Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:73.176.38.186 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: No violation)

Page: The Visit (2015 American film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.176.38.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the actual article talk page (due to a complete inactivity on it and concerns that the IP user would therefore not notice the discussion) but I did advise him to leave a message on my talk page if he/she believed a mistake was made or if he/she had any questions.

Comments:

No violation – Neither party has broken WP:3RR but at the same time neither has posted to the talk page. If there is more reverting without discussion it is possible that some admin action will be taken. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Sleeping is fun reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)

Page: Joe Slovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sleeping is fun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 3 November

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 7 November
2. 7 November
3. 7 November
4. 7 November
5. 8 November
6. 8 November
7. 8 November
8. 8 November
9. 8 November
10. 8 November
11. 8 November - Reverted twice again after this report was filed and after he filed a counter-complaint against me at WP:AN/I

All dates/times are U.S. EST. That's four reverts on one day followed by six reverts the following day; a total of 10 reverts in 48 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 7 November
2. 8 November

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User talk:Sleeping is fun#Joe Slovo
2. User talk:Sleeping is fun#November 2016
3. Talk:Joe Slovo#Yossel Mashel "Joe" Slovo

Comments:

This editor is engaging in edit-warring at other articles, such as The Birth of a Nation (2016 film).

This editor will accuse me of abusively using multiple accounts -- I don't; my accounts comply with WP:VALIDALT. I have, however, engaged in edit-warring at Joe Slovo and will accept whatever sanction is deemed appropriate. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Check how Shabazz's behavior on Talk:Joe_Slovo. That should speak for itself. He has reverted me numerous times with zero explanation, and despite my best efforts to have a constructive conversation on the talk page, he continued to revert me and make childish insults against me. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Shabazz is trying to game the system by painting me as the bad guy based solely on my amount of reverts, but look at my edit summaries. Look at my attempt to argue my position on the talk page. Then look at how Shabazz responded. Brief, uncivil, condescending remarks and ghost reverts with no edit summaries or false accusations of vandalism. What a laughable abuse of the system. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

3RR is a simple, bright-line test. If you make a fourth revert within 24 hours, you've violated 3RR. You violated it. At least twice. Your silly edit summaries and their half-truths don't change that. And 3RR's a policy, not a guideline. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

On both occasions, you violated it first. And you're only proving my point by dismissing my attempts at reaching consensus as "silly". —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still haven't figured out how to count past three, eh? Maybe the good folks at WP:AN/I can help you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still haven't figured out how to behave like an adult and recognize your own hypocrisy, eh? —Sleeping is fun (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for edit warring by User:John. The reported editor, User:Sleeping is fun, was formerly known under other names such as User:Grenadetoenails, User:Exploding Toenails and User:Wash whites separately. This is his fourth block for edit warring since July 1. There was also a discussion at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Stemoc reported by User:Calibrador (Result: Nothing more to do here)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: There are discretionary sanctions on the page that limit the reversion by users to one per 24 hours. The user reverted three different users over the course of a few minutes. Whether this was correct to do or not, sanctions are in place and should be followed. Calibrador (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is somewhat misleading, it turns out that both the page and the image are under sanctions, the former from arbcom and the latter from an rfc whose mention is conspicuously absent from the edit notice but is considered binding for the parties on the page. In reverting multiple times Stemoc (talk · contribs) was acting to preserve the latter rfc based sanction for the article's image, and therefore was not in fact edit warring on the page as reported here. As a result of this I am informed that the image has been moved someplace else and protected (apparently a standard practice in these cases) and the account has been unblocked based on this preliminary evidence. If there is any fault to be had here, it should be on me for not having looked into this thoroughly before acting on 1RR to block what at the time appeared to be an edit-warring account. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think it would be best if I withdraw my report. Not sure if I am allowed, or able, to do that. Calibrador (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Nothing more to be done here. The submitter, User:Calibrador has asked to withdraw this report. Stemoc was blocked but then unblocked with an apology. For more details see this thread on Stemoc's talk. They speak about a special restriction on changing the image, so potent that it allows 1RR to be exceeded. TomStar81 also changed the edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:BG89 reported by User:The TV Boy (Result: Both blocked)

