Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

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:Mimi C. reported by User:NCdave (Result: stale)

Page: Ben Carson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mimi C. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to (diff): [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] 19:15 Removed "where all 3rd and 4th year students receive scholarships in return for military committment," which had been inserted 23 minutes earlier, at 18:52, by Christo1234, as shown above
2. [3] 19:59 "(Reverted 1 edit by Christo1234 to last revision by Cwobeel.)"
3. [4] 20:48 "(Undid revision 689388498 by Christo1234 (talk) please see Wikipedia rules. Your revision is not supported by references, whereas, mine are. The title of the Politico article is not mentioned.)"
4. [5] 20:50 "(reinserted "Carson's campaign conceded to Politico that he had never been offered a full scholarship")"

At 20:51 (one minute after his own 3RR violation) Mimi C. posted a very harsh comment on Christo1234's Talk page, accusing him of disruptive editing and vandalism, and threatening him with being "blocked from editing." [6]

At 23:47 I posted a comment on Mimi C.'s Talk page asking him to not be so harsh toward inexperienced editors: [7]

18 minutes later, instead of responding, he simply deleted it (blanked the whole Talk page): [8]

Subsequently, he has continued to edit the article; e.g.: [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

I am not involved in this edit war, but Christo1234 (whose edits Mimi C. reverted four times in 95 minutes) did try to resolve this dispute on the article talk page. Here's the diff of his/her attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Christo1234 posted that at 20:39, which was 9 minutes before Mimi C.'s 3rd revert.

At 20:44 (four minutes before Mimi C.'s 3nd revert) Christo1234's edit comment asked Mimi C. to "please see talk page" to discuss their argument: [12]

The section Christo1234 created is still there; Unfortunately, Mimi C. did not reply (neither did anyone else): [13]

Comments:

What troubles me most is the way that Mimi C. treated an inexperienced editor. I don't know either of these editors, but Christo1234 rarely edits on Wikipedia. This was the first time (s)he had edited in nearly a year. He or she only edited on one day in 2014, and two days in 2013.

Everyone on Wikipedia should be treated courteously, but inexperienced editors especially so, to encourage them to contribute. Instead, Mimi C. repeatedly reverted Christo1234's well-intentioned edits (four times in just 95 minutes), ignored his or her entreaty to discuss it on the Talk page, accused him or her of disruptive editing and vandalism, and threatened him or her with blocking.

Wikipedia should be a friendly place. That was not friendly. That's the sort of treatment which causes editors to abandon Wikipedia for long periods of time. NCdave (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

From my POV: (note, this is concerning the Ben Carson article where conflicting stories were being reported about him throughout the day, causing confusion among editors).

At the time, I found Christo1234's edits were unsubstantiated due to lack of proper references, his POV was biased towards the subject matter (which goes against the neutrality rules of Wikipedia) and quite a few grammar and punctuation issues were found in his sentences. I looked up his history and found that he had barely made any edits over the years. I had kindly asked him to please read Wikipedia rules. When Christo kept reverting back to his own erred edits, I had deduced (perhaps erroneously), that he was a troll which is why I sent out the (TW) Wikipedia Warnings of blocking to deter him from further editing, which he eventually did. I then received a note from NCdave, whom I don't know, and who was not involved in the edit war. I decided not to respond and went ahead and cleared my talk page (which I regularly do - I'm assuming I'm allowed to since it's my own?). I apologize if my actions appeared abrupt and I will be more patient and responsive in the future with editors. After being an editor for a long time on Wikipedia, and seeing common trends and trying to decipher if the person is trolling or not, we tend to jump to conclusions too easily, and forget that once, we were once Wiki novices too, in need of patience as well. Again, my apologies. Regards, --Mimi C. (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't analysed these edits in detail, but this revert certainly seems inappropriate as you reintroduced poor grammar to the article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol, good catch Martin!--Mimi C. (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Stale --slakr^\ talk / 12:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

What are the criteria for dismissing a complaint as "stale?"

I'd like to have at least seen some assurance from Mimi C. that (s)he will strive to be gentler on inexperienced editors in the future. Instead, he complained that "[Christo1234's] POV was biased towards the subject matter (which goes against the neutrality rules of Wikipedia)."

That statement is manifestly false, because Christo1234's edits give no evidence of any bias for anything except truthfulness and even-handedness, and Mimi C.'s statement also shows that Mimi C. is still assuming bad faith on the part of Christo1234.

In fact, Mimi C.'s edits to the article -- not Christon1234's! -- repeatedly inserted already-discredited and poorly-sourced negative material, despite Christo1234's Talk page objections, such as the false accusation that "Carson's campaign conceded to Politico that he had never been offered a full scholarship."

Christo1234 complained, on the article Talk page, that "8) carson never "concedes" to politico anything, yet this word is then added to wiki story as fact and reverted to without explanation. / 7) the reversions being made by mimi c. do not contain any comments as to why, just reversions." Mimi C.'s response was no response, except to immediately reinsert the false material into the article.

