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

Edit war resuming after protection expired at Homo naledi (Result: Protected)

Page: Homo naledi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Here to sway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An RfC was opened, but this did not stop one editor resuming as soon as the protection expired. Samsara 12:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article. The article will only be unprotected at the end of the RFC or when consensus is reached between the warring parties on the article talk page. --Jayron32 12:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Samsara recently put a notice about that on my user page, and you did not put any note on anyone else's user page. I am assuming that you have not made any mistake by singling me out. Does that mean that I am in "a war" where there are no other parties? You are making edits to an article, then I make an edit, and minutes later you put a note on my page - and only my page, and then you open this thread. I find that approach somewhat questionable. Here to sway (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Message from HTJ, paleoanthropologist-no-wikipedian-yes, himself (perhaps I am mocking the terminology that I have removed from the various wiki-tributes to a senior expedition member):

I have been the one side, so to speak, in an edit-war. While undoing edits (which even Kim Il-sung might have considered unpaid advocacy, before starting to blush) I have broken rules in a message which was posted 12:33, 25 September: "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period".

I hope my punishment gets some discount for various good work and effort [1]. Here to sway (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I've named one person in the header of this report because that must be the "one editor resuming as soon as the protection expired". I'm doing this for the sake of completeness in the report, and in case the dispute resumes in the future. The edit which User:Samsara is criticizing must be this one. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User: 86.40.31.62 reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Semi)

Page: Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.40.31.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain#Quiet

Comments:

IP editor has started demanding that his preferred edits be recognised. There have been multiple attempts at protecting the page, but administrators have referred editors to dispute resolution. Whatever attempts there have been at dispute resolution have failed, or have at least been disrupted by the IP editor's behaviour. Other editors believe that his edits are an attempt to remove criticism of the game from the article, violating NPOV. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Update—I have since been informed that because this issue relates to the representation of women in video games, discretionary sanctions are in place (though I don't know implications this has for the article). Several more editors have joined in to try and come to a consensus, and I have tried to introduce additional content to the article to address the IP editor's concerns, but the editor has been reverting anything and everything that is not consistent with his preferred edits, and his reasoning has been questionable at best, claiming that an explanation within the story negates the controversy, that including story details amounts to spoilers and should be removed, and that the controversy is invalid because there is no opposing point of view on the subject.

I agree with @Prisonermonkeys:. I've pointed out to WP:BRD, to no avail. IP feels that a paragraph that mentions criticsm should go. IP has not been willing to change their stance one bit; keeping to a "all-or-nothing" attitude. We've been pointing to Wikipedia's guidelines, saying that another point of view is more than welcome, but since IP couldn't find a decent one (IP mentioned one website, not a reliable source), IP still said it should go. I've given warnings for their attitude, especially ignoring our advice. --Soetermans. T / C 12:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Davefelmer reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Alex Ferguson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "what are you doing? The edit was long-standing and a deliberation between editors. do not continue to revert it."
2. 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "edit was long-standing and a result of collaboration between editors. Please do not revert."
3. 16:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "no right to change long-standing edit. This was a result of deliberation with other editors and not solely done by me."
4. 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "tidied up intro."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on PFC Levski Sofia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am tired of this editor now. After the creation of this account he or she has been blocked 3 times, twice for edit warring and one for sockpuppeting and there is many and many different warnings for edit warring. Just look at Alex Ferguson history and see the reverts from this editor. All of the attempts of discussion has been very hostile, calling others for "troll" in edit summaries and so on. It seems to me like this editor has problem with collaboration and just gets agressive when others dont share their point of view. This ging around to remove sourced content just because the editor thinks they are not honours has to stop. The editor could possibly be right in some cases, but there is no way of discussing with the aggression. Qed237 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not a fair accusation considering the fact that I have not ever been properly consulted on any edits. on the Sir Alex article, a long-standing edit that was agreed on with another editor was suddenly reverted yesterday for no reason. Likewise with the Levski article where all i asked was for a reliable source to confirm the trophy haul yet nobody provided one, so I edited it based off an establish credible source only to constantly be reverted to an unsourced statement. When I tried to talk to the editor above regarding the Arsenal page, this was his response:

"@Davefelmer: I dont have the time for this now, but this belongs to the article talkpage or possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)"

