Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • 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 than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
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 the 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.

User: ‎Superfluous man reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Superfluous man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: [7][8][9][10]

Comments: The user just does not want to discuss his edits, even after telling him to do so four times. And when he opens a discussion at the talk page, he reverts my edit just 2 minutes later. I do not understand what's the point of opening a discussion at the TP when the user is just going to keep on edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Warned and has continued reverting, even while this discussion was open here. Kuru (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have opened a new report because sock has started the edit-warring hours after release from block. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bill the Cat 7 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: )[edit]

Page
William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659019842 by Mann jess (talk)The order is good the previous way."
  2. 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659026103 by Mann jess (talk)He is not a scientist but Stephen Hawking is and he says it is "the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology"."
  3. 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659029138 by Mann jess (talk)Yes, take it to talk, per BRD, Not BRRD."
  4. 19:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Mann jess (talk) to last version by Bill the Cat 7"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on William Lane Craig. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Ordering of Lead */ new section"
  2. 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Craig is not a scientist. */ new section"
Comments:

4 reverts today, with no attempt to engage in discussion of sources. Editor insists on restoring unsourced content and original research to the article.   — Jess· Δ 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The 4th revert was a mistake (my apologies), but MJ began the edit warring with his second revert in violation of WP:BRD, removing well-sourced content and not willing to discuss. And he continues to [11] chop up the article rather than improving it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This is nothing more than an attempt by Mann Jess and Theroadislong to cut down the page, and now they are trying to ban all opposition.--TMD Talk Page. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Please assume good faith your recent edit at William Lane Craig removed 24 good quality edits which were all based on sound Wikipedia policies.Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Those were not quality edits, but were attempts to remove quality information from the article.--TMD Talk Page. 15:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You need to double check then, most of my edits removed unreferenced material and Mann Jess's edits improved the grammar and readability enormously. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
If the 4th revert was a mistake, I'm sure you'd be happy to self-revert. Or, I'd be immensely happy for you to discuss the reverts, instead of refusing to. No editor is entitled to 3 reverts, despite the patterned behavior (e.g. April 2nd: [12], [13], [14], June 7th: [15], [16], [17], [18], both in just this last year on this article). Repeated reverting without participating in discussion is edit warring, regardless of the number of reverts. It just so happens this time you also went over 3rr.   — Jess· Δ 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I certainly would have self-reverted had you not continued to make edits without consensus. By the time I figured out what had happened, the whole string of edits that were made got removed so that we are now at a point where we can "D" in the BRD process, which is all I was trying to get you to do (how's that for a run-on sentence?). Remember, it's a BRD process, not a BRRD process. So, let's discuss. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to make changes, hence B. There's nothing stopping you from self reverting now, considering your revert is the currently standing version, and there's also nothing stopping you from discussing. It's been days, no response whatsoever to the long list of sources I provided. Yet, you felt comfortable enough reverting without participating in the discussion I opened, even over 3rr, and you don't see that as edit warring; that's a problem.   — Jess· Δ 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Incredibly one sided. Tried to bring some balance.."
  3. 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "this is crucial stuff, not POV. if we cant even mention the claims of Turkey, are we then simply being a propaganda tool. Whatever one sides says is correct and the other side is outside the debate?"
  4. 07:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "I added sources. this article needs to be cleaned up. It relies heavily on Armenian, Russian and Western sources. the use of missionary accounts is especially alarming, as are those of official British accounts."
  5. 09:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(please stop removing sourced content. I am nowhere disputing what is written in the text, I am simply adding facts. There is nothing wrong with that, especcially in a biased piece like this is.)"
  6. 10:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(This is historical background, crucial in understanding what happened. Not allowing this crucial fact, is setting yourself up as a propgandist. No need for consensus here.)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Article is on WP:1RR. Editor was informed of this. NeilN talk to me 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