I'd like to have seen some indication that Mimi C. will refrain from such behavior in the future, before dismissing the complaint as "stale." NCdave (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@NCdave: This noticeboard isn't for general conduct complaints; it's for edit warring and three-revert rule violations, not exorcising assumptions of bad faith or assessing what should or should not be used in an article. Please see WP:ANI, WP:DRN, and WP:M for the former; see the article's talk page (and if needed the requests for comment system) for the latter. --slakr^\ talk / 10:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Martinkunev reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: warned)

Page: Trans-Pacific Partnership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinkunev (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. 18:15, 13 November 2015‎ (Undid revision 690377065 by Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq (talk)) (undo | thank) [14]
2. 20:33, 13 November 2015‎ (Undid revision 690441768 by Phoenix7777 (talk) you can discuss this in the talk page) (undo | thank)[15]
3. 20:42, 13 November 2015‎ (there is no such agreement) (undo | thank)[16]
4. 20:56, 13 November 2015‎ (Undid revision 690446640 by DiscantX (talk) there is a talk section about this; nobody seems to notice it and want to have a discussion) updated since my last visit (undo | thank) [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

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

Comments:
The edit war was started by User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq here. I tried to keep the page in its original state. User:Phoenix7777 refused to engage in a discussion, claiming that there has already been reached an agreement while there is no agreement at all.

1. 13:54, 13 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,941 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (already reached agreement.) (undo | thank)
2. 14:39, 13 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (86,941 bytes) (-23)‎ . . (Undid revision 690444803 by Martinkunev (talk). no consensus at all. also as I said it has been reached agreement.)

Here is a discussion regarding the conflicting edits on the page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Trans-Pacific_Partnership. I'm sorry that wikipedia's policy specifies that I can only try to preserve a page 3 times a day. Martinkunev (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the word "agreement". The agreement means the TPP has been reached "agreement", not "controversial" reached agreement as I said "no consensus at all". So the word "proposed" is unnecessary.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether the word "proposed" is appropirate is currently discussed in the talk. You removed the word "controversal" while there is an ongoing discussion whether it is appropriate. There have also been numerous tries to edit the article (I've mentioned some here) to make the agreement sound good (which violates NPOV). Martinkunev (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Warned — It doesn't appear Martinkunev has continued at the moment (since the edit warring warning). I have, on top of the warning, left a {{Alert}} for on their talk page. Feel free to update this or re-report if they continue. --slakr^\ talk / 13:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the warning. The only reason why I was warned is because at least three people were trying to change the page (the first one most likely not a genuine user) and I was the only one trying to keep its original content. Nobody bothered to engage in the already started discussion before making dubious changes. I was watching the page for more than a week in order to prevent vandalism. It's clear that some people's interests go against the objectivity of the article and there is evidence for such people (most notably User:CFredkin who has sockpuppeting history) making edits. Here are some examples:

[19] # 19:06, 28 October 2015 CFredkin . (83,206 bytes) (-1,078). (→Investor–state arbitration (ISDS): rm not from reliable source)

[20] # 22:57, 28 October 2015 C.J. Griffin . (84,284 bytes) (+1,078). (Undid revision 687938053 by CFredkin (talk) Rv. Both Stiglitz and DN! qualify as RS)

[21] # 06:41, 7 November 2015 CFredkin . (83,919 bytes) (-1,337). (→Cost of medicine: Pls provide a secondary source for this to indicate notability.)

[22] # 08:28, 7 November 2015 DavidMCEddy . (85,759 bytes) (+1,839). (→Cost of medicine: added secondary source to indicate notability)

[23] # 19:54, 7 November 2015 CFredkin . (83,920 bytes) (-1,839). (→Cost of medicine: Sorry, Democracy Now is not a reliable source)

[24] # 20:24, 7 November 2015 C.J. Griffin . (85,655 bytes) (+1,839). (Undid revision 689504992 by CFredkin (talk) yes it is. We've been over this already.)

[25] # 20:34, 7 November 2015 CFredkin . (83,816 bytes) (-1,839). (Undid revision 689508848 by C.J. Griffin (talk) after the last discussion in Talk, it was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Lead_paragraph_does_not_indic)

There are several discussions related to this in the talk page.

The edit that started the war, was made by User:Plokmijnuhbygvtfcdxeszwaq which is likely a sockpuppet account. After my first revert, User:Phoenix7777 made the following change (which sounds very much like the last edit of User:CFredkin and just like it makes an invalid argument).

[26] # 14:39, 13 November 2015 Phoenix7777 . (86,941 bytes) (-23). (Undid revision 690444803 by Martinkunev (talk). no consensus at all. also as I said it has been reached agreement.)

I reverted the change, explaining that "there is no such agreement" and started a user talk discussion. User:DiscantX made the change again claiming that I have to justify myself. Finally, me and User:DiscantX discussed the issue. I explained to him that I was the one keeping the content under question unchanged (until a decision is reached at the talk) and he was the one changing it. He agreed on that ("Okay, you're right there").

User:Phoenix7777 never responded me in his user talk. At the end he accused me of violating the 3RR. As I said, I find his/her actions completely inappropriate.

I'm writing all this because I have done nothing wrong. I want to contribute to wikipedia and instead of doing that I'm forced to waste more than 8 hours of my time defending myself while I've done nothing wrong and in the process, I have to also waste other people's time.

At the end, the content of the page was changed (the word "controversial" was removed), without any discussion while there clearly are several opinions on the topic.

