Hosta

Page: James Barry (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and E. J. Levy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hedgielamar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Barry: [1]; Levy: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts at James Barry (surgeon):

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts at E. J. Levy:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12].

Comments:

This user has not engaged with anyone who's attempted to contact them, including back on Feb 24 (as seen on their talkpage). I've asked in edit summaries and on their talkpage for them to discuss with other users, but they continually insert their preferred phrasing with the summary "corrected inaccuracies" and have lately been adding a low-quality (and misspelled) source. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 18:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have posted to User talk:Hedgielamar and will follow up with this shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Thanks for attempting to get things under control; however since Hedgielamar ignored your message and carried on edit-warring, a block was inevitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm glad I tried — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much for your attention and assistance. I hope they start working with us! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• MSGJ and Ritchie333, it appears the edit warring is now continuing under a newly created account, JMB2019, whose only edits have been to repeat the same edit warring on E. J. Levy [13] [14] and James Barry (surgeon) [15] [16], including reinserting the same broken link with "wwww" instead of "www". Can this be dealt with here or should I file this as a sockpuppet investigation? Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user has also now referred to those who revert the disruptive edits as "perps" [17], the same as the blocked editor [18]. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the sock and extended the block of Hedgielamar — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We've got another one, MSGJ; Patrice Starr has made almost identical changes to E. J. Levy as of this morning [19], including the exact same misspelling of a source URL that both Hedgielamar and JMB2019 were inserting. Not sure if this is a sock, since I thought Hedgie and I were having a somewhat-productive conversation on Hedgie's talkpage. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 16:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Metropolitan areas in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and three other: [20][21][22]
User being reported: Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 27 January 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:37, 20 February 2019
2. 20:18, 20 February 2019
3. 20:33, 20 February 2019
4. 21:00, 20 February 2019

This is new user (account from December 2018) with total edits: 48, of which about 20% is edit-warrings in few articles.

Page

RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
2. 22:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */You have to get consensus to remove it. This is someone’s work that you’re going to remove without a reason so stop it or i’m gonna report you. Also it matches with all the other presentations on wikipedia about rupaul’s drag race."
3. 02:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */"
4. 12:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestants */Rude. Don’t waste my work"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race Holi-slay Spectacular. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress table */ remove"

Comments:

Continued edit warring after recent block. Also levied a personal attack at me recently. Nihlus 04:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "No proper reason given for the removal of this sourced information and adding of other unsourced information!"
2. 14:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "It is only a violation if everything was copied directly from its source, which it doesn't seem to be! And if the text is directly copied, rewrite it instead of removing it! If you continue removing all this informaton you may get blocked for vandalism!"
3. 14:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) to last revision by Vif12vf (TW)"
4. 11:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 886689074 by Espanasiempre2019 (talk) (TW)"
5. 23:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 886522264 by Dijalbinha2019 (talk) (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

They know about edit-warring, having recently been warned by both C.Fred and Ritchie333: In this particular case, I beieve that restoring copyvios is *not* an exemption... ——SerialNumber54129 15:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just stopped reverting the edits on this recent article and have instead re-instated some minor info that may have been wrongly removed! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too late for that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Full-protected by MSGJ for 4 days. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And blocked user for persistent edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both; continuing to revert while at ANI was the breaking point, as it were. ——SerialNumber54129 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen this edit, both apparently restoring a copyright violation and falsely accusing an editor of vandalism, I would have blocked too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Canary Islands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886845973 by David Biddulph (talk)"
2. 22:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886837539 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
3. 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886816321 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
4. 17:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886799696 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
5. 16:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886791553 by 87.223.130.234 (talk)"
6. 14:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Protect page!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Canary Islands. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring as soon as protection on article expired this morning. Status quo (prior to this editors changes) agreed with source cited. David Biddulph (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely Enciclopiedicomutante (also per WP:NOTHERE); 87.223.130.234 blocked for 48 hours. --Leyo 01:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tom Brady (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mk8mlyb (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]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been extensive discussion of the content the user is disputing at Talk:Tom_Brady#Greatest_QB_in_NFL_history

