Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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:Ifzam2003 reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jalan Pantai Barat Kedah, Jalan Lembah Bujang, Jalan Tandop and Jalan Rekreasi Tupah
User being reported: Ifzam2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Jalan Pantai Barat Kedah
2. Jalan Tandop
3. Jalan Rekreasi Tupah
4. Jalan Lembah Bujang

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Ifzam2003 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgwhite (talk • contribs)

Comments:

I changed the header to show that Ifzam2003 rather than Bgwhite is the person being reported. Otherwise the content of the report doesn't make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston What doesn't make sense? There are 4 articles involved. I gave the history of all four articles to show the reverts. Ifzam2003 writes in ALL UPPER CAPS as is stated on the talk page. You've warned them for writing in all upper case.Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What didn't make sense was your original header, 'Bgwhite reported by Bgwhite'. You are not requesting a block of yourself, so far as I can tell. If there is no response from Ifzam2003 a block seems likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston Ahhh.... ok. Ok, your not making sense about me not making sense, makes sense now :) I'm slow. They reverted the articles again. Bgwhite (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:AKS.9955 and User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: Ryōtarō Okiayu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: AKS.9955 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Unbuttered Parsnip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Unbuttered Parsnip

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

AKS.9955

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Unbuttered Parsnip

• [9]

AKS.9955

• [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempts made by either editor

Comments:

• Comment: Hello, I am user AKS.9955. Please see my detailed comment on this subject here. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:47, 28 October 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. will continue this discussion at ANI. Swarm ♠ 00:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:GoodDay reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action)

Page

Stephen Harper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687863827 by Legacypac (talk)It doesn't serve readers. There's no rush. Wait until Harper resigns"
2. 04:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687852328 by Legacypac (talk)PLEASE, wait until he actually resigns."
3. 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "1) He hasn't resigned, yet. 2) It's not November 4, yet & 3) We don't exactly know when he'll be resigning, yet."

And several days ago

1. [11] (Undid revision 687004560 by Legacypac (talk)That's not how it's done here. PS see WP:RUSH)
2. [12] Undid revision 687001145 by Legacypac (talk)That's not how wed do it. We wait until the transition occurs)
3. [13] (I checked the calender. It's not November 4, yet.)

He's also doing this on related articles.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[14]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Infobox */"

Comments:

User refuses to accept any editor's effort to put the known end date of a defeated Prime Minister's term in, going back for days. Will add more diffs. Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already reverted to Legacypac's preffered version. Therefore this report is moot. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The material was speculation and unsourced at the time - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and claims should not be based on what we know weill happen, as a rule. At this point, the issue is entirely moot. Collect (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've already restored Legacypac's version (before the report was made). I'm asking that he withdraw his report. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not speculative, its been in every serious Canadian media outlet you can name. [15]. Given that he has reverted after I filed this report, the only thing I'm asking is that Goodday refrain from editing any article about Stephen Harper until Nov 4. Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I deleted before you made your report. GoodDay (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe while I was making the report, it takes time to do these reports. Just agree to stop reverting all the editors that keep adding Nov 4 as a start for Justin's reign and the end of Harper's term and we can all go our happy way. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well. We'll allow others to decide if the date should remain or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the above discussion and per Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox it appears that people have agreed on removal of the end of Stephen Harper's term as prime minister from the infobox. The end of his term is predicted by some to be November 4, and this prediction is already in the article text though not currently in the infobox. So there is no longer an edit war. It is assumed that GoodDay will make no further reverts about the end of Harper's term. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

User:103.15.165.231 reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: blocked)

Page: Draft:Minhazur Rahman Nayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.15.165.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]

IP persists in removing a draft's Articles for Creation history and comments despite escalating warnings on their talk page not to do so, and repeated restorations of the AfC material by myself and another AfC reviewer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on IP talk page: [22]

Comments:

The AfC process for this draft would benefit from short term page protection or a block to cool the IP down and wake them up to the collaborative no-ownership nature of Wikipedia. Worldbruce (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Guru Noel reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Duplicate report)

Page: Daraa offensive (October 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guru Noel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]