S/he seems to be on unresponsive, automated edit-warring mode. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Last block they got was for a week. One would think they would take that on board. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I don't have an account on this website, I would like to leave a comment on what happened. I added a notice in the last week on the talk page of the mentioned article calling the editors to fix this obvious and undisputable "Template:Systemic bias" of the article. The article is heavily propagating one single view (the view of those who claim that there has been "an Armenian genocide" and under-representing the view of the other party (those who claim that there has not been such an event). I asked them to present the two views in a balanced manner without bias and without this advertising language. However, no one of them made any positive response except "Rarevogel" who started to add some "sourced information" to the article in order to bring for it some of the needed-balance. The biased editors of the pro-Armenian view didn't accept to keep these sourced information, in spite of the fact that they are sourced, in the article and made an illegal removal of them.
Theoretically, these biased editors of the pro-Armenian view should be blocked because of their co-operation to prevent anyone of the other editors, who don't share with them this bias toward the Armenians, from adding "sourced information" to the article.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You are advocating a false balance. We have parties that claim Evolution doesn't exist. The article isn't "balanced" to highlight these views. --NeilN talk to me 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"Evolution" is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. The Armenian claims are not "scientific" and are not based on scientific evidence.
So it is you my dear who is advocating a false balance, not me.
Here we have a legal case: in which the Armenians and their supporters are on one side, while the Turks and their supporters are on the other side. In order to be just and neutral, we have to give them both an equal space to represent themselves and to introduce their arguments. Without doing so, our judgment becomes unjust and unbalanced.
The Christian conscience is one-eyed. That is why an article written by the Christian majority of Wikipedia is almost always one-sided. (Full stop)--95.141.20.198 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
History is not a legal case. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you use WP:NPOVN. --NeilN talk to me 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Vermilioncliffs reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Gordon B. Hinckley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vermilioncliffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
  6. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Linke to article talk page discussiiono: [26]

Comments: Although the editor, to their credit, went to the Talk page (and I did not), they continued to revert on the article over and over. One other editor commented in the discussion, and my edit summaries, which admittedly are not the same as discussion, noted that they needed WP:CONSENSUS at the Talk page for their additions, many of which are poorly sourced or unsourced, and are obviously promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, I am frustrated by the current situation. I have written numerous posts on the talk page, and neither you nor Neiln has responded to my comments about the substance of your claims. I asked which sources would be better, and which sources were 'poorly sourced' or non-neutral, and I have not received a specific reply. What is worse, you are merely 'undoing' everything I have added, rather than deleting or modifying specific entries. I have asked, how is a statewide newspaper a poor source? How is the only extant biography of Hinckley a poor source? Moreover, there are countless entries in there no with no source whatsoever, which makes your wholesale revert seem unevenly applied. And I am not reverting wholesale like you. I am trying to engage in your comments, but neither you nor NeilN are looking at the sources themselves, offering alternatives, etc. I am happy to seek consensus, but I do not see how your not engaging with the sources, and simply undoing anything I have added will lead to that. I am attempting to make a good faith effort to improve a wiki page that needs significant improvement. And as far as I understand, edit war involves reverts like you are doing (undoing wholesale). I am going back, re-analyzing the text, and trying to find a solution. Otherwise, being accused of reverting would mean I simply cannot modify and add anything I have ever added.Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You posted, which is great, but you need to allow for more than 8 hours for a reply. --NeilN talk to me 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I can wait. And just please in the future, be specific about which sources, sentences. It is frustrating to spend a good deal of time researching to improve a page that needs much improvement just to receive a "yeah, nope: all crap" revert. Thanks. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First, even if you got zero response at the Talk page, you cannot breach WP:3RR. There are other dispute resolution mechanisms you can try besides the Talk page. Second, I notified you of this discussion at 17:52, and at 19:02 you reverted yet again. Your "frustration" aside, I have trouble believing that you will not resume disrupting the article. At the moment, another editor, ChristensenMJ has reverted twice (similar to your reverts), while 70.34.2.50, like you, has clearly breached 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. No action. Please file a new report if the problem continues, or simply reactivate this one by removing the "result" from the header. Hopefully that won't be necessary! Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:J man708 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Template:2012 Major League Soccer season table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
J man708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Teams in other countries qualify for tournaments like the Europa League through non-league means, (ie-FA Cup winners). This is shown on their overall season table. Why must it be different for the MLS?"
  2. 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Talk it out here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Inclusion_of_MLS_Playoffs_in_the_overall_table. The current edit conforms with other similar league systems (ie. A-League, ASB Premiership). The US league has no need to be an exception."
  3. 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Read the WikiProject Football page to see WHY it is to be kept like THIS during discussions. Thank you."
  4. 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Consensus has already been reached a good month ago and this is a part of it being rolled out as part of WikiProject Football. We're not going to "Leave it in the longstanding format" when a new format was already voted on and passed to show playoffs."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring instead of discussing */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