Comments:

After I warned the user about edit warring, they left a defiant message on my talk page that they were only doing what [they] think is best.[29]—Bagumba (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment that outside of the merits of this particular edit warring case, I think the article itself needs some kind of administrator attention. 1RR? Locking? I don't know. The subject of the discussion (is Brady the Greatest of All Time? Can we report that he's widely regarded as such without a cite stating specifically how widely regarded and by whom?) is one which which arouses tremendous passions, and many editors (at least a dozen, including myself) on both sides are engaging in a protracted edit war - this iteration going back a month. I suspect Bagumba being WP:INVOLVED in the edits would prevent him from being seen as a neutral party shutting this down. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 06:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly involved in this article, but that's because I hate Tom Brady and can't be neutral about him. This edit summary by Mk8mlyb, "I just don't like that". is an argument to avoid on discussion pages. I recommend an impartial admin lock it further as they choose. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and it's clear you bent over backwards to hide that. But this is the odd case where discussion is unlikely to solve the problem and someone new needs to come in as the heavy and shut it down, one way or the other. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 07:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I should've said is that Brady is a polarizing subject and something long term is called for. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Another post at my talk page After this case was opened, Mk8mlyb posted again at my talk page: Hey, why'd you do that? Okay, I'm not innocent here, I won't deny that, but I'm just one of the guys who's getting drawn up in this, and I'm the one who's taking the brunt of all this? I'll meet you at the other talk page.[30]—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Bagumba, should the other editor be reported? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Mk8mlyb is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert the article unless they have previously received a consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Gorilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Western lowland gorilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Eastern lowland gorilla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sea lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: California sea lion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Komodo dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Meerkat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpaceMusk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gorilla&type=revision&diff=886899989&oldid=886797009

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Western_lowland_gorilla&type=revision&diff=886900626&oldid=884590078
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_sea_lion&type=revision&diff=886900067&oldid=886809718
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMeerkat&type=revision&diff=886899461&oldid=886810235
4. etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Komodo_dragon&type=revision&diff=886900418&oldid=886789939

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SpaceMusk&oldid=886809354

Comments:
Absolutely wants to publish bad quality pictures. Doesn't understand. -- Vacuasword (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is your opinion, that those pictures are bad and again your opionion is very subjective, what makes your opinion better then mine...., did not hear an answer yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceMusk (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceMusk The same goes for you; you can't edit war to preserve a picture that you feel is better. If you change a picture and others disagree, you must obtain consensus that your favored picture is the one that should be present. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @SpaceMusk: I'm seeing that multiple users have pointed out technical issues with the photos, issues other than "I just don't like it." Acting like they have not is just disruptive and only going to get you in trouble. Repeatedly dismissing those technical issues as "just their opinion" and asking to hear another reason is also disruptive and not going to help you.

Also, multiple editors have asked you to stop trying to add those photos. It seems pretty clear that you're taking the removal of your photos personally -- don't. No editor owns their contributions here.

In short: knock it off. Find a different way to contribute for now besides photos, until you learn to properly take criticism. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so you are saying i can not take critisism, i think that's an attack but ok.... SpaceMusk (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior has so far demonstrated an inability to take criticism. Saying that you view that as an attack rather proves it. You are more than welcome to change your behavior. Trying to "win" this "fight" is only going to dig a deeper hole. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user was blocked indef by Acroterion. BTW: Vacuasword seems to be a one-purpose account. --Leyo 22:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimsar01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Robster1983 (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]

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

Comments:
I don’t know how this works, but me and Dimsar01 are in an edit war. Instead of going in, I just would like a non biased person to have a look at the page. It involves the high ticket prices of this year’s contest. I reckon it should be mentioned, others, however, don’t want it in the article. Is there anyone who could give us some guidance? 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well. And I want to ask for the protection of the page to be changed back to Extended Confimed as all of the users who edit the page are not administrators. —Dimsar01 ^Talk ⌚→ 11:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s at least something we agree on. I hope this works out for all of us. 🙂 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 11:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: No action, since it appears that Robster1983 and Dimsar01 have agreed to a proper discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2019#Full protection after an intervention by admin User:Samsara. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: BMW 3 Series (E36) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.43.10.244 (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. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