Martinkunev (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:12.239.13.142 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: 31h)

Page

Hulagu Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690491467 by Loriendrew (talk) I provided the resources if you have any trouble about it look it up yourself before deleting content. Until then stop unnecessary deletions."
2. 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690484750 by Loriendrew (talk) I have provided my resources, and if you folks would just look it up rather than blindly taking it down I would be grateful. Thank you."
3. 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690397264 by Kansas Bear (talk) I have provided my resources from which the additions were found in please look it up."
4. 01:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690356973 by Kansas Bear (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hulagu Khan. (TW)"
2. 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. (TW)"
3. 17:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: HowToCite. (TW)"
4. 18:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also see edits at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A subsequent search of the IP's source on the Hulagu Khan article;

• A Concise History of the Middle East, by Arthur Goldschmidt Jr
  

reveals no mention of Hulagu's conversion to Buddhism, no mention of syphilis or ruptured aorta. This is the very issue the IP has edit warred over. Also, the IP's edit warring at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising[27] appears to incorporate a fake book.[28] --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 10:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mlg666666 reported by User:NFLisAwesome (Result: 31h)

Page: South Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mlg666666 (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. First case
2. Second time
3. Third time, this time reverting rather than simply readding
4. Fourth time, second revert
5. Fifth time, third revert
6. Sixth time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Mlg666666 had been reverted a few times by Geraldo Perez, and despite Geraldo saying to take it to the talk page, they continued to add it, as seen with the sixth diff. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati) 19:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 10:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:Lx 121 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Info/Background: This case has a LONG history; the user has been "camped out" on this article since 2013; their ONLY significant editing activity has been to remove uncomplimentary material from the article. Persistently. Repeatedly. With little or no rationale. The user isn't even pretending to be applying "BLP" anymore.

The user has removed material added by multiple users; over years. I only got into this thing by noticing the user's activity.

The user has gotten into multiple disputes & edit wars, with multiple users, over the years. The user has had 1 (& the same) sympathetic "buddy" backing him up in many of these; which has been sufficient to either "win" or at least keep them from being blocked from editing the article.

Talking to him hits a blank wall; been there, done that, more than once.

Opened yet another discussion on the article's talk page about it, no response; except to delete more material from the article, & I'm pretty sure the user is watching the talk page too.

The diffs are legion. Here is the article's history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=history

If you do a word-search, "hillbillyholiday" comes up 27 times in the last 1000 edits. The overwhelming majority of those are for edits removing material (i.e.: material that is uncomplimentary to the subject). The only exceptions to this are a few additions of tags (to same type of content).

...& lets be clear: the factuality of the material IS NOT in serious dispute. ALL of this stuff is in the public record. It was said, it was done, etc. It is sourced & more sources are available; the range of sources being removed by this user negates any credible arguement of "RS". The edit-comments of the user range from moderately credible invocations of "RS" or "BLP" to point blank "WP:I don't like this".

This has been going on for long enough. We are pretty free & easy with swinging the hammers @ Wikimedia these days (protect, block, ban, etc.), & we've lost a lot of good people that way. This is a case where action is LONG overdue; it would be nice to see some action in a case that actually deserves it.

Diffs of the user's reverts: (see above) for the current "battle" see:

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

Then 3 more "whitewash" edits in succession, cumulative result shown below:

1. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:

Addendum: If you look @ the user's overall contribs, this person also appears to be engaged in a minor campaign to eliminate any use of dailymail.co.uk as a source, from any article they come across. Unless we are going to formally blacklist the daily mail as an RS, the user really shouldn't be doing that. Not a blocking offense, but it does fall somewhere between a useless activity, & potential NNPOV source-bias nuisance. Lx 121 (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lx 121 (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Notification to user: [37]

Lx 121 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Follow-Up: And the user has now deleted my comment & notice on their talk page. Less than 1 hour after posting it; & no reply/response. Lx 121 (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Any user is entitled to do that. Under these circumstances I would have done the same. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 10:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

comment: well i don't delete anything from my talk page, doing so makes a JOKE of "archiving"; but that issue is beside the point. i mentioned this action in order to demonstrate 2 things: i) that the user is aware of the situation, & ii) that the user is uncommunicative/unresponsive/uncooperative (pick whatever term you like best, to describe it). Lx 121 (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You give the impression of someone new to the ways of this project—for example, the Talk page history demonstrates both of these actions forever.
Beware that you do not finish up here shooting yourself in the foot. Best to avoid a boomerang at all costs! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

actually i've been "here" since 2009, & i must have something like 15,000-25,000 edits "under my belt" by now, though more of them are @ wmc than @ wp/en; &, with all due respect, just because "for example, the Talk page history demonstrates both of these actions forever." -- that doesn't mean that it's a good thing. AND as i said in my post just above "i mentioned this action (ON the talkpage) in order to demonstrate 2 things: i) that the user is aware of the situation, & ii) that the user is uncommunicative/unresponsive/uncooperative (pick whatever term you like best, to describe it)."

i appreciate the advice; but a) we are off on a tangent from the actual issue here, this is about a user who is "whitewashing" a biographical article; obviously, & repeatedly. with impunity. & b) if the community process @ wikipedia is really SO broken that it can long longer fix a simple, obvious problem like this one, then i really don't need to be spending my time @ wikipedia anymore. i have already drastically cut the amount of time i spend editing @ wikimedia projects, because i've been really turned off by how BADLY "the system" is working now. i can find other things to do. i can find more productive, useful things to do. & i'm certainly not the only user who feels that way; it looks like even a lot of the "dedicated" admins are going. a lot of the boards seem pretty dead, compared to what they used to be like a few years ago. Lx 121 (talk) 06:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No violation – It takes four reverts in 24 hours to break WP:3RR. If you have questions about the usability of sources you can ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

...my complaint is about 'EDIT WARRING, NOT "3r" specifically. if you re-read my original post, you will find that i never even mentioned WP:3RR, JUST edit warring.

"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 than 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."

