completely reversed from what should be the logic. Sorry.CallAng222 (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

CallAng22, this complaint might be closed if you will promise to wait for consensus at Talk:Islam before reverting the article again about slavery. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I promise. But the problem is: it should not be for him to prove his claims?

We are talking about almost two billion people: talk about slavery in this context would require to go very cautious.CallAng222 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)