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

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

Comments:

IP 90.43.10.244 has been constantly edit warring on the BMW 3 Series article by replacing the infobox image despite the fact we already reached a consensus of what image to use on the infobox and is getting out of control. They already been warned for their behaviour. The motive as they stated: "As anonymous wiki user,i won't let this unacceptable image represent the BMW E36" --Vauxford (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I support a block for the IP, Vauxford needs to be advised that their handling of the situation was wrong. I tried doing that when they posted at AN, but they appeared not to accept what I said.[35] When both sides are in the wrong, both sides need to be addressed; not just one who was more in the wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss I simply fumbled up with the report, technically I did not edit warring as the diffs you showed me are about 2 weeks apart and I done no more then 3 today which I then stopped and tried to get assistant, I could of address this problem better in the future but I personally don't think I'm in the wrong here as well. --Vauxford (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vauxford: See the very first sentence at Wikipedia:Edit warring. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions." It says nothing about the amount of time between the reverts. The essential point is that it was a single dispute over a single bit of content, the infobox image. So yes, you were a participant in the edit war, and there is no "good" edit warring. You have now reverted six times in that dispute, and one should have been your limit. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution describes how to handle content disputes and I don't see your actions described there. I am not suggesting a block in your case, but I would if you acted in the same manner in a future dispute. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss Goodness cut me some slacks... Whatever happened to the three-revert rule? They are within more than 24 hours, you're taking this far out of proportion just because I made some mistake, if what your saying is the case then you should inform others who been reverting this user's edits as well. --Vauxford (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Longer than normal block duration set as the editor stated they would continue using an IP account to edit war. A SPA registered account like this would be blocked for an indefinite period. I don't see anything particularly problematic with Vauxford's conduct, especially given the unpleasant way the IP editor has chosen to conduct themselves - which included making the above threat in the attempt to discuss this matter. This report was malformed though - please fill in all the standard fields in the future. Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pacific War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MattanJohnson11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Stable version of the article (especially the infobox): [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts: This new account has been re-inserting extraneous material into the infobox added by other accounts and adding other extraneous material despite a discussion of this on the talk page, and is edit warring against multiple editors. Please see the article history and the below diffs (note that most of the diffs are the combination of a series of edits):

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]
5. [41]
6. [42]
7. [43] (since this report was lodged)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Has been warned four times, and twice been asked to join the talk page discussion [44] [45], [46], [47] The edit warring has continued since the fourth warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Thread at Talk:Pacific War#Infobox (March 2019). MattanJohnson11 has ignored this, and instead posted a new thread trying to justify their edit warring where they state that they are being disruptive: [48]

Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this report was lodged, the editor has posted this and this in which they state they will try to evade any block and continue edit warring as "I love edit warring", and continued edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely – The user has stated 'I love edit warring' which does raise the possibility that they might be a sock. (Is this a case of 'please block me'?). EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

9W 3937 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Get lost, please discuss instead of only reverting"
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC) to 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */Consensus reached sucessfully"
   2. 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887023659 by 9W 3937 (talk)"
3. 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 887002031 by Alexanderlee (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC) to 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 23:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 886932654 by Abdotorg (talk)"
   2. 23:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 13:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) to 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
   1. 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"
   2. 12:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2019: 9 person performance version of "Not That Type" */"
7. 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC) "/* 2018: Act. 4 Cait Sith, Act. 5 New Action, Japanese debut and Hyeyeon's departure */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gugudan. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Gugudan#About_these_Source

Comments:

Relentless edit-warring against multiple editors. PAs on edit-summaries. Use of socks, article had to be semi-protected, but despite that, these confirmed new accounts are still edit-warring adding cruft into the article. Regular editors had to ask Drmies for help; that's where I came in to try to help them. Dr. K. 10:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3GFRIENDSNSD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly a sock of 9W 3937, not only it posted the identical message at my talk page (sock dif, 3GFRIENDSNSD dif), it also re-inserted the same fancruft and "article is outdated" maintenance template at Gugudan, same as 9W 3937 did. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I just CU-blocked User talk:3GFRIENDSNSD, User talk:MTR 553890, User talk:9W 3937. Pretty revolting how the one account claimed to be neutral. In addition, there is a huge amount of IP editing going on--some of it possibly just logged-out editing, but not all of it. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• You know, there is so much of it, on a variety of IPs--I suggest someone start an SPI, and ask a CU (who knows ranges well) to see if any ranges need closer scrutiny, or maybe a block. And it may be there's some older accounts we can call a master. Right now, at lunchtime, this is more than I can handle without a notepad and some food. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. On article edit summary: [54]
2. On user talk page: [55]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [56]

Comments:

The user has ignored (they keep editing) all of my messages, both on the article's edit summary, the article's talk page, and their own talk page. I have refrained from reverting yet again. M . M 12:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet reported. --MehrdadFR (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Kingerikthesecond reverted to the version before this edit war, [57] and MehrdadFR reverted them, too, describing it as "Zionist hate propaganda". [58] This occurred an hour after I gave them the notices about edit warring. M . M 13:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: MehrdadFR's sockpuppet investigation request against me was declined by an administrator and SPI clerk. [59] M . M 14:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am VwM.Mwv's mentor. I would like to note that opening 2 SPI cases - Plot Spolier, AndresHerutJaim 8-18 minutes after this report being opened, as well as using the edit summary: "WP:LEAD is plagued by Zionist hate propaganda" diff by MehrdadFR - is not acceptable editing or a response to an AN/EW report. Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User "MehrdadFR" has been blocked on no less than 6 occassions for edit-warring on sensitive Iran/West Asia-related topics. Curiously; all six blocks were the result of violating WP:3RR. He was also subjected to a topic ban in the recent past for being WP:TENDENTIOUS in the very same topic area.[60] Most of MehrdadFR's edits involve promoting the narrative of the current Iranian regime and downplaying everything else. Looking at the compelling evidence, in combination with the stuff he writes here on this talk page ("Your edits are pure WP:FRINGE garbage"), I'm wondering whether this user is actually here to build this encyclopedia. He has been given a lot of "second chances" over the past few years, to no avail it seems.(copy-pasted my comment from Talk:Iran) - LouisAragon (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article is already protected the user is participating in the discussion.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 18:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 15:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The consensus position includes the category in question. A discussion has started on the talk page but the editor has not yet engaged. Izno (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Charles Martin Hall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DePiep‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61] 11:05, 23 February 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62] 11:25, 23 February 2019
2. [63] 22:01, 8 March 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64] (I will note I had never participated in conflicts such as this one before and did not know what the appropriate reaction would be. I have, however, mentioned three times that not following a consensus will incur consequences, even if I did not at that moment know which those would be.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments: According to WP:Edit warring, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," and it appears to me this refers to cases such as this one. Events unfolded as follows:

One day, DePiep comes over the said article and changes all spellings of "aluminum" to "aluminium," arguing that this would be in compliance with WP:ALUM. I undid that revert, explaining on the talk page why I thought WP:ALUM was not applicable for that particular article. Twenty minutes after, I was accused of not applying the rule instead of arguing for its inapplicability in this case (which was the opposite of what I had said), and fifteen minutes later, without giving me a chance to respond, they revert my revert. I reiterated my point that WP:ALUM was not applicable for that article and instead of succumbing to an edit war myself, called for the relevant WikiProjects to provide more opinions. All these opinions were in favor of inapplicability of WP:ALUM for the target article (there were four of them, and three of these four were beyond mere yeas). Over the course of discussion, DePiep has made a couple more accusations that were denied and did not return any sympathy at all. In the end, there was a clear consensus: WP:ALUM is not applicable here. I have a few times suggested that if DePiep were unhappy with this outcome, they may ask for some external judgment (at the time, I thought it would be the Arbitration Committee, but now it seems it should have been Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard).