The article in question is part of the Syrian civil war-related articles, which are all under a general 1RR sanction. The editor made 3 reverts, two above the allowed limit. PS The original article was deleted by consensus, editor in question recreated three carbon copies of the deleted article under three different article titles (with only a sentence or two of difference between them). At the deletion discussion page he expressed his intent that despite the deletion decision, he was going to re-create it under different titles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I expressed my intent to create a different structure to the topic(s) in question. The article was repeatedly deleted without due process or procedure. My reverts include new sources to clarify the difference between one big giant offensive and lots of individual offensives, all equally notable. Both unwarranted deletions and this report would seem part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda aimed at targeting these offensives by diminishing their coverage and notability. Guru Noel (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment First, the one new SOHR source you provided that you alleged confirmed the offensive does nothing of the sort. The source only mentions a instance of shelling on a town, nothing about an offensive in the province. This would constitute a miss-representation of the source and possible POV OR. Second, accusing fellow editors of attempts of censorship and propaganda is in violation of WP policy on assuming good faith and civility. To the accusation of us being part of some kind of Saudi-Qatari influence I won't even respond. Third, the main issue here (which you ignored) is you broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. And not just once, but twice. Which warrants an automatic block. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Shelling is an offensive. SANA and SOHR report every day on different parts of it, shooting drones down, whatever. You should try reading and counting the dead people killed in the offensive. Iranian and Russian news too. I could find sources about it every day. Why you are trying to hide it is the main issue here. One russian or american soldier dies and they get an article, probably the delta force or whatever operation they die in gets an article. Hundreds of Syrians die in one of several major offensives and you try to cover them up. Why are you defending someone deleting articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia codes of conduct? These are the main issues. Guru Noel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Has Guru Noel been warned about the 1RR restriction? If not, shall we warn him/her now and hope for no further violations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 4, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ I think he is aware since he joined in and left the comment here on the noticeboard, but totally ignored the fact he broke 1RR, offered no apologies or to rectify his mistake, and said his potential block is part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have totally ignored the fact that I broke 1RR because I didn't. I restored an illegally deleted page. With new sources. Guru Noel (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment There was nothing illegal about it, all articles are subject to change by anyone at any time (also read WP policy on being bold). And you did not provide new sources. You provided only one source, which does not even confirm your allegation that there is an ongoing offensive. 1RR is when you revert any kind of edit more than once. You made 3 reverts. The fact that you do not even want to acknowledge you broke WP policy (1RR) makes me believe you will violate it again. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am not violating anything, I am repairing Wikipedia:Vandalism, pure and simple. Case closed. I would direct your complaints towards the vandal. I have provided more sources for JUST today's action in the Daraa offensive (October 2015) (which took a while) and would be pleased to discuss things more there. Guru Noel (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Duplicate report. See below. EdJohnston (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Spike-from-NH reported by User:Shalir Salim (Result: all warned)

Page

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

User being reported

Spike-from-NH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Revert Shalir Salim again (Summary: "Improved")--As before, tries to expunge references to one of the two alternative sites. See WP:AN/I"
2. 00:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687655589 by Shalir Salim--As before; you are welcome to escalate; I already have"
3. 22:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Anon continues revert war already reported to Admins; additional detail on Greggs incident is pointless"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Uncyclopedia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user, along with another is constantly attempting to give preference to an alternative version of the site by reverting anybody who attempts to improve the neutrality of this article. Shalir Salim (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The .co site is a fork. It has a drastically lower alexa ranking than the wikia site. In addition to that, UncycloWikia is still actively edited. You are the one edit warring with multiple editors. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the .co site is the actual Uncyclopedia where the majority of the community is based. All social media links and interlanguage project links to the .co site. The Wikia site is run independently from the main site as a fork or a different branch and is not affiliated with the community at the main site. You and Spike-from-NH have been constantly favoring Wikia in your edits and reverting anybody who either says otherwise or amends the article to maintain neutrality and reference the Wikia site as a prominent branch. The Alexa rating covers the entire Wikia network, not just Uncyclopedia therefore that bit of information is both unreliable and irrelevant. I suggest you stop digging. Shalir Salim (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if the Alexa rank covers all of Wikia, UnccloWikia still is higher ranked on most, if not all search engines. In addition, the fork was created AFTER the wikia site. Just whois uncyc.co and I'll be proven right. (Domain Registration Date: Sun Apr 03 01:25:50 GMT 2011) In addition, UncycloWikia still is actively edited. Not all the community went there. Both sites are active. Both are Uncyclopedia. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 19:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The majority of the community, including all social and interwiki references, refer to .co as the main site and therefore should be treated as such. The Wikia site ceased to be the main Uncyclopedia site back when .co was opened and while it is still active, it is not referred to as the main site by any sources except yourself and Spike-from-NH. The Wikia site is still active and still maintained a following after .co was opened but it is no longer the main site and shouldn't be treated as such. The current version of the article takes all of this into account. Shalir Salim (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Social Media is not RS. Are there reliable secondary sources that confirm that .co is indeed, the supposed "main" uncyclopedia? In addition, parody wikis are not RS either. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 21:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that point to either as the main site? If not, both would need to be mentioned, probably giving preference to the version which is most linked by official social media (as they are a reliable source for facts regarding themselves if there are no RS that state things to the contrary.) PeterTheFourth (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I cannot find a non-social link to say that either .co or .wikia.com is the main site, Uncyclopedia's official social media links (Twitter, Facebook) as well as the projects mirror website and interlanguage portal give preference to the .co site. I cannot find any social media links for the Wikia site whatsoever. Shalir Salim (talk) 12:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