Page: FC CSKA 1948 Sofia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BG89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Comments: For the third time reporting him. BG89 keeps re-entering highly controversial text about a person who has nothing to do with this specific club. The text is not neutral and bad-faithed, written in an offensive way that target specifically the person, violating WP:NPOV. I tried explaning to him why this text can't be there, but unfortunately the user keeps avoiding everything I write on the talk page, twists away the topic of discussion and continuously tries to mask his edits as good-faithed and sourced, again avoiding the fact that the text is irrelevant to the topic.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 20:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

response by the person reported by TV Boy
He has officially reported me two times in the last few weeks and several times on the talk pages of regular users and administrators. Every single time he was explained by them that I did nothing wrong and his requests for actions against me were declined. All of my reverts were intended to preserve the page from his persistent vandalism which is evident from the edit history. In fact he is the one who broke the 3RR rule and as far as I'm concerned there is an exemption: "4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." A week ago he reported me for the very same thing and the his requests were declined. The administrators didn't find offensive content, lack of neutrality or bad faith because they aren't presented in this case. TV Boy is known for his highly disrespectful and arrogant attitude towards other users on both Bulgarian and English Wiki. In addition to that there is evidence he has been socking for a really long time and tried to use his puppets against me. For further details read this. I really hope that TV Boy systematic violations of Wiki's rules and ethical standards will no longer be tolerated. --Ivo (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As before, BG89's defense lies completely on turning accusations that I have made about him against me. This is really the third time I am reporting him, information can be founded on his talk page. BG89 still adds irrelevant text to the topic, that is there only to attack this specific person and he knows it, he just tries to manipulate and turn everything around. I accused BG89 for editing under dynamic mobile phone IP's on several of the pages he started edit-warring on, re-entering similar controversial content and dodging and inverting the discussion when it comes to the real reasons behind his actions. These IP's pop directly after BG89's edits. After that, BG89 again tried to invert my accusations against me so that it can look that my actions are disruptful, and he even goes that far trying to turn his own IP edits against me as sockpuppets. Every discussion I start with the user gets twisted away, every accusation about his actions that I make gets twisted and inverted against me on every page. I tried to have a normal conversation with the user, unfortunately to no success so far, just because of BG89's persistent bad-faithed and manipulative behavior. In his contributions you can find everything that he has written in the past month and the edit-wars he has started. I tried warning him several times on his talk page, only to see him invert my words against me once again. I hope some actions is taken against BG89's behavior--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

TV Boy's perception of discussion and consensus is that everybody should accept his opinion and has no right to disagree with him or otherwise will get reported for... having an opinion and fighting TV Boy's persistent vandalism. His current report against me is a perfect example. My opinion is shared by other users of the English and Bulgarian Wikipedias but no other user except for him has ever accused me of these things. The dynamic IPs have closely followed your edits FOR YEARS. Then they popped out of nowhere and started "supporting" me in a discussion with you. When I checked the edit history all those IPs I found out that they have been contributing to the pages you edit in the same day as your official account. And suddenly those anonymous IPs started reverting pages without any explanation. Miraculously, you were involved in the discussions :D The anonymous IPs followed you year by year, month by month, day by day. We aren't idiots, TV Boy. --Ivo (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

BG89, something about manipulating the discussion again? No? What a shame then. As you can see I have reverted vandalisms made by these users on the TV pages, inverting this won't help you, simply because everyone can check it then. I told you that these IP's are used by hundreds of users and and vandalism is persistent from them on various of topics. They are used by people that have a Vivacom mobile phone. They edited and responded the same way you did, immediately after you, which means either you are reverting it from your mobile phone, or someone is making you a bad favor, i.e. is "meatpuppeting". You may not be tracked behind them because, as I said, hundreds of people are on the Vivacom network, and some Bulgarian registered users may be logging from their mobile network again. Inverting my accusations against me won't help you - nobody who checks that will believe your lies. They've been "following me for years"? God, how can I not notice that I have a double twin and I have been reverting my own vandalisms to the TV articles the whole time. You understand how silly and laughable everything you try to pull is now that you are out of ideas, don't you? And who are "we" that you call? Maybe you, yourself, and BG89, because you truly are out of ideas on how to twist the discussion to prove that I am the bad guy. Also, I showed you my mobile phone IP on Australian Rupert's talk page and asked for yours, but you never responded to that...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