I decided to take advice from one of the editors who had participated in the discussion, expanding the part on how Hall shaped how the name of the metal is spelled in the United States (essentially, adding more content). Yet I was undone with the comment "per talk: let's not overdo that "alumnium" WP:ALUM thing" (which is funny because none of this is true: a) nobody, including DePiep, had argued that such expansion was undesirable and thus there would be nothing relevant on the talk page, b) WP:ALUM was found to be inapplicable, and c) even if it were applicable, it has nothing with what content should or should not be in an article; it merely regulates how one word (or, if you count the other elements as well, three) should be spelled in certain articles). What I see is that DePiep is failing to recognize the outcome of the discussion (which revolves around the statement that WP:ALUM is not applicable) and keeps making edits despite the said outcome, even if it takes them to remove content without any actual explanation other than a reference to an argument that was never made and a clearly irrelevant rule. I was unfortunately unable to find a rule that would specifically say that not following a consensus was in its scope, and I presumed the situation would be regarded as edit warring (that's the impression I got from the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Edit warring#What to do if you see edit-warring behavior), even if the other party does not succumb to excessive reverting to match opponent's ambitions.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure what should be done as a result. A 24-hour block wouldn't do anything given the pace of the dispute; a two-week block would seem excessive. (Then again, I'm not a huge fan of blocks in general and you may judge otherwise.) I would normally prefer to resolve this via discussion, but I'm afraid discussion won't get us anywhere as there is not a possibility DePiep might suppose they could possibly be wrong or at least accept they're in severe minority. I see one of the previous discussions on this page ended with a warning; I'd be happy with that outcome.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'll have to read the guidelines and so to make a complete, well crafted comment, having all the dots and commas right, so maybe later more. Anyway: NO, the "3rd R" reported here is not to be judged as such. It followed the talkpage discussion (es even referred to it), it did not reinstate a previous version I have promoted, it did not contradict the consensus (as concluded by R8R themselves btw [to clarify: that is, R8R concluded the 'consensus' themselves in the discussion R8R had opened. To that, I have not complained nor did I revert any pre-state in any way (I left it to be "aluminum"). This does not state that the concluding process was correct]), etcetera. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 a(UTC)

As for the timeline: original BRD started 2019-02-23 [66] (talk opened by R8R, good). It was concluded by R8R on 2019-03-01 [67], nine days ago. So I did not revert to previous, non-consensus (my preferred) version, and not in a "24h" or time-stressed order. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse: the first two edits brought in here are from Feb 23, the "3rd offence" is from Mar 8. That is thirteen days between. -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pashtuns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Casperti (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. 2 February 2019
2. 2 Feburuary
3. 5 February
4. 20 February
5. 9 March
6. 10 March
7. 10 March

Removing same content all the time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68][69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed:Hindu Pashtuns

Comments:

Just a disruptive WP:SPA who himself admits that he "don't want to edit other page" than Pashtuns.[70] He is here only for engaging in edit warring and WP:BATTLE. All he does is spew his ethnicity based stories by spewing what he believes in and accuse all other editors of socking,[71][72][73][ while he engages in canvassing to recruit editors for supporting his ethnic POV.[74][75][76] I recommend a WP:NOTHERE block. Shashank5988 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just threatening a newbie on Wikipedia. I was Directed by User:Dough Weller to make a talk page, and ask for third party opnion. Which is in my right. You can read what I wrote to those Pashtun wiki project experts. see: WP:ACCUSE and WP:SEEKHELP.The talk page Where we should discuss the 1 source given on Wikipedia for the Pashtun Hindus. As anyone can read, I did not give a point of view but dozen sources that explain the fact. I debunked on 9 March the 1 source and you guys are stilling reverting me without showing me why. I even saw 2 VPN that was used for this, I do not claim it was you but it makes the situation more untrustable. Everyone can see I did not give any opinion. Only sources I gave. It is in Wikipedia's interest to discuss. We shouldn't blindly accept something that was edited on 23 march 2018 and no-one is in the right to change that. Every admin can read the talkpage and see that I am not throwing an opinion but real scientific sources and documentaries/books of the Hindus themselves. Shashank5988 please stop Threatening me. I even said if I don't find a proper source it can stand. But I showed you everything and you are still not giving any source to debunk me. Just join the discussion. The only thing you did was attacking me and showing that 1 source of that Filmmaker over and over again. I have always requested help for an admin for this matter. Please admins, help us to find third parties who know a lot about the Pashtuns. (btw dont accuse things like ethnic POV, like I said i'm a Persian speaking Tajik). You just want to censor me. Admin there is really many third parties needed that chose no sides (so non-Hindu/Indians or Afghan, Pashtun expert). Or if there is an Afghan-Hindu editor that would be the best. That would be the best scennarios. So admin help is indeed needed Casperti (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected Another admin has fully-protected the article, so I don't think any further action is needed at this time. Casperti is free to continue to discuss the matter on the talk page and work toward building a consensus among editors for their changes. Only after new consensus is reached should the page be changed, not before. —C.Fred (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is what we needed. Now, we have to discuss what we can agree upon (consensus) without edit reverting without reason.Casperti (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ambassador Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78] - 19:05, 10 March 2019
2. [79] - 20:21, 10 March 2019
3. [80] - 20:26, 10 March 2019
4. [81] - 20:33, 10 March 2019
   1. and see also four other reverts on two other articles at the same time: [82], [83], [84], [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
A user has reverted my edits four times in 1h28m. My edits included removing an image gallery (Wikipedia's image use policy says that image galleries are appropriate if the images, as a collection, illustrate some aspect of the topic. Simple arbitrary collections of images are what the Wikimedia Commons is for) and creating stubs to replace redirects. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see four reverts. Unless the IP is implying that they have (also) broken WP:3RR and should be sanctioned? —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the four reverts, together with their times, under the heading "diffs of the user's reverts".

[ec] Well, the most recent version seems to be a median between the two y'all were fighting over. Happy now? And you, IP, are just as guilty of edit warring as Imzadi. Happy days. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited in accordance with policy, and did not break the 3RR. The user I am reporting did not edit in accordance with policy, and they did break the 3RR. The sourced content which I added, and they deleted, is still deleted. But apparently I'm as guilty as they are, and should feel happy right now? No and no. 46.208.152.52 (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have not demonstrated that they made four reverts to that article within a 24-hour period. There is no violation to act on here. Please continue to work toward a consensus or median version of the page, and make sure to use the talk page rather than edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the four reverts. They made them within a 90 minute period. Why are you pretending that this did not happen? 46.208.152.52 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth edit you listed is not a revert. It changed the formatting. The third edit—I hesitate to brand it a revert, since it was really a matter of fixing formatting. —C.Fred (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Origin of the name Khuzestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

This users keep removing the request of Refrence for phrases that dose not exist in given sources, watch the page and the talk section please

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

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

This user even reverted the information on naming of the Gulf,which was a Middle Persian sasanian text with reliable sources wich Names the Gulf, Arabian Gulf

User:HistoryofIran removed this Information

How ever one of the oldest documented refrence to Gulf may be the one mentioned in Middle Persian text on geography "Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr" (literally "The Provincial Capitals of Iran"), which is a source of historical records concerning names of the Sasanian kings as the builder of the various cities, It is in this Persian document that sasanias make the unique reference to gulf as "Daryay Taziyan" (In Persian : دریای تازیان) which literally means "Arabian Gulf or The Gulf of The Arabs"^[1][2]

Now what was wrong with this information with reliable source that user User:HistoryofIran removed it from Persian Gulf article, This is clear act of abusing of Wikipedia meant to Boycott other opinions and POV pushes

Ted hamiltun (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]