Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: )

Page: Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Getoverpops (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute and the seven or so sections under that

Comments:

This editor originally posted as an IP. After a 3RR warning, a referral was made for edit warring with the result of semi-protection. See [[5]] he IP was also blocked for 24 hours for uncivil edits (see [6]. The IP obtained a registered account and has generated a great amount of text on the article's discussion page. Four or five editors have responded and all disagree with every point raised -- nobody has agreed with him. Today he started editing against consensus on the main article. He reverted the first sentence to a different version (which was the main focus of the IP editing), deleted a paragraph that had been discussed at length with no agreement to change, and added sources that had been rejected on the discussion page. The third deletion above (this is not a 3RR referral) came after the new warning that I issued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This accusation of edit war is unfounded based on the three included references. I made two changes to the article only one of which was disputed. The first change (see as links 60 and 61) was the inclusion of additional references in the opening title. The first change was not a revert but an original edit. The second was a revert based on the one revert rule [[7]]. In other words it was undoing the removal of material I added. The last claim of reversion is unrelated to the first two. I had previously removed a single sentence paragraph that was in the opening section because the same sentence also exists in a later section. Hence I was not removing content from the article but making a simple style edit. I did that style edit twice because the revert of ref 60 added back that change as well as undid my changes to the first sentences. Thus the revert of link #60 was more than a revert of a single edit of mine.

For reference and in case things change the links to my edits in question are currently #60-62.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The first change listed in the diffs above reverted this edit [8] that I had made on March 18. After my edit the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.

After Getoverpos first edit listed above the first paragraph read:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to an Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States. Some sources claim the strategy specifically appealed to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5] Other sources dispute that there was a strategy to appeal to racism.[6][7][8][9] Regardless of the dispute over the facts and origins of the term, the "southern strategy" has come to imply an appeal to racism in the Republican Party.

This change was the central focus of the discussions on the article talk page.

As to the other edit, he made a material change to the lead. Saying that he was just reverting the elimination of a repetitive sentence is disingenuous. Material in the lead is often (always?) repetive of material in the body of the article. Two editors had reverted his elimination of this material from the lead and Getoverpops, after he received the edit warring warning, still eliminated the material. This material was mentioned throughout the discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The March 18th change and the more recent change are not the same. The objection to the March 18th change was based on the use of "alleged" as a leading word. I attempted to address that concern in the later edits. It is also important to note that the editor did not move the conversation to the Talk page after undoing my changes. That you disagree with the changes I made in the talk page does not make it an edit war. Your claim regarding the final edit is true in that I removed it from the opening section but it stylistically does not fit in the opening and it means the same sentence appears twice in the article. How is that problematic? Furthermore, that is not the same edit as #60 and #61. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Slight rebootage here:

Revert 1: 13:45, 24 March 2015‎, edit summary "Removed unsupported, inflammatory entry."

Revert 2: 16:41, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Per one revert rule I am re-reverting. Move to talk."

Revert 3: 17:06, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Removed sentence that was nearly identical to one in later section (Recent comments on Southernization and Southern strategy)"

Revert 4: 20:51, 24 March 2015, edit summary "This article has been submitted to the neutrality review board. I am adding the neutrality tag for the time the article is under review." Note this reverts removal of POV template by a previous editor here.

Four non-consecutive reverts in (much) less than 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Boris this now looks to be a plain old WP:3RR violation, besides a long-term pattern of warring. Normally this calls for a block. If Getoverpops will promise to stop warring on the article and wait for a talk page consensus, it would help his case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First, what exactly is meant by non-consecutive reverts? My understanding of the 3 revert rule is three reverts of the same material. That is not the case here. It was 1 revert of disputed material which is allowed per 1 revert rule. The redundant sentence was only reverted because it was re-added with an unrelated revert. That is I made two separate changes but an editor incorrectly reverted both while only talking about one (the other was not a subject of discussion). Finally, the warning tag was one that I originally misunderstood the use of. However, it was re-added after I submitted the article to the correct board. That is, it is not a revert at all. I would also point out that my IP address based reverts included requests (which was per BOLD even if I didn't realize it) to move the discussion of the removal to the talk section. The editors who were removing those section were not responding to the request to move to talk. I don't think consensus will be easy to reach given the nature of the article and the way the editors have not been open to addressing the issues I have seen. That said, I have opened a dispute to avoid further 3RR issues. Please take that as a promise to not revert with out discussion. I would hope in kind North Shoreman will promise to engage in an open discussion regarding issues in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I want to point out that the rebootage claim #1 was a revert that should be seen as undoing vandalism. This should qualify as a revert exception under [[9]] rule #4. Thanks. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing admins are requested to review the 3RR violation in the context of a larger pattern of behavior that includes not just edit warring but forum shopping and canvassing for support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Could I request to have this review closed. I seem to be the only case that was started with just 3 cited reverts (my reading of the rule is that 3 is the edge but not over the edge). I think North Shoreman acted incorrectly when citing the first revert. That one was removing vandalism and it's notable that no editor disagreed with the removal nor has the removed text been added back. That revert is one of the ones Boris cited. With that removed North Shoreman has cited only 2 reverts which I think would put me more comfortably back from the edge. Boris cited a 4th revert that North Shoreman didn't. However, that was an editing error on my part. I didn't realize I needed to post to the neutrality dispute board before posting the notice to the article. Thus it was proper for the editor to remove the tag. However, after the tag was removed I did post to the neutrality board thus it was proper to add the tag. Thus I would argue that was not a revert at all. As a new editor I was not aware that I shouldn't appeal the general neutrality of the article at the same time as requesting moderation on a specific change. The Neutrality discussion is still on going. Regardless I feel there were only two reverts that would be subject to the 3RR rule and thus would ask that the case be closed. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:124.82.32.57 reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)