All editors involved in this edit war (including Shalir Salim, DungeonSiegeAddict510, Spike-from-NH) are hereby warned that further reverts may result in blocks. The talk page Talk:Uncyclopedia has not been edited since 2 October. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course .co's social-media creations link back to .co. The Wikia website has social-media pages too, though Shalir Salim "cannot find" them. Shalir Salim's account is one week old and his business has primarily been to expunge Wikia from the Uncyclopedia page. The fork at .co has used many tactics over the years to divert traffic there, including several waves (pre-2-October) of editing the Wikipedia page and subjecting those who reverts them to disciplinary review. Now PKHilliam creates an account apparently for no other purpose than to weigh in and state the exact opposite of the facts, assisted of course by a couple of IPs. Anyone warning me not to edit ought to review the Incidents noticeboard, the article's history and talk page, and Shalir Salim's talk page including the numerous warnings he has deleted to stop marking articles for deletion, and ensure that this campaign of personal attack by sudden new users does not succeed in stampeding Wikipedia to point to one website at the expense of another. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Facebook Page for the Wikia site has a much smaller following than that of .co and isn't as high up on the search for Facebook profiles. I am all for Wikia's version being mentioned on the article, I have even made my own mentions myself but you must accept that social and project links favor the .co site and nothing you can say will change that. Shalir Salim (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert reported by User:Calidum (Result: blocked)

Page

Jeanne Shaheen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688029555 by Roscelese (talk) This is a consistent attempt to insert bland language in place of informative terms like the truthful pawn shop"
2. 03:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688021945 by Roscelese (talk) The material is sourced."
3. 03:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688021641 by Roscelese (talk) The source is reliable to people who accept the truth that the Manhattan Declaration is about religious freedom"
4. 03:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688020519 by Roscelese (talk) You are trying to turn Wikipedia into a POV pushing enterprise that only allows liberal sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None at Jeanne Shaheen. See however Talk:Bill Shaheen where I raised the same concern.

Comments:

JPL also created a separate article on the issue at Bill Shaheen (and edit warred there too [27] [28] [29]) and then a third article at Bob Fennelly, all in an attempt to declare Jeanne Shaheen guilty by association in direct violation of WP:BLPSTYLE. Calidum T|C 06:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Johnpacklambert and User:Roscelese blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wait; User:MSGJ, you blocked User:Roscelese too? That seems to be a pretty obvious BLP exception, and was labelled a BLP exception in the edit summaries. The innuendo she was reverting was sourced to the Washington Free Beacon. Please unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are familiar with the article or source and you think I've made a mistake then go ahead and unblock. I haven't got time to look more deeply at this time, but will return later. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't. But per your comment above, I'll ask the next uninvolved admin who comes along to take a second look. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Did you look at what was being reverted and the edit summaries? There is no way the Washington Free Beacon is a RS and there were BLP violations being reverted. Obvious BLP exception to 3RR. Dave Dial (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies if I got this wrong. Apparently what's obvious to one editor is not as obvious to another. I'm happy to go with the consensus on this, especially people more familiar with the article and "source" in question. In this light, so people feel that the block I placed on User:Johnpacklambert may be too lenient? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Partially struck the above as I see events have progressed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Kurzon edit-warring Mafia

User:Kurzon, blocked 3 times already for edit-warring (the last time about the same situation in the same page), has just violated the 3RR rule: he has performed 4 reverts in less than 24 hour (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mafia&action=history), the first today at 06:12 and the last today at 10:21. I am waiting until 24 hours pass before restoring the page, I hope he will be blocked again for breaking the rules, meanwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.14.131 (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Already dealt with. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User:DrJekilMrHyDe reported by User:NottNott (Result: blocked)

Page

Das (surname) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Elaborate and broad edit for authentic information. Thanks"
2. 13:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 12:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 00:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Das (surname). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After a message on both his and my talk page, user claims ownership of the page and fails to seek consensus. I've used my final revert on the page for now, and it seems unlikely that the user will stop enforcing his own revision any time soon. NottNott talk|contrib 15:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that he hasn't edited since being warned. If he logs in and promises to stop edit warring, then I'll happily unblock. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Guru Noel reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)

Page: Daraa offensive (October 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guru Noel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