A second warning provided at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&diff=prev&oldid=659201874 where a discussion is happening to determine consensus Editor seems to think a unilateral decision to change to a different format, similar to those used in other leagues, means that it should stay despite two editors reverting. Similar activity on Template:2013 Major League Soccer season table and Template:2014 Major League Soccer season table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add an outside comment that User:Walter Görlitz also reported me 8 days ago for edit warring when he also had 3 reverts. The result was that both was advised to stop warring (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:Qed237 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Advice)). Seeing the same pattern here, I wanted to bring it up for knowledge to the closing admins. If it is a habbit (not saying it is) to report "opponents" in an edit war when you have 3 reverts on your own, I dont think it is a very good habbit. I have been told that you dont have to break 3RR to be edit warring, and it seems like Walter Görlitz stops at 3 reverts not to be blocked, but reports the other editor. It is not my job to decide, but it might be appropriate to inform Walter Görlitz with a message to let him know he can not edit war himself. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't stop at three reverts intentionally. I stop when I realize it's an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey Walter, I understand the issue at hand, but I've been lead to believe that the consensus reached at WikiProject football is something to stick to. Your reverts of the article make it fail to conform to this consensus. Whilst I understand that the 3RR has been breached, this whole situation happened over a short space of time, wherein we were both reverting articles and writing responses to one another (I think the majority was within a ten minute period or so). Regardless, I assure you that the edits I have made to the articles in question have been voted for in a LONG debate (which actually lasted for about two months) over at WikiProject football (ironically enough with QED who responded above), wherein both sides came to an equal and content consensus over their issues and requests. For this, I hope you can see that this issue has been pondered over for a very long time and isn't just an edit that I've created because I think it looks good or something. I'm actually surprised to be perfectly honest that the American league tables have slipped through the cracks and not been updated to conform to the consensus. - J man708 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay User:Walter Görlitz, I can understand and relate to that, I have done the same. But then report the other editor for edit warring when you are edit warring yourself might not be the best idea, it may look like you want to stop the other editor to get your will through. In my books User:Walter Görlitz just are as guilty as User:J man708 and both can be seen as edit warring. QED237 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You claim there's a consensus, but you have not pointed to it.
I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block. I want the other editor to know that their behaviour is over the line and they need to stop since the subtle warnings were ignored. It's also obvious that other editors may revert and then we have a worse problem on our hands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) By the way, I also was/have stopped editing once realising it has turned into an edit war. The other user who is involved in this debate has since reverted the 2015 article, to which I have left (despite the fact that I haven't reverted that one at all). Perhaps you should see that as me not being a reverter and instead leaving it for the higher powers to deal with, too? I feel as though you have honestly reported me on here, whilst being just as guilty as I am. It's as though you had this page all readied, waiting for a third revert to cause an issue, rather than trying to discuss this on the WikiProjectFootball page like I had suggested we use after Revert Number 1 had taken place.. QED, I 100% agree with you. - J man708 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block" and yet, you said also "I expect an admin to step in and block you for breaking WP:3RR if you revert to your preferred version prior to establishing a consensus to accept the new format."... Really? - J man708 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
For the record, the consensus is voted upon here. Something I HAVE already linked you to before. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_93#Consensus_2 - J man708 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the former: a public comment for the Footy admins to do with as they please. The latter is reality. I didn't actually expect you to cross the bright line after I wrote the statement. Since you did, were you expecting the admins to step-in?
You claim consensus. I don't see that actually being accepted. Several editors argue with you. And you even ignored the consensus in applying the formatting to the templates in question, correcting it only now. Thanks for pointing me to it. Do you think other FOOTY participants know about it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
And the consensus, now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season, so it is recognized, is only for the colouring of the table, not for the inclusion of other national qualifications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that other Footy Participants know about it, as it is on the League Season page that you yourself presented. Can you provide evidence of ignoring the consensus in applying the formatting? I'm sure there is a logical reason behind that occuring. Besides, I do honestly believe you're bringing up points here to try and get me blocked or something similar, something you see as justification for arguing with you. The facts are that we're both on two different sides of a conflict. I took the means of taking this discussion to the Football Project page, where it (like all other similar football issues are discussed) and you chose to put up an edit warring admin notification against me and bring up stale arguments with the intention of trying to get me into trouble. Please wait for an admin to discuss this issue further. Thank you. - J man708 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I can't prove that they don't know about it any more than you can prove that they all know about it. That's flawed logic.
I nominated you because you went past WP:3RR not to offer an argument.
Now that another the other editor has reverted, the third to do so, do you plan to discuss? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
It's on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season page. This is the template for everything football on Wiki. "Another editor has reverted", no... That's still just two. Yourself and BMF. I intend on waiting for an admin to mediate this, as despite what you say, you do seem to be hell bent on finding an argument here. As I said before, please wait for an admin to discuss this further. - J man708 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Two editors have restored to the older version. Not looking for an agument, simply a discussion. I have received several answers and this discussion has been worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for one week. This allows plenty of time for discussion and surely no harm is done to either party for this one week. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rahuloof reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Rahuloof blocked; many warnings)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32] [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kargil_War#Kargil_War_Result & [34]