"back in the day" this [38] used to count as an "edit war".

if we're NOT in an edit war, i'll just put the page back to the state it was in, before hillbillyholiday started chopping, AGAIN, & you can let me know when it counts as an edit war?

otherwise do i need to RE-FILE this complaint, or can we have another review of this one; preferably by a different admin?

Lx 121 (talk) 06:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

OR perhaps you could recommend another board, more relevant to this particular type of user-problem? Lx 121 (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Wikimandia (Result: Filer and reported blocked 72 hours)

Page: John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

(update) After this report started:

1. [44] POD warned by EdJohnston that he is risking a block and should offer explanation
2. [45] POD replies he does not care about administrators
3. [46] POD adds fifth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous warnings on his page: [47]

Comments:
User is a serial reverter and appears to suffer from WP:OWNERSHIP. Apparently on this article he wants the intro to only say subject is presumed dead, which is not true, as his son has been attempting (and failing) for years to get him declared legally presumed dead so he can inherit the earldom. I did not warn him this time as he knows 3RR well (is here regularly) and his threatening message on his talk page to all who dare challenge him says enough.

—Мандичка^YO 😜 09:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Where has the 16 October Independent report been cited in the main article text? If it has not been added to the main text, it should not be summarised in the lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The text cites this source for the failure - [48] I added the Independent article from October just as an addiional more recent source. The court case is back in the news and thus has renewed interest in the case (see spike in page views). My concern is that it is quite factually incorrect in the intro now, he is most certainly not presumed dead and this looks like an obvious goof to anyone who has come to the article after seeing it in the news. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So... add the new source to the main text, and summarise it in the lead if it is sufficiently important. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, done. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

He has reverted that change, so it is clear the reason that that article was not also cited in the body is not the reason he is being reverted. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• It is clear that there is no breach here. PoD is merely trying to maintain the article by keeping it in good order. What a cliché the OWNERSHIP accusation is in situations like this where the reporting editor is themselves clearly struggling with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cassianto^Talk 15:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • • This is not IDONTLIKEIT. It is "article is factually incorrect." Although I tend to dislike it when that happens. —Мандичка^YO 😜 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• This seems to be a content dispute. I see no exemptions from edit warring here. This was edit warring. I will leave this to another admin to decide on the best action. HighInBC 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• HighInBC FYI POD stated (link above) he does not care about administrators (refusal to participate in this report) and added an additional revert. —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I have blocked POD for 72 hours for continuing the edit war after this report was filed. Both POD and Wikimandia had engaged in edit warring prior to this report but Wikimandia had the sense to stop so I don't see the preventative value in blocking Wikimandia at this point. However I urge Wikimandia not to engage in further edit warring in the future, my decision not to block was a discretionary one and a block would be justified. HighInBC 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears I was in error, Wikimandia also made another revert after filing this report. So I am going to give the exact same block for Wikimandia. HighInBC 22:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Takafumi1 reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: )

Page

Raja Raja Chola I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Takafumi1 (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 08:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC) to 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Malai Nadu */"
2. 03:44, 10 November 2015
3. 21:29, 9 November 2015
4. 02:56, 9 November 2015

… etc.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:42, 9 November 2015
2. 03:25, 8 November 2015

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:43, 9 November 2015 (Not sure if this counts.)

Comments:

User:Takafumi1 has been repeatedly removing {{refimprove}}, {{unreliable sources}}, {{page needed}}, {{not in ref}}, and other tags from Raja Raja Chola I. Takafumi1 also persists in adding unreliable sources to the article. They have not responded to warnings (by myself and also by User:Kansas_Bear) on their talk page and continue their disruptive editing even after attempts at discussion. They also consistently refuse to add edit summaries to their edits. There might be WP:OWN issues at play as well as the pages that Takafumi1 edits the most appear to revolve around the Chola dynasty. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Takafumi1 has been adding tags to the Mahmud of Ghazni article, without any explanation.[49][50] --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:WouNur reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked)

Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WouNur (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]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [58] [59] [60]

Single purpose account ignoring repeated attempts to engage on talk. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Still reverting after notice of this case posted on user talk. SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This editor has a personal theory about banking that he is eager to share on Wikipedia (see his user talk page). He has been adding the word 'fraudulent' to the fractional reserve banking page. His account was newly created on 12 November. If he proves unable to edit neutrally a longer block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hanam190552 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)

• Page: North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:Vietnamese elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
  
• User being reported: Hanam190552 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although they have't broken 3RR (yet), this user is edit-warring across multiple articles. This started when they attempted a cut & paste move of North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946 to 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election. Once this was reverted, they have made multiple attempts to add dubious and biased ("unpatriotic Vietnamese") information to the article:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First attempt to add such information
2. Second attempt
3. Third attempt

At this point the article was locked after I made a request at WP:RFPP. As a result, they then started editing the article that they had created via the cut & paste move:

1. First recreation (after the cut & paste move had been undone)
2. Second recreation

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Opposed: I Provided official information for reliable sources, which are official newspaper of Vietnam, Pre-1946 elections in Vietnam were not conducted by VietnameseHanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition to this, they have been repeatedly making inappropriate edits to {{Vietnamese elections}}, namely removing the pre-1946 elections (probably to back up their claim that the 1946 elections were the first in Vietnam), changing the link for the 1946 election to the title they cut & pasted the article to, and changing North Vietnam and South Vietnam to Democratic Republic of Vietnam and Republic of Vietnam, despite the fact that the latter two redirect to the former two:

1. First attempt
2. Second attempt
3. Third attempt

Whilst this has been going on I have been attempting to get them to stop this and discuss (see User talk:Hanam190552#Cut & paste moves) but sadly it has not stopped them from continuing to cause problems on the articles. I note that they were blocked twice in October for edit warring at Vietnam-related articles. Number 57 16:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Opposed: I Provided official information for reliable sources, which are official newspaper of Vietnam, Pre-1946 elections in Vietnam were not conducted by Vietnamese. User: Number 57 prevent me to redirect pages and provide official informationHanam190552 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week – The editor seems to have some knowledge about Vietnamese politics but he needs to follow consensus here. He has been blocked twice before and the outlook for the future isn't good. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Hanam190552 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: 1946 Vietnamese National Assembly election User being reported:: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:: [61]

User:Number 57 provided unofficial and bias information. User:Number 57 tried to prevent me from correcting by request block page: [North Vietnamese parliamentary election, 1946]

Violation by rediceting 3RR

1. [62]
2. [63]

besides that, in discussions, he cannot defend his arguements17:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The information provided by User:Number 57 was bias informationHanam190552 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is clearly an attempt at revenge following my report of this user immediately above. Sadly it seems the user is unfamiliar with what 3RR is (citing two reverts not four), and those reverts are of them having made a cut & paste move. Should be a classic WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 17:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)You request the block before I can redirect. Secondly, You cannot show the results of the 1946 election in areas like me, You cannot prove that the 1946 election occured in only the North Vietnam by figure but I can prove that the 1946 election occured in all areas of Vietnam by official figures, the figure from the website of National Assembly of VietnamHanam190552 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Your book provided bias information, the book had not provided full information, the number of seats of the First National Assemly was wrong (the truth is 403 seats, but the books said 302), the party name on the ballots (the truth is Viet Minh, not Vietnam's Labor Party), and the number of seats of each party. The book does not provide the information that Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang and Vietnam Revotionay League did not particpate the 1946 election because they had gained 70 seats by an agreement with Viet Minh in December, 1945 Hanam190552 (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC).

• Result: Filer blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:LjL (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65] "Poland" did not declare anything. One politician wrote something on an online forum. Until this is official policy or such, it doesn't belong here. WP:NOTNEWS plus a host of other policies
2. [66] uh, it's "countrY" not "countrIES" - did you even bother before hitting the revert button? And this text blatantly misrepresents the sources
3. [67] NOT a "minor" edit, off topic, POV pushing and misrepresents the topic.
4. [68] I'm sorry but there is no such consensus (and it's ridiculous to claim "consensus" when the discussion just started) and it's dishonest to try and claim that there is

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
This editor has been single-handedly trying to suppress otherwise unanimous consensus that the material should stay (in this article as well as at International reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks). Consensus can be witnessed at: [71] [72] [73]. I think the less-than-pleasing attitude of this editor can also be witnessed in the same places (except #1, where he didn't participate, and which formed the initial consensus). He self-reverted after the 4th revert, but at this point I think that was not done in good faith, since he subsequently sent me a counter edit-warring warning after that. Therefore, I decided to report anyway, considerin also the reverts / removals of content from the sub-article. LjL (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeez freakin crist.

No, I have not been trying to "suppress" anything. I've removed material which is off-topic and which was based on a misrepresentation of a source.

No, there is no "unanimous consensus" that the material should stay. There's two editors, one of them LjL, who disagree. These two users have not really engaged in productive discussion here nor have they asked for outside input.

I did self-revert here because, as much as I disagree with the edit, I'm perfectly willing to wait for this to sort itself out. Basically what you got here is two editors who are rushing to add irrelevant and off topic material about the tragedy in Paris, with what looks like a pursuit of an agenda (blame the refugee crisis for it). Per WP:NOTNEWS there's no reason why this material MUST BE in the article now. One of them is also misrepresenting a source. I do think that in a week or two this will sort itself out as it becomes apparent that these are just sensationalist statements from some politicians. I guess in the meantime Wikipedia's going to look a bit more foolish.

Now, this report by User:LjL is clearly in bad faith as they acknowledge that I self-reverted. Somehow apparently, in LjL's world, the fact that I self reverted is proof that "I am not acting in good faith". Good grief! Catch-22. Seriously, filing a 3RR report on someone after they voluntarily self reverted pretty much IS THE DEFINITION of acting in bad faith and of having a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to editing. Worthy of a WP:BOOMERANG.

This is basically an attempt at intimidation. And speaking of bad faith, here is LjL trying to WP:CANVASS other editors to edit war for them "Can you please" revert for me? If that's not trying to WP:GAME the edit warring policy I don't know what is. Volunteer Marek  01:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

"There's two editors, one of them LjL, who disagree": this is completely inaccurate. Please check the 3 links given for many more editors. LjL (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

In the link you provide, one other editor says its notable, another says it may be notable but doesn't know about reliability of the source, and the third has a question about the phrasing ("who"). You call that "clear consensus", which is... false. Basically, the discussion HAD JUST STARTED, but you went running around immediately claiming "consensus". Which illustrates your battleground mentality.

And then you tried to get other people to do the edit warring and reverting for you. Which illustrates your battleground mentality.

And then, you obviously OBSERVED that I self-reverted and reported ANYWAY. Which also illustrates your battleground mentality.

 Volunteer Marek  01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Battleground like this? LjL (talk) 02:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on the article by LjL

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

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert

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

Ok, now back to LjL's edit warring:

• 5th revert
• 6th revert
• 7th revert

Note these three are reverts of essentially the same material.