The article in question is part of the Syrian civil war-related articles, which are all under a general 1RR sanction. The editor made 3 reverts, two above the allowed limit. PS The original article was deleted by consensus, editor in question recreated three carbon copies of the deleted article under three different article titles (with only a sentence or two of difference between them). At the deletion discussion page he expressed his intent that despite the deletion decision, he was going to re-create it under different titles. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I expressed my intent to create a different structure to the topic(s) in question. The article was repeatedly deleted without due process or procedure. My reverts include new sources to clarify the difference between one big giant offensive and lots of individual offensives, all equally notable. Both unwarranted deletions and this report would seem part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda aimed at targeting these offensives by diminishing their coverage and notability. Guru Noel (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment First, the one new SOHR source you provided that you alleged confirmed the offensive does nothing of the sort. The source only mentions a instance of shelling on a town, nothing about an offensive in the province. This would constitute a miss-representation of the source and possible POV OR. Second, accusing fellow editors of attempts of censorship and propaganda is in violation of WP policy on assuming good faith and civility. To the accusation of us being part of some kind of Saudi-Qatari influence I won't even respond. Third, the main issue here (which you ignored) is you broke the 1RR rule which applies to all Syrian war-related articles. And not just once, but twice. Which warrants an automatic block. EkoGraf (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Shelling is an offensive. SANA and SOHR report every day on different parts of it, shooting drones down, whatever. You should try reading and counting the dead people killed in the offensive. Iranian and Russian news too. I could find sources about it every day. Why you are trying to hide it is the main issue here. One russian or american soldier dies and they get an article, probably the delta force or whatever operation they die in gets an article. Hundreds of Syrians die in one of several major offensives and you try to cover them up. Why are you defending someone deleting articles in blatant violation of Wikipedia codes of conduct? These are the main issues. Guru Noel (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Has Guru Noel been warned about the 1RR restriction? If not, shall we warn him/her now and hope for no further violations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 4, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MSGJ I think he is aware since he left the comment here on the noticeboard, but totally ignored the fact he broke 1RR, offered no apologies or to rectify his mistake, and said his potential block is part of a Saudi-Qatari influenced censorship action and propoganda. EkoGraf (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment I have totally ignored the fact that I broke 1RR because I didn't. I restored an illegally deleted page. With new sources. This case seems to have been raised in error in support of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Guru Noel (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. The phrase 'illegally deleted' doesn't apply to the Daraa offensive (October 2015) article. Other editors changed the article into a redirect three times and Guru Noel undid that three times. These edits by Guru Noel broke the WP:1RR rule. The editor's further comments above indicate he has no intention of undoing his change. Guru Noel hurts his own case by using the term 'vandalism' incorrectly to refer to a content dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Courtier1978 (Result: )

Page: {{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Emergency, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Turkey |List of wars involving Russia, Cyprus Emergency, Turkish invasion of Cyprus, List of wars involving Cyprus, List of wars involving Turkey}}

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

Extended content

Previous version of List of wars involving Russia reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Russia&diff=688110361&oldid=687799167 Previous version of Cyprus Emergency reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_Emergency&diff=687202685&oldid=685615764 Previous version of Turkish invasion of Cyprus reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus&diff=688064331&oldid=632123029 Previous version of List of wars involving Cyprus reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Turkey&diff=687880147&oldid=620946311 Previous version if List of wars involving Turkey to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Turkey&diff=687880147&oldid=620946311 Diffs of the user's reverts in List of wars involving Russia: [34] [35] [36] Diffs of the user's reverts in Cyprus Emergency [37] Here is reverting in two parts. [38] [39] And here is deleting a source. [40] Diffs of the user's reverts in Turkish invasion of Cyprus [41] [42] [43] [44] Diffs of the user's reverts in List of wars involving Turkey [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Diffs of the user's reverts in List of wars involving Cyprus Here is reverting in two parts [60] [61] Here is edit warring [62] [63] Another reverting in tho parts.... [64] [65] And then in one part.... [66] Here is reverting in many parts [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] Here is edit warring again [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]

Comments:

User Mikrobølgeovn is edit warring the articles List of wars involving Cyprus and List of wars involving Turkey, for more than a year now. He closely cooperates with user GGT in edit warring articles. He is following me, and deleting all my edits in everything. He writes insulting comments in my talk page. He accuses me in the administrators on false charges. He did the same with previous users in the past that had as a result their blocking for good.