Comments: User edit warred with two users on the concerned article, editing in content that is contentious, without consensus and currently under dispute at the talk page. The user has no recent history of edits at the article, nor has he participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page until mysteriously coming in to make the reverts. He abused the rollback feature and knowingly broke 3RR [35] yet has chosen not to self-revert despite being warned on his talk page and being asked to on the article talk page, and let the article remain in present form until the dispute is settled. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment Mar4d has made 5 reverts. Thus page protection would be a better choice, I had already requested it on WP:RFPP. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 10:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
There were 3 reverts, not 5. You went overboard with 3RR by not only reverting me, but also TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Rahul's statement in the editsummary (no matter who was 'right') while breaking 3RR that he's knowingly breaking 3RR isn't the way to go. Regardless of block, protection etc outcome, it is clear that he does not need the rollback user rights. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I would like to present the following points in my defence
  1. TopGun amd mar4d are engaged in some kind of groupism where they edit as a group and always support each other in talk pages. They are various instances where they both have been part of a edit war [36] [37] [38]
  2. As they edit as a group, they are using the 3RR rule as shield to insert their views in the article without any consensus and threatens users who do not support their views with block warnings.
  3. In this particular case , there is an active debate on the talk page regarding the issue and in my edit summary i have repeatedly urge them to gain consensus on talk page before making any changes.
  4. This is my first engagement in any kind of edit war while both topgun and mr4d have a history of edit wars
  5. I request the ADMIN to check the concerned article and the talk page before making any decision.
  6. I used twinkle for reverting their edits and the single use of rollback was a mistake on my point
  7. I believe common sense will prevail here

RahulText me 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Both TopGun and I were involved in that article previously and had been participating in the talk page. You appeared out of the blue without any history at that article and started making reverts while completely ignoring the entire discussion taking place at the talk page. I am more curious about your motives and what brought you into the edit war. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Well its Ironic that after giving human3015 a lecture about bad faith you are accusing me of editing in bad faith. I dont care about your participation in the talk page regarding older topics, but this particular topic is under discussion in the article's talk page with my active participation RahulText me 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment, Mar4d has made 5 reverts and page protection will be a better option. I want tell one more thing, few users are always acting in group to write Anti-India matter in any related article. Mar4d, TopGun together made me to get blocked for 48 hours recently. And here also they fighting together to get another user blocked. They blame others for making 3-4 reverts(which they actually revert vandalism), but Mar4d and TopGun together makes 6-7 reverts(that too to enforce personal POV). --Human3015 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you should have some introspection on the way you conduct yourself. You've been following me at places and involving yourself in matters that do not seem to be of relevance to you. This attitude got you blocked too for 3RR. I have noticed that your habit of making personal attacks and bad faith remarks on me has become quite consistent at almost every thread. This is something that is of deep concern. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Mar4d, who said I'm following you, you recently nominated me on this same page so this page was on my watchlist. You, your team and your agenda has been exposed several times. We should always maintain good faith, we all are Humans, we should use wikipedia as a neutral tool to make positive change in the society. Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Human3015 12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
And Mar4d, you can't say that this matter is not relevant to me, Kargil War has always been on my watchlist, and as soon as I got unblocked I took part in discussion on talk page of Kargil War which is now going on. --Human3015 12:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
That is a load of bollocks. You've never edited that article before, and you only commented on the talk page an hour ago from now. And that is also your very first edit on that article talk page. It is clear you are following me, and it is also clear that this seems to be some attempt at tag-teaming. Just quit it. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 1) A few editors who have edited the same articles since ages and have them on the watchlist support a similar version of the article as an attempt towards neutrality... that's not groupism and calling it that is plainly divisive, 2) Human3015 was just blocked because he ediwarred at another article and has chosen to turn up at this article and report as a tit for tat gesture which is hostile attitude. I don't mind this article getting protected until a clear consensus is achieved towards what the infobox should say but blatant and divisive accusations and casting of aspirations towards established editors should be curbed. Inspite of my repeated attempts to engage in content related discussion on article talkpage, Rahul is instead choosing to accuse editors which is definitely not achieving anything. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Rahuloof for 24 hours, not only for breaching 3RR, but for knowingly doing so and apparently not caring. After OccultZone's revert, the article is currently Rahuloof's version (retreat). Thus, they had no cause to revert again, but I have no confidence that they wouldn't. Mar4d did not breach 3RR. They made three reverts in a 24-hour window. There was a previous edit war on April 23, though, in which Mar4d was involved, but actually less so than other editors (one revert). I know everyone is screaming that they have consensus for their version, but I don't see any clear consensus, although I went back only so far in the rather contentious Talk page discussions. I suggest an RfC to determine whether the infobox should say retreat or return to status quo. In the meantime, the following editors are Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned: Mar4d, TopGun, Imperial HRH2, and OccultZone. If there are any reverts of the disputed material in the next seven days, you may be blocked. And that includes the revert of a revert. If you want to report a revert, come to my Talk page or report it to another admin, but don't revert back. It's a bit unfair to include OccultZone because they made only one revert, the most recent one, in quite some time. However, they have edited the article before and are participating in the discussion on the Talk page. Having entered the fray with more than just a simple revert to keep the peace, they are stuck with my warning. I can't force you folk to initiate an RfC, but whatever you do, can't you at least be more civil and stop throwing nationalist slurs around? I don't even care if there's evidence to support them, they are never constructive. If someone is making consistently biased edits to Wikipedia articles, then take them to ANI. Otherwise keep your mouth shut about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dannemel reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Battle of Milne Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dannemel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (both logged in as Dannemel and logged out)