• 8th revert
• 9th revert
• 10th revert

Again, these are reverts of same nature.

• 11th revert
• 12th revert
• 13th revert
• 14th revert

Four reverts on the same issue/text.

• 15th revert

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

• 16th revert
• 17th revert

Both on same theme.

• 19th revert

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

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

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

I'll leave it to the admin to gauge using their best judgement whether a collection of mostly unrelated edits on a high-traffic article that has had a number of hard-to-follow inaccuracies introduced is equivalent to what I posted about you. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any non-drive-by editor who hasn't technically "undone whether in whole or in part" other edits on this article in the past few days. I also "appreciate" how, by not filing a separate report, you have neglected to send me the compulsory notice that I'm being reported for edit warring.

Note that I had expressed concerns about 1RR sanctions and strict interpretation of revert rules before, and in response, those restrictions were lifted by Fuzheado (while Volunteer Marek was actually asking for full article protection). Not quite the same thing as 4 reverts of the same material, ignoring of consensus and yelling all over the place, in my book. LjL (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not just "mostly unrelated edits", it's about four different edit wars. There's no exemption from 3RR for "high traffic articles". However, I do understand that in a new article sometimes people get caught up in reverting others like you did here. That's fine. But then you run and file a report on somebody else the first chance you get. It's some kind of "edit warring is fine for me but not for thee" mentality. And that is a problem. Volunteer Marek  18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be involved in numerous arguments, Marek, and your behaviour is very much rude: you attack people, you swear, you are even blasphemous. You seem to be engaged in edit warring on many fronts. Is it maybe time for a little time away from Wikipedia, Marek? --109.69.249.37 (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Blasphemous? Anyway, the above IP is a user who has been harassing me for a few weeks now, and who 1) just jumped into a dispute only because I made a revert, 2) this dispute involves user inserting WP:HOAX material based on a non-existent source into the article Warsaw Ghetto Uprising [74] [75], 3) is a sockpuppet of another disruptive user [76]. In fact, I am really sick of having to deal with crap over and over again, with admins not doing anything about it. Volunteer Marek  08:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

See also this previous report [77]. Volunteer Marek  08:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:208.163.226.188 reported by User:Aspects (Result: )

Page: Phantasy Star Online 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.163.226.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

User:Rockhound57 reported by User:Samtar (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page

Saks Fifth Avenue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rockhound57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Does not violate WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ( Undid revision 690754178 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "No those are future events that are scheduled planned to happen. "Promo tone" is subjective, those are facts about the store which is plausible.Undid revision 690756723 by Samtar (talk)"
   2. 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "No those are future events that are scheduled planned to happen. "Promo tone" is subjective, those are facts about the store which is plausible.Undid revision 690756723 by Samtar (talk)"
   3. 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690757385 by Rockhound57 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Saks Fifth Avenue. (TW)"
2. 14:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring by User:Rockhound57 */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring by new editor to include future events in article - written in a mildly promotional tone. Have attempted resolution samtar ^{t} 14:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have made several attempts to contact samar on his talk page with zero response or explanation behind the removal of my revert. I have not edited since he asked me not to. The section he wants to remove should not be removed. I will continue not to be disruptive and cautious with my editing. ThanksRockhound57 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have replied Rockhound57 - as I stated, this is now a discussion on your edit warring and not nessesarily the content you are disputing samtar ^{t} 14:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not warred with you but only asked you to explain your revert...Rockhound57 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: User is a suspected sockpuppet samtar ^{t} 15:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Seafoxlrt616 reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [79] (24 October 2015)

Next relevant diffs:

• Problematic change, possibly by the reported user
• The reported user's minor edit coming shortly afterward

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83] (3RR violation here)
5. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

User's response: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. First attempt
2. Second attempt

Comments:

The changes borderline on vandalism. They clearly disfigure the article. This could have easily been a dispute (albeit with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues) has it not been for the user's unwillingness to do anything besides hitting the revert button. Fleet Command (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. There may indeed be a WP:CIR problem, but we can't let them keep reverting forever. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mulkhan reported by User:Yerevantsi (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]
5. [91]
6. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93] by User:EtienneDolet

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

Comments:
User:Mulkhan is a single purpose user who refuses to cooperate, i.e. discuss the issue on the article talk page and instead prefers edit warring.--Երևանցի ^talk 15:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The edits were made because the potentially libellious material was being repeatedly inserted; talked in the talk page until it's carried on to the discussion board, please refer to that page. For keeping the discussion in one place; the link to the discussion was posted in the relevant place in the "controversies section" until all policy issues are made clear. The edits were made according to the reasons stated in edit summaries and per policy issues stated in the discussion board. Mulkhan (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You, and yourself only, are the only user that stands by your own words. There's at least five users ([94][95][96][97][98]) who disagree with you and would like to keep the article at its previous and more stable state. Please be reasonable, utilize the talk page, discuss, and stop the edit-warring. It's pretty simple. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Fully protected, 4 days. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:141.8.61.233 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Irreligion by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 19:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 20:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "My edit is constructive because according to the referenced source the world atheist percentage is 41% not 36% because no response means no religion as well!"
4. 20:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 14:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 15:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 15:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 16:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "I insist in an aggregated figure because both"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Irreligion by country. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1012:B102:F649:302E:14EC:B130:7F03 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