Evidence on what is going on can be found here, since I have written about the case to an administrator recently and another administrator add some of the discussions there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buckshot06#Cyprus_emergency

If more information is needed just let me know.Ron1978 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I see no violations of 3RR, although editing on List of wars involving Russia is getting close. Ad hominem comments like this and this are unacceptable and will result in a block if they continue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I was never notified of being reported (as the reporting user is obliged to do). Second, when someone intentionally adds wrong information to make a point, that's vandalism. Ron1978 can have whatever opinion he'd like, but if he went on and changed the result of WWII to "decisive Axis victory", don't expect anyone to uphold the 3RR. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User Mikrobølgeovn is lying as usual. I have never added wrong information and I have never added anything or any result in WWII. You can check this from my history. On the other hand user Mikrobølgeovn is constantly edit warring the articles, constantly pushes POV, constantly accuses users to the administrators on false charges, constantly lying about other users to the administrators, constantly cooperates with another user to push other users in edit warring and then report them, constantly following other users and deleting their edits, and constantly deleting all the victories of the Greek or Greek Cypriot side in the articles related to Cyprus and Turkey for more then a year now! The non-reliability on what he is saying both now and in general, can be seen from his history and from the evidence that I have providedRon1978 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I never claimed you made changes to WWII. No matter how you twist things, Russia did not win World War I. I don't know why you suddenly got so interested in pressing this claim, but at the very least take it to the main article before making changes to navigation tools. I am aware I broke the 3RR, but I don't recognize this as a content dispute, and I don't believe it applies in cases of clear vandalism. And that's what it is when someone makes harming and disruptive edits just to make a point - vandalism. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn has just reverted again the article of list of wars involving Russia , with out any concession, in the talk page, and he accuses me for vandalism on the article of list of wars involving Russia, while just a while ago an administrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SantiLak#Edit_warring said to him that what I did was not vandalism. He is lying as usual and accusing other users, as usual, on totally false charges, while he is constantly deleting whatever any other user is adding. How exactly did he came to the conclusion that I vandalize, and I am making harming and disruptive edits, to make a point? Perhaps, is he accusing, as usual, other users for what exactly he is doing, as usual, as well?

Mikrobølgeovn is a problem both for NPOV in Wikipedia and other users adding NPOV versions. You can check the evidence that I have provided. They are overwhelming and he is a problem, for a very long time now, as evidence showsRon1978 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Ron1978 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Having to put up with this is honestly very tiring. I've been here for years. I've had disagreements with many users along the way, but you're the first one to describe me as a "problem". --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Among all your other misconducts, you are constantly deleting all the NPOV edits that everyone else is adding, as evidence shows. Wikipedia is not an one man's show.Ron1978 (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Vormeph reported by User:DeCausa (Result:page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

Vormeph's response to the 3RR warning is here, after which they made their 4th revert. DeCausa (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@DeCausa: As the accused here, I only reverted such edits under the grounds that they were biased and were not appropriate for the said section. For the moderators' own knowledge, a personal relationship between me and DeCausa exists and there are more personal than political/editorial reasons as to why DeCausa, having not been invited to join the discussion at the talk page, persisted in reporting me. He is reminded that reporting another editor isn't going to resolve a single issue and will only brew more fire. I therefore call on DeCausa to retract this report and bring himself back to dialogue to resolve our differences. Banning me will only prolong that.

• Page protected There's no 3RR violation as the fourth diff isn't a revert, but I have no confidence the edit war won't resume. Work it out, people, and keep your personal differences out of this project. Katie^talk 02:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: The fourth diff isn't a revert? Vormeph's first three reverts to the infobox changed

de jure Islamic republic de facto some variant of Theocracy: Unitary presidential republic under absolute islamic sovereignty

to

Islamic Republic.

Vormeph's fourth revert was to change it to

de jure Islamic republic de facto Unitary presidential republic

i.e. he removed for the fourth time the words "some variant of Theocracy" and "under absolute islamic sovereignty". Can you please explain how the fourth removal of those words doesn't breach 3RR? Surely it's not because it's not an identical revert to the other 3 reverts as policy is clear that is still a revert for 3RR: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." It clearly is "in part". Also, page protection implies that more than Vormeph is involved in edit warring. Vormeph's 4 reverts were against two other editors: myself with one revert and UCaetano with two reverts. Vormeph was trying to change text that was longstanding, with no support from any other editor. You page protected the page with Vormeph's fourth revert. Can you reconsider your decision here please.

By the way, and for the record, the only "the personal relationship" between me and Voremph exists entirely in Voremph's mind. We had one very brief exchange about a very minor issue several months ago. It appears to be an issue for him, but not for me. I only remembered him when I posted the 3RR warning on his talk page and saw my previous post. DeCausa (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the lock @KrakatoaKatie:, I tried to bring @Vormeph: to the talk page to discuss but he/she seemed pretty driven towards pushing his POV. For the record, this is my first interaction with him and we're already discussing on the talk page now. Could you please revert the page to the status before the edit war begun? As it is now it's locked in an intermediary status with no consensus. Thanks! UCaetano (talk) 09:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@UCaetano:, unfortunately it's unlikely that she will revert Vormeph's last edit on the ground that it's "the wrong version". She could if she or any admin reads the consensus on the talk page as being in favour of the pre-edit-war version, I guess. DeCausa (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Reaganomics88 reported by User:Nonsenseferret (Result:48 hours)