These users??? AHAHAHAHA You seem to be good friends since the summer of 2015 if not earlier. To anybody who reads this: TV Boy has been vandalising several articles, including FC CSKA 1948 Sofia. I requested protection of the page due to his vandalism and his response was to report me for ... nothing ... for the third time in row. The outcome will be the same as the outcome of his previous reports. I'll no longer write here because this is turning into a farce, which is TV Boy's ultimate goal. Of course I'll be here to answer if any administrator has questions. To finish with, here is the evidence that TV Boy is behind the puppet accounts:

IP address information

212.5.158.34 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 24 December 2014 Total number of edits: 20-30 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2 Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: BNT World on 3 September 2016. TV Boy has edited the article over 10 times. 212.5.158.44 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 25 September 2015 Total number of edits: ~10 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 21 August 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 7 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2 Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, Eternal derby of Bulgarian football Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: FC Dunav Ruse on 1 August 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016 212.5.158.42 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 18 July 2016 Total number of edits: ~10 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 31 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 2 Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia, FC CSKA 1948 Sofia, PFC CSKA - Sofia Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 21 August 2016 added info about the "current squad" of CSKA which IMO is the squad of another club. TV Boy has edited the page many times. On 31 October 212.5.158.42 suddenly changed his mind and decided to "support" me. 212.5.158.155 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 18 July 2016 Total number of edits: 4 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 0 Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: On 22 August added info about the "current squad". 212.39.72.28 Location: Pleven, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 5 April 2004 Total number of edits: 100+ First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 September 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: PFC CSKA Sofia Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: This IP was added to the list only because it's another anonymous Vivacom IP and supports my position but it's located in Pleven I don't think it's related to the other anonymous IPs which can be traced to Sofia. 212.5.158.30 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 23 February 2013 Total number of edits: 20+ First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 13 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: PFC CSKA - Sofia Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: TV Boy used to edit the articles about TV channels both from his account and anonymously from the Vivacom IPs. Nova television (Bulgaria) 12:34, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-8)‎ 21:11, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+3)‎ 20:28, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-3)‎ 16:08, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (+34)‎ 19:57, 22 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.8 (talk)(-34)‎ Nova+ 20:33, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-16)‎ 16:07, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+5)‎ 22 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.8 (-5)‎ 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎ Kino Nova 12:40, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-1)‎ 21:13, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+3)‎ 20:38, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-3) 20:37, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎ 17:48, 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎ Diema 12:40, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-1)‎ 21:13, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+3) 20:38, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-3)‎ 20:37, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎ 17:48, 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+54)‎ 13:11 7 April Naskox (+124)‎ 14:39, 30 March 2015‎ The TV Boy (+49)‎ Diema Family 21:14, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-20)‎ 20:48, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+20)‎ 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+27)‎ 4 June 2015‎ 12.180.133.18 (+12)‎ 2 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-7,193)‎ Nova Sport (Bulgaria) 12:42, 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎ 24 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎ 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-4)‎ 20:53, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+4)‎ 16:01, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-6)‎ 20:29, 21 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.45 (+6)‎ 11 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-61)‎ BTV (Bulgaria) 22:19, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (+26)‎ 21:17, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-5)‎ 21:06, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 16:14, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (-70) BTV Comedy 22:19, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-32)‎ 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-1)‎ 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+1)‎ BTV Cinema 22:20, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-22)‎ 21:22, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+6)‎ 21:16, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-1)‎ 21:14, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (talk)‎(-5) BTV Action 22:21, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (+34) 21:32, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (+5)‎ 21:27, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (0)‎ 21:26, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (-5)‎ 16:16, 23 July 2015‎ The TV Boy (-79)‎ BTV Lady 22:22, 5 August 2015‎ The TV Boy (-57)‎ 21:34, 23 July 2015‎ 130.204.152.75 (-21)‎ 21:32, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+1) 21:31, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+20) 15:12, 2 June 2015‎ The TV Boy(-5,890) RING (Bulgaria) 21:35, 23 July 2015‎ 212.5.158.30 (+2)‎ 21:51, 6 July 2015‎ 85.118.69.169 (-32) 15:28, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-11)‎ 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (+572)‎ 15:24, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-461)‎ 15:22, 8 June 2015‎ The TV Boy (-153)‎ 14:49, 2 May 2015‎ The TV Boy (+38)‎ 212.5.158.51 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 29 December 2013 Total number of edits: ~10 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: PFC CSKA - Sofia Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Beroe Stara Zagora: The edits are 3 years apart though. 212.5.158.29 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 16 January 2015 Total number of edits: ~10 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 5 Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: 212.5.158.0 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 30 July 2015 Total number of edits: ~20 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: 212.5.158.46 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 29 December 2013 Total number of edits: ~20 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Lokomotiv Plovdiv was edited by 212.5.158.46 3 times on 12 September 2016. TV Boy edited the article on 14 July 2016. 212.5.158.58 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 27 December 2013 Total number of edits: ~20 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png Contributions to articles TV Boy also edited: PFC Beroe Stara Zagora 11:56, 14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (-36)‎ 11:48, 14 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+91)‎ 03:16, 14 July 2016‎ Vítor (-4) 16:15, 13 July 2016‎ 130.204.178.196 (+71)‎ 17:56, 12 July 2016‎ 130.204.178.196 (-71)‎ 23:03, 11 July 2016‎ Dfotev (-192)‎ 01:48, 11 July 2016‎ 91.97.125.155 (-35)‎ 20:57, 9 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.58 (0)‎ 20:57, 9 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.58 20:56, 9 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.58 (+53)‎ 212.5.158.2 Location: Sofia, Bulgaria internet provider: Vivacom First edit ever: 8 November 2015 Total number of edits: ~10 First edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Last edit concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 14 October 2016 Total number of edits concerning the CSKA/CSKA-Sofia dipuste: 1 Pages: File:Cska-sofia logo.png Other interests: Football and history Second Professional Football League (Bulgaria) 18:56, 2 August 2016‎ The TV Boy (+103)‎ 19:27, 27 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (-5)‎ 19:23, 27 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+230) 12:17, 26 July 2016‎ 212.5.158.2 (-230)‎ 18:39, 25 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+1)‎ 18:36, 25 July 2016‎ The TV Boy (+23)‎