If anyone would be willing to discuss changes on articles, I would be happy to oblige. Davefelmer (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a few responses, then I will leave this to admin. I have no interest in arguing back and forth here and such arguing rarely comes with a good result. What I am concerned about is the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. You brought up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Arsenal honours so how do you think that is going? Your case has not been supported and what I see now is you, still arguing with an other editor, trying to push your case after a wall of text that is to long for most users to care about getting in to. About Alex Ferguson I fail to see any long term consensus (we probably have different interpretations of "long"). On European association football club records Linfield should be listed as they are a well known team that has been representing their country in qualification to Champions League and Europa League and they belong on that list. But as I said I am concerned about the WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. Qed237 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

where is this argueing with another editor? And as for a wall of text, if a paragraph to explain my view isnt worth getting into for you, you have to question yourself and nobody else because the point of a discussion is to get your view across in however many words it takes. As for Alex Ferguson, 30 days is a long-enough period to establish a consensus that was agreed upon by myself and another editor. These are just becoming your views now. Linfield might be well known (are they actually though?!) but they are SEMI-profesional and shouldnt be included amongst profesional sides. otherwise the table would be full of local teams who have won a ton of awards as opposed to top profesional outfits. Davefelmer (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The edit warring continues (diff). Time for action now. Qed237 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: You've reverted 4 times, which is in violation of WP:3RR. Edit warring is unproductive and will lead to a block, regardless of intent. clpo13_(talk) 16:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Look at the history and you will see the editor had deleted my comments on his talk page to resolve the issue and was only comunicating through edits on the main page. He has now addressed the issue in the talk page so there is no need to continue to revert. It should also be noted that another editor made the initial revert and I was changing back to the established edit since the editor would not explain his changes. Davefelmer (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

That is simply not true. My changes were explained in the edit summaries (1, 2). It's you who made repeated misleading edit summaries "tidied up intro", "no right to change long-standing edit. This was a result of deliberation with other editors and not solely done by me". Davefelmer has been recently blocked for edit warring yet has done nothing to improve its behaviour. It continues to treat wikipedia as some sort of battleground to make Manchester United FC look better (as if that were needed) and other clubs look worse. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

In my admin opinion User:Davefelmer should be indefinitely blocked. He is an all-purpose edit warrior across a wide range of football articles. He's even continuing to use the IP for whose use he was sanctioned in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Davefelmer. He has already blocked three times since 1 September for as long as a week, and it does not appear that he is ever going to get the message about waiting for consensus. Rather than being diplomatic in the current thread, he is just arguing back against everyone he is in a dispute with. Since this complaint was opened he has been making additional reverts at Alex Ferguson. This suggests he has no plans to listen to feedback. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Left door open for unblock if editor agrees to abide by WP:1RR. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Multiple users reported by User:Dennis Bratland (Result: No violation)

Page: Volkswagen emissions violations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10] Skyring
2. [11] Dennis Bratland that's me
3. [12] Skyring
4. [13] Calidum
5. [14] Guy Macon
6. [15] Calidum
7. [16] John -- an Admin edit warring instead of enforcing 3RR!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17][18][19][20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21][22] + many other discussions

Comments:

• There's an RfC that's making progress in resolving this, but nonetheless we have several veteran editors who ought to know better than to revert the same thing 9 7 times in a span of a scant 10 hours. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking at my three supposed reveverts, I find that

• the first listed is a rewording of the lead sentence, not a revert to any previous version,
• the second time yes I did revert Dennis's revert, because discussion was ongoing and Dennis's preferred version did not reflect consensus about use of the word "illegal"
• the third listing is exactly the same diff as the second!!! Listing one diff two times is a novel tactic, or a genuine mistake made in the heat of the moment, but either way should be corrected.