Page

Hard Left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Reaganomics88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC) "No you do not need to describe who uses a term when describing. In addition, WP:NOR."
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) to 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Not in source"
   2. 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Unsourced"
3. 11:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 688057851 by Garageland66 (talk) Not in source"
4. 15:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "I am sorry you disagree with my well sourced definition but it is the truth. I am no right-winger, I find the atomised individualism of the right depressing. I am instead a centrist and a liberal."
5. 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "Restoring well sourced and accurate information and combatting WP:PRIMARY and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Hard Left */ new section"
2. 20:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC) "edits: new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There have been many attempts at talk page discussion, see for example: diff

Comments:

A further warning was given on the talkpage including attempts to discuss the issues and avoid edit warring, see diff. Also, the user has made uncivil comments, accusing others of being "deluded" per diff. ℕ ℱ 23:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC) User also seems to think it appropriate to alter other user's comments on this noticeboard per diff. Clearly it is not. --ℕ ℱ 00:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Katie^talk 02:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Davidwr reported by User:2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (Result: Semi)

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Other articles that User:Davidwr has reverted and refuse to comply

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Comments:
Keeps reverting article to fit his personal opinions. Very Non-Neutral. The article clearly states that it's a Diploma Mill article but in the Mexico Section article, the 2007 SEP Source mentions nothing about the institutions being a diploma mill, but only unrecognized in Mexico. This article is for Diploma Mill's and not colleges who have accreditation but not recognized in a certain country. A lot of institutions on this list now have accreditation but User:Davidwr keeps reverting other editors changes back to the way he wants it and not for accuracy. Information in this article is outdated and when editors make changes, User:Davidwr reverts them or refuses to comply with accuracy. All types of sources have been provided by multiple editors but it appears that User:Davidwr only wants it his way. Please do something about this editors as needs some training on how to be neutral and not one-sided.

2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a related discussion at Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education#Remove Atlantic international University from the list. I've notified User:Davidwr of your complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I think this is the first time since my early days at Wikipedia that I've been seriously accused of misconduct at an administrator's noticeboard. It's entirely possible that I have a blind spot here and bringing this to my attention - and everyone else's - will open my eyes and make me a better editor.

However, I'm not willing to concede this just yet. Please read on...

I could be mis-reading things but as best I can tell, the disputes revolve around whether:

• The accreditation of a particular school in Hawaii which was very recently accredited by a non-US accreditation agency but whose programs are not accredited has meaningful accreditation or if it is, from a potential employer or graduate school's perspective, accreditation in name only (obviously I think the latter is the case here). The matter is complicated by the fact that the accreditation agency's accreditations of schools in its home country are generally considered valid - but that is in part because schools in that country also have to meet other standards as well. In general, reputable schools in the United States that wish to be accredited with seek regional accreditation and the will seek to have their programs accredited (there are are of course rare exceptions of known-high-quality schools that do not seek accreditation), and
• As of 10/29, whether the recently added text and its reference demonstrate that the text that refers to the state of affairs in 2007 is outdated and should be removed, or whether the recently added text belong in the article alongside the text that discusses the state of affairs in 2007 (obviously I don't see the new information as superseding the previous information).
• Additional background can be found in recent conversations on Talk:List of unaccredited institutions of higher education and Talk:Diploma_mill as well as the recently-closed-as-delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantic International University. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

These two articles' talk pages seem to be lightly-trafficked, making it difficult to determine what the Wiki-consensus on this matter really is.