2600:1012:B102:F649:302E:14EC:B130:7F03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Bronze Age origins */It's bc"
2. 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BC): El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel */It's BC"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age II (1000–586 BC)Yahweh as God of Israel */It's BC"
   2. 17:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Bronze Age origins */It's BC"
4. 17:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BC)El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel */It's BC"
5. 17:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Bronze Age origins */It's BC"
6. 17:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Iron Age I (c.1200–1000 BC)El, Yahweh, and the origins of Israel */It's BC"

ADDED 17:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC): 7

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yahweh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Tanbircdq (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Criticism of the Israeli government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<[99]-->

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]
6. [106]

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

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

Comments:

The editor has been editwarring by removing sourced content with various editors, including Makeandtoss and Denniss for nearly a month on this page. Temporary full-protection was added to the page recently but the editwarring continued once the protection was removed. The user has been warned about her disruptive editing but she ignored this and has continued to revert. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Mohsin17 reported by User:Elockid (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: List of metropolitan areas by population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of slums in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of tallest buildings in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mohsin17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: List of tallest buildings in Pakistan, List of metropolitan areas by population

Diffs of the user's reverts:

List of metropolitan areas by population

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4

List of slums in Pakistan

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3

List of tallest buildings in Pakistan

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revert 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5
6. Revert 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: List of metropolitan areas by population (Not exactly talk page though), List of tallest buildings in Pakistan

Comments:
See also here and here for history of edit warring/disruptive editing. Mohsin17 does not have any interest in discussing as evident by the number of editors who Mohsin17 has been edit warring with on multiple pages. Instead he/she accuses the other editors of being for example racist or Islamophobic. I know List of slums in Pakistan and List of tallest buildings in Pakistan isn't as recent, but I'm including it just to highlight Mohsin's edit warring history. Elockid ^{Message me} 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Many reverts. Zero article talk page posts. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:12.239.13.142 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Hulagu Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690397264 by Kansas Bear (talk) I have provided my resources from which the additions were found in please look it up."
2. 17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690484750 by Loriendrew (talk) I have provided my resources, and if you folks would just look it up rather than blindly taking it down I would be grateful. Thank you."
3. 18:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690491467 by Loriendrew (talk) I provided the resources if you have any trouble about it look it up yourself before deleting content. Until then stop unnecessary deletions."
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 17:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690566108 by MarnetteD (talk)"
   2. 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Military campaigns */"
   3. 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Death */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hulagu Khan. (TW)"
2. 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. (TW)"
3. 17:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Notice: HowToCite. (TW)"
4. 18:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
5. 19:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC) "/* IP 12.239.13.142's edit warring */ reply"

Comments:

User blocked for 31 hours on 13 Nov 15, resumed after block cleared. Also edit warring at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and Alexander the Great in the Quran ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 19:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Resumption of edit warring after block expired. No use of talk pages. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

User:KahnJohn27 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [108]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

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

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

User:74.216.86.188 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Jim Sterling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690819961 by DMacks (talk) No original research, in addition, WP:NOTFORUM. Also, Twitter and youtube links are Original Research WP:NOR"
2. 22:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690819275 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk) WP:NOT"
3. 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Criticism of Steam Greenlight and developer incidents */ Not encyclopedic. Please read up on Wikipedia policies."
4. 04:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Digital Homicide */ None of this section is encyclopedic, Seems to be fan written."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [115]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple warnings given. Ben^Yes? 22:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Twitter posts and youtube links are not published research. In addition, it isn't notable. 74.216.86.188 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, comments from reddit are not sources for an encyclopedia either.. Nor is tumblr blogs. 74.216.86.188 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours By DMacks NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:81.35.40.239 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

81.35.40.239 (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 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690823048 by Carniolus (talk) false dont believe it. Is false"
   2. 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822897 by Crboyer (talk) false dont believe it is false"
2. 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822736 by Crboyer (talk) Vandalism"
3. 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822661 by Carniolus (talk) Vandalism."
4. 22:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822483 by Crboyer (talk) vandalism from multiple users"
5. Consecutive edits made from 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) to 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822128 by Carniolus (talk) vandalism"
   2. 22:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690822262 by 81.35.40.239 (talk) vandalism. Tangled 2 is real"
   3. 22:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Vandalism. Its true. Tangled 2 is inevitable"
6. 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690821968 by Carniolus (talk) tangled 2 is beyond question"
7. 22:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690821862 by Carniolus (talk)tangled 2. Is beyond question"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Requests for Page Protection. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours By GB fan NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Parsa1993 reported by User:Zpeopleheart (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122] invitation to discuss at talk page [123]

Comments:
Parsa1993 is edit warring at the count of 4 so far. Plus user made a personal attack against me by calling me a cretin simply for enforcing wikipedia policy. [124] User was warned for personal attack here. [125] User stated on the talk page of the article that I had no knowledge of histioography. User has some serious ownership issues over this article. Other editors are allowed to improve any article. Zpeopleheart (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:7uperWkipedan reported by User:Tanbircdq (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Gaza Strip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Israeli settler violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 7uperWkipedan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<[126]-->

Previous version reverted to: [127][128][129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]

1. [134]
2. [135]

1. [136]
2. [137]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

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

Comments:

The editor has been editwarring with various editors such as Nishidani and Makeandtoss. He/she violated WP:3RR on Gaza Strip, and WP:1RR on Israeli settler violence and Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Despite being made aware of 1RR by User:RolandR he/she ignored this and continued to revert. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor has made a further edit to one of the above articles.[139] This is in breach of the arbitration 1RR rule, and s/he has been warned by an admin that if s/he does not self-revert, s/he will be blocked.[140] RolandR (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Even reporting him, he is still insisting on deleting sourced content. [141] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:BFlatley reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 2 months)