--Ivo (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For God's sake, stop twisting and manipulating that discussion! What Australian Rupert said was "G'day, frankly I also have concerns about dynamic IPs following your edits, such as here: PFC CSKA - Sofia and PFC CSKA-Sofia. YOUR EDITS, BG89! Immediately after that you tried your best to prove that I was the one behind your IP addresses, simply because you got afraid of what Rupert said. From what posted it turns out that I am some sort of mad man, because I've been reverting the vandalisms that these IP's made, accusing that it was me I would've been reverting my own IP addresses. You are truly a great manipulator, BG89, making things to look as I am the bad one to prove me guilty at all costs of the things you have done. I am sick of such behavior BG89, you can bet that in bgwiki you would have been blocked indefinitely by now. I showed you my IP, which was an Mtel IP. Dodging this one won't help you. I really hope that administrators close this case soon, because I cannot take any more of BG89's impudently behavior.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 23:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:117.213.18.84 and User:109.78.9.237 reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Result: Page protected)

Page: Physicist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.213.18.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 109.78.9.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See below

List of 20 reverts. Click to view.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of User:117.213.18.84 and User:109.78.9.237 back and forth reverts: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41][42][43][44][45] (IP-hoppers so warned at last known used IPs)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
Seems to be and ongoing war between two IP-hoppers: A well known (involved in 4 ANI's) 117.213.18.84 IP-hopper from Kerala, India and a 109.78.9.237 "Irish IP-hopper". A previous revert war between these two editors was stopped by an admin protecting the page by blocking IP editors/Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access[47], but they went back at it a few hours after the protection expired. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment:
Talk:Physicist#IP is a known disruptive editor, already said and still...WP:ICANTHEARYOU. 117.213.18.84 (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Negligence (possible)