Perhaps Dennis could slow down, check his facts, await the outcome of the current RfC, and think about correcting his listing above? --Pete (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC) (later) The same error applies to Calidum's contributions. Perhaps his second entry could also be excised? --Pete (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Tag team edit warring is still edit warring. You guys blew right past 3 reverts and kept on going, that's for sure. There is every reason to expect you will resume edit warring at the first opportunity, because you're convinced your cause is righteous. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, you are required to notify each editor you report here. Where are these notifications? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, then nothing to see here. I assumed we were dealing with editors who don't need the 3RR explained to them for the upmteenth time by the likes of me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we could all review the three revert rule at this point. It is a useful part of Wikipolicy, but sometimes misunderstood. --Pete (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Dennis Bratland, the editors in question don't need a 3RR warning but do need to be notified they have been reported. Same rules as ANI. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, everybody has a notice of this thread now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Seriously? I am being reported for edit warring for a single 1RR revert that was only my second edit to the page ever? The only reason I edited the page at all was because of a call for more eyes on it posted here on ANI. You cannot accuse VW of illegal activity in Wikipedia's voice when they have not had a chance to defend themselves in court. You can only say they were accused and who is accusing them. Also the reference used to support the "illegal: claim iv an EPA Notice of violation (NOV). "NOVs are not a final EPA determination that a violation has occurred."[23] BTW, I was not notified that I had been reported or edid warring. I noticed this being discussed on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• No violation This is a content dispute, and no one broke 3RR. Parties are reminded to keep language neutral point of view. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Mediatech492 reported by User:Cassianto (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Charlie Chaplin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mediatech492 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments: Disruptive user ignoring comments and attempts to engage in discussions by warring. At 4 reverts currently. Cassianto^Talk 18:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Also looks to be going at it on Sinking of the RMS Lusitania. --slakr^\ talk / 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User:19999o reported by User:StanProg (Result: Blocked)

Page: Macedonians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 19999o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32] (21 September 2015‎)
2. [33] (25 September 2015‎)
3. [34] (26 September 2015)
4. [35] (26 September 2015‎)
5. [36] (26 September 2015‎)
6. [37] (27 September 2015)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] (at user talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:
The user is constantly removing sourced information, along with the sources, which is being stable for a lot of time. Few users are returning the changes to the stable version, but user continues to remove the information. I've warned the user at the user talk page, and the edit-warring warning was added User:SilentResident, but the user does not responds. I've not opened a discussion on the article talk page, because the user does not responds even on his talk page. --StanProg (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:Callanecc. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:90.214.96.143 reported by User:NottNott (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Angelica Pickles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683042214 by NottNott (talk) WP:NN trumps your opinion."
2. 19:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683041241 by NottNott (talk) per the Tommy article"
3. 19:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "WP:NN"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not willing to show consensus: uncivil behaviour ~ NottNott talk|contrib 19:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Getting your friends to troll me is uncivil... 90.214.96.143 (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

User:165.112.97.73 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 165.112.97.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Comments:
IP editor making disruptive plot summary edits on multiple articles despite multiple warnings. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor has also notably engaged in edit warring on The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, more information on which can be found here. —zziccardi (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Elduderino reported by User:Cirt (Result: Blocked 24 hours for BLP violations)

Page: Ahmed Mohamed clock incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elduderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 21:22, 28 September 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:22, 28 September 2015
2. 21:27, 28 September 2015
3. 21:42, 28 September 2015
4. 21:45, 28 September 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: DIFF

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: BLPN Noticeboard discussion thread

Comments:

Please see also WP:BLPN thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy.

Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE also applies here. — Cirt (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell from the timestamps, there has been no edit warring by Elduderino after being given his first warning about edit warring, so I'm not inclined to block. But this is independent confirmation that you (@Elduderino:) were edit warring, contrary to WP:BLP, and if it happens again you will be blocked. Gain consensus on the article talk page before making that change again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24 hours by NuclearWarfare. — Cirt (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's what happens when I type slowly I guess. We generally require a warning before blocking, but maybe I missed one on some other page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • User has multiple warnings on their talk page. But the block log shows for violations of WP:BLP, not just the edit warring. — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I blocked for the BLP violation, not for the 3RR. There was a BLP discretionary sanctions notification on the talk page, as well as Cwobeel's edit warring notification given after their last edit to the article. I took this post as an indication that the user intended to continue implementing their BLP-violating at some point in the future, even if it wasn't in the next 3RR period. If another administrator wants to unblock that is fine, but I would rather force a discussion at this stage. NW (Talk) 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
        • That's fine; unlike the edit warring warning, the BLP warning did come a few minutes before their final edit to the page. I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to contest it on their behalf. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Thank you both for the attention to this matter. More eyes are needed at WP:BLPN thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Weasel_Zippers_source_and_others.2C_at_page_with_controversial_claims_about_14-year-old-boy. The entire article needs its sources looked over one-by-one and make sure that any that fail WP:RS be removed. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Sigehelmus reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: )