Page: The Dark Knight (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BFlatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

October

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147] (including a follow-up warning by an admin)

Diff of block: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Resumption of edit-warring immediately upon expiry of block: [150]

Second block: [151]

November (these are the edits that are actually being reported)

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]

Comments:

The editor has not technically violated 3RR this time around but I feel that this a continuation of a previous incursion rather than a fresh one and the behavior should not be tolerated when he makes no effort to discuss the issue on the talk page. Also, while not relevant to this case but perhaps relevant to a review of his conduct the editor was again blocked for disruptive behavior at an entirely unconnected article on October 24 for three weeks: [155]. This means he has actually resumed an edit war coming straight off another block. Betty Logan (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 months - Clearly disruptive, clearly self-indulgent long-term edit-warring. User never discusses and doesn't seem interested in what other editors have to say. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:LiXuanze reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)

Page: Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) et al.
User being reported: LiXuanze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user has just come off a three-month block for uploading incorrect or misleading flags and coats of arms (and then edit warring to substitute them in a large number of articles). Within 24 hours, not only have they resumed the same edit wars that led to the block, but they've also started a new one at Cyprus. Here are just some examples:

• At Cyprus, all edits post-block: [156] [157] [158]
• At Transnistria, pre-/post-block: [159] [160] / [161]
• At Canada, pre-/post-block: [162] [163] / [164]
• At Arms of Canada, pre-/post-block: [165] / [166]

Diffs of past edit warring / 3RR warning: [167] [168]

The user is uncommunicative except for nonsensical edit summaries. Probably a competence issue. See also Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 53#LiXuanze.

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely by JamesBWatson. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Loginnigol reported by User:137.205.238.213 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [169]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [170]
2. [171]
3. [172]
4. [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is aware of 3RR because he was warned on other occasions [174][175] [176]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [177][178]

Comments:

User:217.22.190.233 reported by User:NebY (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Irreligion by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

217.22.190.233 (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 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 06:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 07:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
   4. 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 09:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "The 36% atheist or not religious shouldn't be split because they both mean exactly the same and if we use the 2015 Gallup Poll then we would find out that Germany is around 66% atheist not 48%!"
3. 09:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "I think it's better to have an aggregated figure rather than a split one because the article is about irreligion by country so therefore there should be a combined percentage for irreligion as a whole."
   2. 13:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Irreligion by country. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:217.22.190.233 received a 3RR warning [179], 14:03, 16 November 2015. JimRenge (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Evading previous block NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Tba reported by User:Turnless (Result: )

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

[180]

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]

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

• Update - The user has finally self-reverted his edits [186]. --Turnless (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

No, the image is still accurate. --Turnless (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

/media/wikipedia/commons/4/44/World_marriage-equality_laws.svg vs /media/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/World_marriage-equality_laws1.svg Tba (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

They are exactly the same. --Turnless (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [191]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [193] (original case), [194], and [195]

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

User:Cassianto reported by User:DD2K (Result: )

Page

User talk:Kevin Gorman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Wrong again */ new section"
2. 20:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* So which is it? */ new section"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 690961593 by Kevin Gorman (talk) so which is it?"
   2. 20:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */ stupid or troublemaking?"
   2. 20:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"
   3. 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC) "/* re */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:Plus several personal attacks, some in edit summaries, others in text. User has been blocked several times for both personal attacks and edit warring. Dave Dial (talk) 20

31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• /sigh, I really am surprised to see an experienced user editwarring with me in my own userspace when I hadn't started reverting his comments until they'd hit the level of just insulting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• As Cassianto his final reversion, he has not breached 3RR (See point 1 of WP:3RRNO) He did this five minutes before this report was filed, which makes me wonder why that very pertinent fact wasn't included in the initial report, except to show a very distorted and incorrect view of events. – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • That is absolutely inconsequential. Add in the other edits with personal attacks, and the fact that edit warring is not only defined by breaking 3RR, the editor should obviously be blocked for edit warring AND personal attacks. Both of which the editor has been blocked numerous times for. Dave Dial (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Rubbish in many ways.
      1. Self-reversion is always taken into account. It shows an editor has stepped back from their position. This is the board for reporting breaches of 3RR: because of the self-reversion this user has notbreach 3RR.
      2. A users prior block log has little to do with deciding if they have edit warred in the first place, and I wonder why you are so keen to throw it round quite so much. The block log may be used to determine the severity or subsequent action, but not if an infringement has taken place. – SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't particularly care whether or not he's blocked, but there's a reason this is AN/EW and not just AN/3rr. Editwarring in a user's own talk space throwing in personal attacks when you start doing so after the user reverts someone who is categorically unwelcome in his talk space is, well, editwarring - even without breaking 3rr. Note that I'd been perfectly happy to engage with Cassianto in my userspace before he started in on the NPA type stuff. It should be obvious to anyone who didn't start editing yesterday that restoring what is at best uncivil behavior in another person's talkspace after they've reverted it is a no-no Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• OK, a different forum, but one Gorman can't revert on. Kevin, why don't you answer my question with regards to who actually started the gender issue on RO's ANI thread? I see your pal Dave Dial has filed this for you; a report which is inadequate seeing as I only reverted twice. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy. Cassianto^Talk 20:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)