• User_talk:De728631#Physicist
• User_talk:Jauerback#Physicist
• User_talk:Clpo13#Physicist

Reverting and disruptions

Kindly revert edits by 109.78.9.237, otherwise it would be unproductive to engage in discussions (Talk:Physicist#Cleanup) and rewarding in vandalism and disruptions.

List of diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748890512&oldid=748888399 (circle link) http://www.aps.org/careers/physicists/bsphysgov.cfm (falsified citation) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748895234&oldid=748892576 (Adding content from previously revisioned material, which is already added) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748898542&oldid=748895234 (changing lead as earlier to prove and ascertain to their own convictions that doesn't relate to sources-probable confusion between specialization and specialist) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748904617&oldid=748904282 (original research) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=748902331&oldid=748898542 (empty link)

User:Florinbaiduc reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:Blocked)

Page: Coandă-1910 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Florinbaiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor, possibly another sock (but I don't think so), returns to an old, old battleground. Read the extensive talk: archives for all the past re-runs of this.

Removing "ducted fan" from the lead.

• [48]
• [49]
• [50]

Replacing it with "motorjet"

• [51]
• [52]

and another, since this was posted

• [53]

Coanda's 1910 aircraft is an obscure and misunderstood aircraft. It made no impact at the time and was ignored and forgotten. In 1956 Coanda, by now well-known for later work, made claims about this aircraft as it being the first aircraft with a jet engine, specifically a motorjet (he never claimed it was a gas turbine or turbojet). If these claims were true, this would be an important aircraft with a different article.

These claims have been thoroughly debunked, starting with Charles Gibbs-Smith, whose 1960 letter to Flight describes it thus, "The whole claim is naughty nonsense". Yet there is still a justified nationalistic pride in Coanda, and an unjustified one in this "jet aircraft" claim.

Florinbaiduc (talk · contribs) appears in this article. I assume from their name, and past edits, that they are of Romanian ancestry. They first seem to take issue with "ducted fan" as a term, claiming that the centrifugal compressor generally believed to have been used is different from this, rather than a subset of (as is already thoroughly sourced). Now they are swapping it for "motorjet", which is Coanda's debunked 1956 claim.

We have been there before with this article. I do not wish to go back there. Especially not when Florin's responses are mostly abuse of other editors and their educational level [54] [55] Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation by User:John. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda from 2011, though the Committee didn't authorize discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Florinbaiduc is blocked for 24 hours but if he starts back up with edit warring the length of block will increase according to blocking policy. This guy appears to be not here to help the encyclopedia but instead for the purpose of advancing a (debunked) position of national pride. Binksternet (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]

Comments:

User has been blocked twice already for making the same edits without consensus. As soon as his block expires he comes back and just starts making them again. - Galatz^Talk 17:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

User:63.143.192.228 reported by User:Feinoha (Result: Semi)