I would welcome a WP:Third opinion, preferably from editors with expertise in how colleges in the United States and Mexico (respectively) are accredited and what accreditations are taken seriously by employers and reputable graduate schools in those countries. Even better than one "third opinion" would be a full-blown discussion with many editors, so no one editor (such as myself or 2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443) will be able to dominate the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), again numerous sources have been provided to this articles talk page from a bunch of others that contradicted the Mexico section. The 2007 sourced information should NOT be placed under an article called Diploma Mill as the information is a archived source and not from an official website from the SEP. Also, the article on states that the institutions are NOT recognized in Mexico and does not mention anything about Mexico stating that the institutions are Diploma Mill's. If you read the entire talk page of this article you were totally ignoring the information provided and chose to put the article the way you wanted. EdJohnston I asked that you please review all talk pages and review all the other editors information before making a decision. Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made several edits to these articles and several of one-sided bias statements, one in particular whereas he implied the Atlantic International University is a diploma mill based on google search, but failed to see that it's now accredited. this source should be removed from the article as there is no mention from the SEP's 2007 article stating that these institutions are Diploma Mill's. The reference is from an archived site and AIU has authority to operate in Mexico and they have a location there. If they were considered a diploma mill in Mexico, they would be kicked out just like the rest of the Diploma Mills in the past. Please see this & this information. As you can see the Mexico section is outdated and inaccurate and does not belong in this article. 2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Diploma mill has been semiprotected three months, due to an IP-hopping edit warrior. The same person has edited the article using three different IPs in the month of October. Feel free to create an account and resume editing, so long as you make a good-faith effort to find consensus for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: and anyone else reading this:
    • Is there anything I should have done differently?
    • What is the best way to attract other editors to this page to discuss what this article should include (specifically, what is the consensus opinion of the practical definitions of accredited and diploma mill and what does it "take" for an institution that was rightfully put on either list in the past to be removed?). Of course this editor - whether registered or not - would be welcome to participate in such a discussion (however - any editor with any WP:Conflict of interest would of course be expected to declare such a conflict - this especially includes editors who have connections to accreditation agencies or government agencies whose "approval" is relevant to the definitions of these terms).
  • davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have a couple of ideas but would prefer if you would open a section on my User talk and ask the question there. I'd start by asking people who participated in the two AfDs of List of unaccredited institutions of higher education, even though the AfDs are in the past. If memory serves, User:DGG and User:John Vandenberg have had some thoughts about this issue. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done. See User talk:EdJohnston#Continued from WP:AN/EW#User:Davidwr reported by User:2605:E000:6009:9700:6959:2801:24B5:F443 (Result: Semi). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

User:MrKing84 reported by User:Cebr1979 (Result: Both warned)

Page

Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MrKing84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If someone is already at 3 reverts on a single page in a 24-hour period and has point-blank, flat-out stated they will be reverting a fourth time... Can it be brought here or do we have to wait for the 4th revert to happen first?Cebr1979 (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would be inclined to think that it can be brought here. The "3 reverts" is a bright line - breaching it means edit warring - but it is not a limitation - edit warring doesn't have to include a "3 reverts" violation. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Amended - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. You said you "would be inclined to think that it can be brought here" but, then you said "edit warring does have to include a "3 reverts" violation" so... since there hasn't been a 3-revert violation but, there has been a declaration of making a violation... can it be brought here: yes or no?Cebr1979 (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. That was a typo. I meant "doesn't". I have amended the statement above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thank you. Cebr1979 (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. Declaration of making a fourth revert. He's just going to wait until the 24 hours is up and then go back which should be considered just as disruptive as if he were to make the fourth revert now.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. (not on the article's talk page, took it to ANI instead)

Comments:

Having a problem at the Kyle Abbott (The Young and the Restless) page. User:MrKing84 really likes that character and is known for coming to the page whenever he logs on to wikipedia and, if he doesn't like something, regardless of being told where the conversation happened that what he doesn't like is the correct way, he just reverts and reverts until we end up here or somewhere else (something that has been brought to his attention by other editors at his talk page.

It's silly, really, but... it's not going to end. That page has had to deal with him before.Cebr1979 (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would just like for Cebr1979 to stop harassing me (and other posters) for one thing. He has a history of making condescending remarks towards other editors. Now he is trying to cite a previous edit war he was involved in with another editor from a few months ago, as a reason to keep a last name in a caption of a picture. Yet there is no policy that says the last name of a person or character must be in the picture's caption (yes that is how ridiculous this is, a last name in a picture caption of TV character). That is what this is all about. But it is like I told him on another page he reported me to, his own words are not a policy. His own opinion is not a Wikipedia policy. He doesn't seem to understand that. When some editor tries to point these things out to him, he appears to take them personally and lashes out at the other editor by doing things like this. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not harrassing you, there's been no previous edit war, and I've already explained everything to you here but, you're just continuing to ignore what is said to you in order to continue making yourself right and justify your non-stop reverts to that page (which, as I've pointed out, has been going on for a long, long time - not just with this... and you've blatantly stated you don't plan on stopping). The current consensus is: captions go with the common name. The character's common name includes both the first and last name.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are indeed harassing me. This little thing has now turned into long discussions on multiple pages. A lot of back and forth. Now you're trying to report me and get me blocked. That is harassment. Not to mention the little condescending remarks that you like to make (and I'm not the only one who has mentioned this to you). I haven't ignored what you said. I pointed out that you are were talking about "which last name was the right one" with the other editor in the links you provided. The issue here is the relevance of the last name in the caption. Not every picture caption on Wikipedia has a persons/characters last name, so there is no set policy on this. --MrKing84 (talk) 08:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• I notice that there is no Talk page discussion on this issue. I'd consider it worthwhile if both editors could outline their reasons for their preferred version on the article Talk page, with a view to requesting a third opinion if no agreement can be found. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • As I clearly stated, there is no talk page discussion because it went to ANI instead. If you read that conversation (which I linked to), everything you just suggested has already been done.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed the WP:ANI discussion, I see a lot of comment on contributor, but not as much discussion of the content. While I realise there is a certain degree of bad blood, my suggestion is that you, please, in a new section on the article Talk page, place a statement each, detailing the reasons for the preferred content - The caption of this photo should be "X" because.... I would also suggest that neither of you edit this part of the article until you have done so. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm not starting a discussion that's already been had. If he wants, he can go hard.Cebr1979 (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:MrKing84 and User:Cebr1979 are both warned. The next one of you who adds, removes or changes Kyle's last name in either direction, Jenkins or Abbott, without first getting a talk page consensus, may be blocked. These warnings are in lieu of full protection of the article, which would be unfair to the others who aren't parties to this edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Ron Karlos L. Castillo reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)