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44]
  6. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:
This person has been using the Dannemel account and logged-out editing to add POV-pushing material to the feature article Battle of Milne Bay. Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clearly the same editor as the IPs. Clear reverts, was warned prior to last revert. Blocked longer for the deceptive edit summaries. Also blocked the IPs used. Can semi-protect if he rotates to other IPs. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Superfluous man reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Superfluous man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Total revert by the sock reinstating his/her edit up to 14:12 UTC. Includes all five consecutive edits
  2. 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) "(Sorry, but this is the Turkey article, therefore "Turkey's official stance" on this issue should also be briefly described in one sentence. Removing referenced content is vandalism.)"
  3. 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) "(Sorry: Restoring the correction of the GDP figures, which was originally made by myself.)"
  4. 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) "(There isn't a single sentence in this paragraph which is incorrect or unreferenced.)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The views of "all sides" (Armenian, Turkish, neutral) must be given */An understatement"
Comments:

Sock of Lord of Rivendell. Started exactly the same edit-war on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for which he was blocked. Previous report is still item 4 on this noticeboard. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Blocked for at least the edit warring. No comment on the socking; will look at that when I get time. Kuru (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Zimimi reported by User:RolandR (Result: 72h)[edit]

Page
Battle of the Somme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zimimi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 19:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 20:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  6. 10:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  7. 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  8. Consecutive edits made from 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) to 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    1. 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor has been repeatedly warned, with apparently a dozen warnings in the past 24 hours. Making the same nonsense edit 15 times in just two days seems more than excessive. Editor has never explained the edit, nor engaged in any talk page discussion. RolandR (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Very similar behavior on 2015 military intervention in Yemen as well, so there's a history. BMK (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 days. Given the severity of their behavior, user warned that next edit warring block will be substantially longer. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:DF27 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Laurentum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DF27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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]
  5. [54]

Exactly same thing going on at Laurentius as well.

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]
  5. [59]

Similar tendencies at Spanish language, where it comes closer to vandalism with repeated removals of sourced content

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] (an edit summary, not a comment on the article talk page, but encouraging the user to explain his constant removals and to stop the edit warring. As it concerns several articles, I tried both to warn the user (when they did not respond) and then explain it to them on their talk page. Other users have tried to do the same but just been reverted [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71])

Comments:

After trying to discuss with the user on their talk page, warning them for the repeated blankings and their edit warring (always alone in edit warring against several other users), I thought the matter had subsided. Apparently not, as the user has now restarted. The user seems to edit infrequently so there is no 4RRs within 24 hours, but the pattern of removing smaller languages (Basque, Swedish, Hungarian) for no reason, and refusing to give a reason is repeated over and over again Jeppiz (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz was notified in regards to the reasons of my actions on my talk page, but s/he refused to acknowledge my reasons, and did not appear willing to cooperate. I was only given one final warning (instead of an introduction or level 1 warning), and was attacked for my edits. The only other editor involved in this issue is Brianann MacAmhlaidh, who was actually the first editor that reverted my edits prior to Jeppiz. What is a pattern of removing smaller languages? Smaller than which language? What classifies a language as small? This makes no sense and is out of context. DF27 (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to note that aside from directly issuing a final warning as a first warning, I was never directed to WP:3RR, as Jeppiz claims. DF27 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Removing sourced information from articles because you personally feel there's "no reason for it" it arbitrary and disruptive. Consensus determines what information is appropriate in articles, and in general, stable, verifiable, uncontroversial existing article content is considered to be supported by consensus. That is why if you make a change, and someone disagrees with your change, the proper course of action is to discuss the issue and seek a new consensus, rather than repeatedly reverting to your change. We call this the bold, revert, discuss method and it is the cornerstone of collaborative editing, dispute resolution, and edit war prevention. Please utilize this method when your block expires. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:PolenCelestial (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


[72]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [73] [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

I understand that this user is an administrator, but that shouldn't in theory mean she can overrule me on that basis.

My edit consists of summarizing the prevalence data in this article in the lead and sidebar of the main article. The argument she is using to revert it is her personal claim that UNICEF is the only reliable source for female genital mutilation statistics. On what authority is this claim valid? Sources for all of the information I'm trying to include are cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country; they include official data published by the US and other governments. If that article can use other sources why is UNICEF the only acceptable source for this one?

2 other users, Johnuniq[77] and Zad68[78], also reverted my edits, similarly ignoring the cited sources. Wikipedia shouldn't rely on the consensus fallacy as a measure of verifiability. If the material I want to add is deemed unacceptable, please explain why in a way that makes sense rather than arbitrarily discounting any information that doesn't come from a particular administrator's preferred source. PolenCelestial (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I first saw this as a result of an RFPP request. I was giving PolenCelestial the benefit of the doubt and issued an edit warring warning instead of a block, but to now go and file this report on the 3 editors on the other side, while arguing about the substantive point shows they just don't get it. Outside of the narrow edit warring exceptions, not applicable here, being right is not an excuse to edit war. Combined with the deliberately waiting the 24 hours to avoid 3rr issues, (admitted in edit summary), and the battleground mentality evidenced by the filing of this report, I think a WP:Boomerang may be in order. Monty845 03:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
So the content of an article isn't determined by the accuracy of the content itself as per WP:Verifiability but rather by the manner in which it was added? As in, regardless of what my edit consists of, it's being excluded because I was supposed to know that the 24 hour limit specified in WP:3RR doesn't actually mean 24 hours, and no one is going to examine the edit to see whether the information should be in the article? Editor politics, rather than objective verifiability, is what decides what readers get when they consult wikipedia? PolenCelestial (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
If this isn't the appropriate forum to resolve this dispute on the basis of the content as I intended when filing this report you could direct me to such a forum, rather than blocking my account so that I am unable to do so (obviously I'm not allowed to use another account to avoid the block). I'm assuming that I'm the only one who cares enough to initiate a dispute resolution about whether the information should be in the article, since all that is being discussed here is the method by which I'm trying to include it, so blocking me is de facto consigning the edit to the memory hole on completely irrelevant grounds. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an irrational report. SV has made 2 reverts, the OP has made 3 plus a revert-self revert pair for the express purpose of spacing the reverts out past the 24 hour mark. As the OP notes there are indeed three editors who disagree that the proposed edit is an improvement to this Featured Article. OP is not engaging the concerns on the Talk page and just reverts back their content. How this makes SV guilty of edit warring I don't understand. Zad68 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My report is about the violation of WP:V, not WP:3RR. PolenCelestial (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, how am I not "engaging the concerns on the Talk page"? The only "concern" (the only reason given for reverting my edit) is an arbitrary claim that only UNICEF data can be considered reliable, which I disputed on the talk page. PolenCelestial (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. I don't think intervention is warranted for either party here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you're dealing with an admin either. You have just as much right to edit as any administrator. But here's the thing. If anyone disagrees with you, you're simply supposed to discuss it with them. And if you need more feedback, there's many means of dispute resolution that can aid your discussions. I can see clearly that you have not discussed the issue that much on the talk page and you probably haven't tried dispute resolution either. So there's not much I can do for you right now other than to direct you to continue discussing the matter and seek dispute resolution if needed. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:118.93.85.100 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Mormons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
118.93.85.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659400778 by Winkelvi (talk). Please go away and find out how to edit correctly."
  2. 03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659400399 by Winkelvi (talk). WHAT?? HAving a section break and having an incorect description is ok?"
  3. 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ do it properly"
  4. 03:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659399177 by Scalhotrod (talk). Yoiu did a crap edit. I fixed it. Don't think that is yr 3rr"
  5. 03:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ you still can't get it right"
  6. 02:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659398027 by Scalhotrod (talk) yes i did"
  7. 02:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659395569 by Scalhotrod (talk). Why dont u check it before reverting. I took out a dead link and I put in a better explauination!!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mormons. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ agreed"
  2. 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ +"
Comments:
  • Involved comment (because I edit the page regularly) I saw the edit war and was going to report it to WP:RFPP. I suggest protecting the page for 48 hours because everybody is editing in good faith (no vandalism), there is a talk page discussion, and there are at least 3 people over 3RR including the OP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Pending revisions reverts count in 3RR? If that's the case I was unaware of it. -- WV 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't be any edit war if it they got it right first time. 118.93.85.100 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Involved comment I became involved when the article popped up on the Special:PendingChanges list.[79] Things devolved from there as described above. After an exchange on my Talk page[80] and a warning on the IP User's page[81], another Editor became involved[82] and I started the Talk page discussion[83]. The incivility I can get past, but the IP User is Editing with a WP:BATTLEground mentality. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Concur with Adjwilley entirely. Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for 48 hours. Both users did indeed break 3rr as well as the IP. Just because an article's under pending changes does not mean you're exempted from edit warring policy. Pending edits aren't considered invalid by default just because they're subjected to review. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I now know pending changes reversions count toward 3RR. Don't remember what gave me the wrong impression they didn't. -- WV 04:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I too am glad to see the article protected, in the mean time we're discussing the contents of the External links section. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an understandable assumption to make considering the edits never appear in the article, but at the end of the day the principle against is still the same. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, the IP User seems to be a fairly conscientious and decently productive Editor[84] when they aren't swearing in Edit summaries[85][86]. Maybe someone can suggest they register. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:79.182.175.204 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Messiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
79.182.175.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659458917 by MShabazz (talk) the source is the torah and i even said IN THE TORAH and give you quotes from the torah."
  2. 10:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659460458 by MShabazz (talk)it is in the torah in Ezekiel 37:21-24 look it in the verses and i said IN THE TORAH so my source is very reliable."
  3. 12:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659473387 by NeilN (talk)why does it need secondary source if i said IN THE TORAH and gave verses? its i said according to the fbi site and i give this source from the fbi site."
  4. 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659475622 by NeilN (talk) i said its written in THE TORAH i didnt said other sources said that. why does i need secondary source when i said the torah said that?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Sourcing */ new section"
  2. 12:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Messiah. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode and User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Two parties warned)[edit]