Page

GeForce 900 series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "There is no false advertisting, stop trying to slander and smear campaign"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) to 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "No such thing, stop your lies and slander & smear campaign"
   2. 20:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 21:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 08:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 124.82.32.57 (talk) to last version by Weegeerunner"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

multiple edits to remove valid 'false advertizing' category, attempts to talk with this user have not been successful. Seems to be a nvidia fanboy or associated with them. Denniss (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Add-on - user keeps blanking his talk page (removed warnings from me and two other users), obviously not interested in any discussion, did also not start discussing cat removal on article talk page. Don't know if that's just trolling/vandalism or paid editing. In his reverts he called me a liar and starting a smear campaign, the false advertizing cat is valid for the Geforce 970 issue with falsely advertized specifications. --Denniss (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an unsourced claim which Nvidia denies. Perhaps the controversy, accusations, and ongoing can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but unilaterally labeling it as a matter of categorization seems to pretty obviously go against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And while the IP received templated policy notification, I don't even see any real attempt at discussion from either side. Don't see a one-way block as a solution here. Swarm ^X 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read GeForce_900_series#GeForce_970_specifications_controversy - it's really hard to believe the specifications on their website (also communicated to and via their board partners) were 'accidentally' wrong. No serious hardware-related source believes this claim. If users hadn't questioned and investigated the strange performance issues shown by 970s, nvidia would still show the original (known wrong) specification. --Denniss (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing the false advertising category when it is well sourced is just plain vandalism. This report would have been better taken to WP:AIV after the required vandalism warnings. I just won't use my administrator tools to block this vandal because I have been in a conflict with the same user, who edits from some Malaysian IPs. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I disagree that this is vandalism. The controversy section in the article is well-written and sourced, and it could probably even be expanded. However the article itself makes no claim of false advertising. I understand the accusations completely and they're probably right, but in the spirit of NPOV and RS, the article shouldn't take a stance unless the claim is supported by reliable sources. Regardless, Page protected until April 2 by MelanieN, which I agree with. Swarm ^X 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Vivi243971 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: 72h)

Page: Malcom Filipe Silva de Oliveira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vivi243971 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10] This

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11] On March 12, this was his first disruptive edit.
2. [12] 12 days later he comes back once again with disruptive updates.
3. [13] He was asked to stop.
4. [14] He was warned about edit warring after this one.
5. [15] This was after the warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

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

Comments:
Pretty simple situation. We have an editor doing disruptive updates based on his own will. He was asked to stop, warned and still kept on going with incorrect updates. There's no good faith there as the section is pretty clear and the data is "obvious". Looks like he won't stop until he gets blocked. Might keep doing it more if he gets blocked for a small period. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours — Not sure what this editor's deal is but if this behavior continues after this block expires I would recommend an indef as a vandalism-only account, per Occam's razor. Feel free to let me know if future action is needed or refer another admin to this report. Swarm ^X 20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:174.113.44.178 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: 24h)

Page: Higgins (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.113.44.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

Since the original report, the IP Editor has twice made changes to the same text in the article:

1. [22]
2. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is a quite simple case, and edit summaries have communicated the need for sources adequately, equating to short discussion

Comments:
First Diff, IP editor reverts long standing figure of 163 appearances to 195 without source or edit summary. I request a source in my edit summary, and restore the original value.

Second Diff, IP Editor reverts, and replaces the figure of 163 to 147, again unsourced. Again, I restore the original data, and request a source in my edit summary.