Page

Presidential transition of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Lengthy report collapsed to save space
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts 22:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "Restored unexplained deletion of content. Added additional references in the NY Times stating that protestors have been protesting "NO KKK, NO FASCISM". Everything I added is impeccably sourced, neutral, and relevant. There are riots in the streets" 22:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "The text I added doesn't say "swift retaliation". All it says is "leading some to fear that Trump would retaliate against protesters, post-transition". Removed the KKK material." 22:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "added info, more refs. others may assist in the adding of refs on this notable info" 22:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "More refs added. Please collaborate, rather than destroy. This is neutral, well sourced, reliable notable info relevant to the topic. It is a crime against encylopedias to not mention the protests here. Are you people living under a rock?" 22:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "Please do not delete well-sourced content without a legitimate explanation. This is not vandalism, and is highly neutral. Tweak for extra neutrality." 22:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "Correcting a spelling error is unconstructive? "formally" does not mean "formerly". Undid revision 749026193 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)" 22:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "more neutrality. do not delete well sourced content without explanation" 21:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "addressed the issues. more neutrality. let's work together as a team." 21:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "fixed the issues you pointed out. let's collaborate, rather than destroy each other's work. key info is in here, friend." Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning 22:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Presidential transition of Donald Trump. (TW)" Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page Comments: Has been warned multiple times both by an admin and others to stop, but continues to add a paragraph without discussing it. Feinoha Talk 22:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC) You continue to remove content that is impeccably sourced without providing a reason to justify why. Several of the earlier "reasons" given did not reflect the text which was actually added, and I made changes in response to criticisms whenever they were actually given. "Please discuss on the talk page" when there are 0 discussions on that talk page does not help me understand what you think is problematic about the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.192.228 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) This is merely a case of "I don't like it." These editors have no grounds to remove the material other than the fact that it appears to challenge their world views. This is a notable aspect of the scope of the target article, impeccably sourced, and I daresay, is some of the most neutrally crafted prose I have ever seen. Feast your eyes: "Trump's transition to power despite his loss of the popular vote by a "substantial margin" to Hillary Clinton has "sparked" massive protests nationwide, which have drawn significant international attention. The demonstrations against Trump's presidency have taken place in Portland, Boston, New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Baltimore, Dallas, Omaha, Kansas City, Nashville, Philadelphia, Denver, Atlanta, Storrs, Richmond, and many other metropolises nationwide, as well as several international cities, such as London, Manila, and Morroco. Some of the protests have turned violent, and have been classified as a "riot" or have shut down interstate highways. Many of the protestors claim that the will of the people has been ignored, and that "Trump is not my president." . Some protestors have cited the numerous allegations against Trump of sexual assault, and his lewd remarks about women as the reason for their protest, calling Trump a "sexual predator." Others protestors have alleged that Trump's post-transition promises to create deportation forces, ban Muslim travel, and mandate religious identification cards amount to "bigotry" or even "fascism." Protests are planned to continue at least through Trump's inauguration, when a massive protest is planned in Washington, D.C. Trump reacted to the nationwide protests by opining that the protesters are "professional protestors, incited by the media" and complained the mass protests against him are "Very unfair!", stoking fears that Trump would retaliate against protesters, post-transition. " What exactly is problematic here? These editors have no answer other than "I don't like it!" It's now undone the revert [59] of Materialscientist. LavaBaron (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Result: Page semiprotected. The proposed material, even if well-sourced, doesn't belong in the article unless it is supported by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Oh, what a crock of shit. I didn't realize Wikipedia was run by Totalitarian overlords. Literally, no reason was given to me why the material should be removed other than "We don't like it! It's very challenging to our world views! Make the painful thing go away!" Marvelous decision, kangaroo court judge. 63.143.192.228 (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC) PS: There is no one at the talk page, so how is this "consensus" supposed to emerge? One would have though that an abundance of reliable sources on a notable topic were sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.192.228 (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC) References

User:Ditinili reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: )

• Page in dispute: János Bihari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Ditinili (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original title was: User Ditinili 3RR gaming, edit warring, provocation - János Bihari article

I am not the supporter of generating an incident, but this by far! User Ditinili almost three months is continously encountering, provocating uninvited by chasing in a schizoid way also personal contributions all the time and in articles, talk pages, edtis regarding Hungary/Hungarian related matters. After a long observation, it is clear he has not a primary aim for nice collaboration, he generated more edit wars and conflicts also with other users and he continously does it in a very foxy and permanent way, despite of his aim to hinder his goals, everything is apparent time-by-time by his activity. Mainly people would consider he has a problematic comprehension - anyway it has been demonstrated surely more times - but with a totally illogic behavior and pushing he also wilfully does not want to understand some things and by performing more provocations and reverts, pretending the situation else as it is.

In the correspondent article, he made three reverts , , - the third outside the 24 hours, pre-planned as a gaming, thus it may fulfill the violation of 3RR - regarding he did not initiated a discussion on the talk page before the second revert i.e., so the bad aims are totally clear, moreover in the edit logs he is proving the continous activity that is mentioned above, about professional deterioration and confusion.