Page: Honor Thy Father (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ron Karlos L. Castillo (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

This user keeps adding a second date template in the infobox, which goes against the MOS for films. At first, I WP:AGF and thought it was a genuine mistake posting on his talkpage (there is also another issue of WP:COPYVIO too). There was no reply. Second time the second film date template was added, I went back to his talkpage. No reply again. Third revert, I went back to his talkpage, this time asking if they understand what I have written (or not). Again, no reply. Fourth revert, I went back once again asking if they understand. Once again, no reply. This user is actively editing other articles, so I don't think it's a WP:COMPETENCE issue. I have no doubt they'll add the spurious film date template back in a day or two without engaging in WP:BRD. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

And a few hours after logging this, and notifying the user, he goes back and re-adds the template! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Blocked– 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Zqxwcevrbtny reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: )

Page: Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zqxwcevrbtny (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. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]
5. [99]
6. [100]
7. [101]
8. [102]

and about a dozen more

• Diff of notice about WP:BLP issues [103]
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]
• Diff indicating awareness of BLP and Editwarring [105]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:

• If Zqxwcevrbtny refuses to stop adding BLP violations to the article, I have to endorse sanctions. I don't know if he's just not listening or if he's got an agenda. There's also the possibility of a competence issue, considering that after I brought BLPCRIME to his attention twice in edit summaries [107][108] I also left a detailed note on his talk page and pasted the relevant BLPCRIME text with important parts bolded, he continues to make problem edits. It doesn't seem that he read or understood any of the policy, because after TRPOD reverted an edit by Zqxwcevrbtny that contained the problematic content, Z restored it with an edit summary that suggests he thinks the issue is sourcing, not potential defamation.

Note also that I opened a discussion at BLP/N two days before this editor even showed up, to get input from BLP-familiar editors about the suitability of this content. I also filed a Help Desk request in case someone haunting that board was BLP familiar because in the days prior to this user showing up, I had been dealing with an IP editor who also didn't care about/didn't comprehend/wasn't listening to my BLPCRIME concern. This may or may not have been Zqxwcevrbtny, but I'd probably also encourage page protection to stymie any continued disruption. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:108.26.174.18 reported by User:Darkknight2149

Pages: Sith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Joker in other media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.26.174.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Joker in other media:

• [109]
• [110]
• [111]

Sith:

• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]
• [116]
• [117]

Comments:

This user was just blocked for editing warring on the Joker in other media last week and, only several days after becoming unblocked, the user returned to edit warring on Joker in other media (even after two discussions were started on the Talk Page, which the user refuses to respond to). The User continues to ignore every single attempt at a discussion. Although the user hasn't broken the 3RR on this article since he has been unblocked (at least, not YET), the user's actions still constitute edit warring and their reverts are exactly the same as the ones from when the user did break the 3RR (which the user was previously blocked for).

Not only that, but the user also returned to an edit war that I was previously unaware of at the Sith article, which the user has never been reported for and has been involved in for months. Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:RevRoderickCDavis reported by User:Super48paul (Result: )

Page

Gospel of the Holy Twelve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[118]

Diffs of the user's reverts

[119] [120]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[121] [122] [123] [124]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

several messages on editor's talk page: no reaction

Comments:

Just check the Gospel entry, view history and you will see the 'war' unfold. Editor even adds some more (unsourced) material in the process. Do what is necessary - the editor seems to be deaf. Does not react on talk page. Super48paul (talk) 22:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Courtier1978 (Result: )

Page: List of wars involving Russia
User being reported: Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]
4. [129]
5. [130]
6. [131]
7. [132]
8. [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:

User Mikrobølgeovn is constantly deleting what everyone else is adding in the article. This is going on for a very long time, as you can see from the history of the article. I have added, just the most recent ones.Ron1978 (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)