Page

Guatemalan Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "adding npov, ref, fixing grammar, etc"
2. 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "changed a word, added a synonym, removed a needless replacement term, added a reference. That's it....what exactly is wrong here?"
3. 00:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "You seem to imply that changing one half of a sentence was worth a multiple-day discussion for an entire NPOV label. You should start the discussion the next time, I'm standing by my changes. This violates nothing!"
4. 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "added back in democratic, I see the issue; I don't count this as a revert, pls correct me tho if wrong"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "/* September 2015 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV */ will you please discuss this?"

Comments:

Continued and pointed refusal to discuss these edits, despite multiple invitations to do so, and multiple warnings about edit-warring. Despite this, I invited the editor to self-revert, which they have declined to do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Huldra (Result: )

Page: Sur Baher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Debresser (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. 17:27, 28 September 2015: Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"
2. 20:59, 28 September 2015: Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see: User_talk:Debresser#1RR

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

Comments:

Article is under 1RR, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reaction by Debresser

I have know Huldra for a while already. He makes very good edits in general, but he also has a clear POV, and that is fine with me, as long as he doesn't disturb this project with his POV, but he is also a belligerent editor, who has taken to pick on me, and because a few other editors with the same POV regarding the PI conflict work together, he thinks he can get away with it. I would like a clear message to be sent to Huldra, that the community will not stand for ignoring talkpage consensus and disruptive behavior, and will not allow him to "take over" a whole bunch of article.

This is at best a very partial revert, which came to restore a consensus version. I would like to point out to the admins here that the question whether that header should say "occupation" or "control" was discussed at considerable length at Talk:Sur Baher#Occupied, and that Huldra himself took an active part in that discussion. Coming back after half a year and disturb that consensus is a blatant disruptive edit, and per the clean hands doctrine Huldra should not even be able to report me here. The least I propose is a WP:BOOMERANG warning to Huldra to this effect.

Please also see User_talk:Debresser#1RR where Huldra posted an a friendly (unknown to me) talkpage stalker replied to him that I do have a point, and that Huldra should continue discussing this.[47] To which Huldra's only reply was that he doesn't believe in discussion with me,[48] with the explicitly stated reason that he is been unable in the past to convince me!! The fact is that Huldra has on many occasions been able to convince me, but not always, i.e. when he is wrong. It is not me who refuses to discuss with him, but he with me (see first line in this edit, for example). I ask to view my edit in this light, and warn Huldra accordingly. Debresser (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Simpleabd reported by User:AsceticRose (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "ok. we add good source already."
2. 12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "we add good source."
3. 09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "i already messaged you. you are making mistake already."
4. 09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "the source and information is clean. kindly do not make it complicated."
5. 08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC) "kindly check the source Quran 3:19. it states Islam is the only religion in the sight of ALLAH. Quran 2:285, ALLAH is make no distinction to any of His messengers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user as notified by User:Materialscientist about his unconstructive edit and was asked by User:AstroLynx to discuss his controversial changes on talk first [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_in_Islam&diff=683124732&oldid=683124224]. Instead, he keeps edit warring. -AsceticRosé 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the history of article, he is continuously changing the sourced information. -AsceticRosé 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Tounsimentounes reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53] (This last one is rather dubious for reasons discussed below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] and on the user's talk page under [56]

Comments:

I am not sure this is a 3RR violation, because the 41.x IP seems likely to be the same person who recently necessitated page semi-protection on Moroccan genetics - the edit summaries and nature of the edits are suggestive to me that that is the case. If so, perhaps the 4th revert is justified as reverting a persistently disruptive editor - indeed, one I also reverted.

If it _is_ a 3RR violation, of course, that also means I'm up to 3 reverts from 15:07 GMT on the 28th September onwards, so if that necessitates action, so be it.

Like last time I was here, for all I know Tounsimentounes is _right_, but I'm not getting anywhere on having them produce sources to demonstrate it. Pinkbeast (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)