I warned him, also wrote to the talk page now, roughly:

- My edit was a correction of a mistake, since the county of birth was mixed with a city (Pozsony County was the comitatus of the Kingom of Hungary <-> "now Bratislava" = a present-day city)

- He tried to mix this with another issue, where he requested help for interpretation of something that is anyway should be clear with a drop of good faith (naming conventions for placenames regarding a consensus - treatment of non-existent administrative units), this is not ready yet, anyway it does not matter here

- Despite the explanations and the indications and more disussions earlier, he is performing reverts and provocation although he knows very well what is the situation and using for reverts the same pretext that is invalid here. This has to end once, an action should be taken, if no convincement has an effect of peaceful collaboration.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC))

References

User:73.114.33.135 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked)

Page

Mike Pence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"
2. 00:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"
3. 00:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Mike Pence. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive editing, POV, controversial; has violated the discretionary sanctions for the page (limited to one revert). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. 1RR violation and tendentious editing ("Policy on Deviant Sexual Preferences" referring to LGBT topics). EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:CanadaRed reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

Page: Peter A. Allard School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CanadaRed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section

Comments:

Related article on the school's building went through an AfD back in July, during which this article was cleaned up as well; it had been a prime example of WP:BOOSTER. Was reviewed by several people at that time. CanadaRed is an inexperienced editor and per their contribs they are a SPA for Vancouver where this school is located. They have incorrectly characterized why content was removed and have simply restored en masse and are edit warring to keep it that way, and on Talk are demanding that I re-justify the cleanup. The justifications are in the edit notes, and as I wrote there, I would be happy to discuss any individual edit. Sorry to bring this here, but this is a case of unreasoning advocacy by an inexperienced SPA user. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I may not be as experienced as you, but I have made my share of contributions to the Peter Allard Law page. Also, I'm willing to make compromises and try to resolve the issue. User Jytdog is unwilling to cooperate and constantly makes wholesale and unjustified deletions of content. The only other person to make comments on the talk page disagreed with him. I would like a third party or moderator to weigh in on the issue. I am willing to make compromises and fix things that need to be fixed, but disagree with wholesale deletions or reversions of sections. I would report user Jytdog if I knew how. Any help in resolving this matter would be greatly appreciated.CanadaRed (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit history is 100% advocacy. Your behavior at this article is that of an advocate, not a Wikipedian. None of that is OK. The appropriate outcome here is a block for you, so that you will stop abusing WP to promote things in Vancouver and start actually discussing things instead of forcing your advocacy into WP. Your calling my edits "wholesale removal" misrepresents the history visible in the article - i went through things line by line, ref by ref. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

My account is not a single purpose account. I've mostly made edits to Canadian topics because it is what I'm familiar with. Please refrain from making attacks on my account. What should be discussed is the value of the sections that you deleted, and whether they are appropriate or not. CanadaRed (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Block both. I'm reluctant to call for this in CanadaRed's case as they do seem to have been making an effort to improve the article. However this is a bunch of edit warring and we do have a bright line against such.

In Jytdog's case though, this is an experienced editor who knows absolutely better than this (and oh, does he like to hold that "experience" over any other editors. The WP:IDHT behaviour when CanadaRed started some discussion on the talk: page is classic Jytdog behaviour: an editor far more interested in pushing their own viewpoint right over anyone else and completely ignoring any attempt to work to actually improve something. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

and the peanut gallery arrives. Andy calling edit warring restoration of promotional content an "improvement" is par for the course in their history of chiming in with misrepresentations like this . I have warned them that the next time they do it will seek and likely get a 1-way interaction ban. If you look at the restored edits that are badly sourced/unsourced and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog clearly disagrees that 4RR applies to him too. He is wrong in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly behavior like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=749205903, is grounds it self for a long ban. This has crossed into harassment, Jytdog's "warning" is nothing more than the harassment of a critic. This kind of behavior isn't welcome here. 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:C463:1B4B:69A6:1354 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)