Page: Street performance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Robynthehode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1st revert by Robynthehode
  2. 1st revert by BMK
  3. 2nd revert by Robynthehode
  4. 2nd revert by BMK
  5. 3rd revert by Robynthehode
  6. 3rd revert by BMK
  7. 4th revert by Robynthehode
  8. 4th revert by BMK
  9. 5th revert by Robynthehode

BMK then adds this personal attack on Robynthehode's user page, despite being warned very recently by The Rambling Man not to do so, otherwise they'll be blocked. This warning was also regarding WP:3RR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, BMK has lately embarked on a personal attack campaign, including those diffs provided by Lugnuts, and calling me a "jerk", obviously nothing like leaving a message saying "Hey, asshole, stop fucking around", but seemingly symptomatic of this user's inability to work in a collaborative environment right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The edits in question have to do with a sentence in the article. It originally was in the section about one-man bands, and was unsourced POV complaining that street performers who used backing tracks and MIDI-sequencing were not true one-man bands. I originally removed it for being POV, but eventually returned it to the article without the POV. Then the complaint was that it wasn't about on-eman bands, so I eventually moved it to another place in the article which described changes in street performance in the 21st centuty, but apparently the sma editor doesn't want it there either. So,I give up. I'm taking the article off my watchlist and other editors can be responsible for keeping an eye on it.

The personal comments from the two editors above are beneath response, as both are aware of the circumstances beneath the events they so skeletatly and deceptively described, so I shall not respond to them. BMK (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Striking my remark on the recommendation of admin EdJohnston. BMK (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Take it off your watch list but it doesn't excuse the blatant violations of 3rr nor the flagrant personal attacks you are so quick to resort to. No deception here, just reporting the truth. No excuses for either the multiple violations of 3rr nor the personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm less concerned about the edit warring than I am about BMK's comments to Robynthehode on their talk page. I don't find a notice to Robynthehode about 3RR or edit warring anywhere in their talk page history, so I think at most a warning is appropriate for them. BMK has said he'll leave that article alone, and (more importantly, to me) apologized to Robynthehode, so I'd be inclined to close this without action, but with a reminder to BMK that another 3RR in the future, or a similar comment to another editor, will probably lead to a block. But I can see how that might be viewed as being too soft, so I won't close this officially, and will defer to another admin instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I was recently engaged with BMK in a senseless edit war, where he wrote "To expect me to treat you as a colleague under those circumstance is asking too much, so this is how you'll be treated instead, like the pest you have become." for enforcing the rule of not setting an image size in infoboxes so that the new dynamic sizing can take effect. BMK sets the images to sizes that are optimized for his screen like 192px and 275px. He is a very grumpy person, difficult to work with in a collaborative environment, not open to accepting changes to policy as Wikipedia changes. ~~
  • Result: Mostly per Floquenbeam. BMK and User:Robynthehode are warned against further edit warring; BMK is advised to watch his language in this and other disputes. BMK has apologized to R. for personal attacks and says he won't continue to edit the article; Robynthehode wasn't properly notified of 3RR before these events. User:Floquenbeam has advised against blocking either party. If BMK genuinely wants to apologize then he should avoid attacking others in 3RR reports. (See the last sentence of his 20:54 comment above). He might fix this by striking out the sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't know whether this is the correct place to comment but anyway - I think the behaviour of BMK is deplorable it is not only the use of swearing at me but the attitude in a previous post on my talk page that because he has been editing Wikipedia longer than me that this gives him some sort of superiority. While I understand I did edit war if you look at the previous edits I did on the Street Performer's page I asked for the edit dispute to be taken to the talk page and reminded editors that the edit in dispute was uncited. My history of editing has been, in good faith, about following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no other reprimands or negative edits. I have always tried to listen to other editors and take on board their comments. I think the conclusion to penalise me in the same way as BMK is unacceptable considering his history and attitude towards editing and other editors. Please commentRobynthehode (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

46.177.166.134 Disruptive editing, no dialogue or justification, violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team article[edit]

As you can see here: [87], [88], [89] this ip user violated the three-revert rule by making disruptive, unjustified and unexplained edits (he wants to impose his version or who knows what), despite my clear explanation after reverting his second edit. I am looking forward to your help, thank you so much for your attention.

This is also listed on WP:ANI here is a link. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:A_Georgian reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [90]
  2. [91]
  3. [92] - User not yet warned
  4. [93] - User warned and notified of NORN discussion
  5. [94] - User ignored NORN discussion
  6. [95] - User ignored this report

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Undead#Resurrection_VS_Undeath and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Undead_and_Ezekiel

Comments:
Three users (an IP, NeilN, and me) have supported removing the material, two of them (not the IP) citing relevant policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:91.148.83.244 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
91.148.83.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* NATO bombing timeline */"
  4. 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  6. 13:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  7. 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kosovo War. (TW)"
  2. 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I also see references to socking in other editors' summaries. NeilN talk to me 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Caskett2015 reported by User:Liz (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Stana Katic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caskett2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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

The text that is always removed refers to the marriage of a celebrity:

Katic married her long time boyfriend Kris Brkljac in a private ceremony in Croatia in April 2015.[1]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff diff


Comments:

The editor goes by the username "Caskett' which is the couples name of two fictional characters, Richard Castle and Kate Beckett, . It's clear that she has issues with one of the actors getting married because she has deleted this information four times in the past few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by richwales (talk · contribs). I would have been inclined to indef this editor and that is the action I will be taking if this editor is brought to my attention again. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tytyim reported by User:Random86 (Result: )[edit]

Page
CLC (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tytyim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"
  3. 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on CLC (band). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User will not stop adding unsourced information to the article. Random86 (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

User:24.193.241.162 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Aspartame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
24.193.241.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659600136 by Jytdog (talk)"
  2. 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659577610 by The Four Deuces (talk)"
  3. 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659576944 by Yobol (talk)"
  4. 23:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659533005 by Jytdog (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[97]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[98]

Comments:

Reverted after warning given. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; was warned. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)