Third Diff, IP Editor uses original research and claims to have watched all episodes on YouTube, and reverts to the 147 value. (Note that it is impossible to actually watch six season of a half hour program, ~90 hours, in less than a day) This time, I actually research and find the appropriate number of episodes (184) via IMDB and reference that in my edit summary with the appropriate change. Yes, I do know that IMDB is not an RS for biographical data, but it is accepted for credits.

Fourth Diff, IP Editor reverts to their Original Research figure of 147. Subsequently, I stopped editing and came here.

Since the initial report, the Fifth and Sixth Diffs presented have been made, again changing the values of that data.

As this is my first time posting to this board, I trust that I will be informed if I have malformed this request, or have somehow misunderstood the rules. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Pretty straightforward case. FYI your report was filed perfectly and your clear explanation of the situation is very much appreciated. Feel free to return if the problem persists. Regards, Swarm ^X 20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Am I permitted at this point to restore the sourced content, or would that be a continuation of the edit war? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means, restore the correct info! Swarm ^X 23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.221.199 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24h)

Page: General relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.238.221.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. User is non-responsive and was blocked before for same edit in another article. See sock 37.208.33.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmerishs reported by User:Zad68 (Result: indef)

Page

Cerebral palsy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
   2. 13:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
   2. 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Respecties, This is not a vandalism. Its a true document of Siddha Medicine. This the Evidence of Traditional Indian Medicine. We are following the Procedures here. We cure lot of childrens. If you need to see, you can come"
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) to 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"
   2. 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "welcome"
2. 13:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "/* rsplease */ new section"
3. 16:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cerebral palsy. (TW)"
4. 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edits at Cerebral palsy */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor keeps re-adding unsourced or poorly-sourced material. Latest edits re-added same material and threw in link to source that does not support content. Warnings and direction to Wikipedia sourcing standards unheeded. Zad68 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest this editor be indef blocked as a spam-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That would certainly require their attention before they could continue, I'm OK with that approach. Zad68 18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Concur with Ed completely for obvious reasons. No contributions to the project whatsoever except for the promotion of a pseudoscientific belief system in an important medical article. Swarm ^X 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:D-Pro22 reported by User:Kareldorado (Result: No action)

Page: Eden Hazard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: D-Pro22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #1: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #2: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: [37]

Comments:

• This user refuses to participate in a proper discussion and carries no arguments why his/her source would be reliable.
• The article's talk page is neglected even though I emphasized time after time that this user should use it.

Kareldorado (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I have commented on the articles talk page regarding policy-based guidance on the matter. Swarm ^X 21:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24h)

Page: Texas Southern University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Broadmoor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] (among several other warnings and notices from different editors)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:

This editor has been edit-warring with multiple editors across multiple articles with little productive discussion in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07 reported by User:98.193.95.34 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Jordis Unga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kharkiv07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653818837
2. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817997
3. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817932
4. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=651843368

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

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

98.193.95.34 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• IP Blocked for 48 hours for WP:BLP violations. Last edit by IP reverted by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Castncoot reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Both warned)

Page: Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Castncoot (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. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:

User has a history of tendentious editing in this article. There was lengthy discussion of this material involving multiple editors, and consensus was reached on the material to be added and the wording to be used. The material is well-referenced in the appropriate section of the article. There is no consensus that this material needs to have the references repeated in the lede, in fact the references were at one point in the lede, and were removed by editor Hike395[[51]] as being unnecessary. To the extent that we have consensus, it is that the references do not belong on the lede. There is certainly not the "case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" required for inclusion of the references required by WP:LEADCITEMark Marathon (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually not so. No consensus was reached, as I've noted on the talk page, just that this editor declared one had been reached. In fact, other editors actually had significant problems with his wording. Not only that, but I started the sequence by undoing Mark Marathon's edit today, not the other way around. Most importantly, Mark Marathon is the one who partially reverted himself recently and added a citation-needed tag, and now he wants to take back his edit on his preferred terms. The whole issue here is silly, because all I am asking for is a citation in the lede of an extremely contentious statement. Ultimately, WP:LEADCITE defers to WP:CITE and WP:RS, otherwise one could write anything in the lead section under this pretext; and in any case, WP:LEADCITE also demands WP:Verifiability. Why fight? Just cite! Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that you are edit warring. You have no consensus for your changes and refuse to gain consensus on the talk page. That is in blatant violation of WP:BRD, WP:STAUSQUO and WP:LEADCITE. Consensus is not gained by repeatedly reverting. That is an edit war.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, 1) the initial changes today were yours, not mine, and 2) no consensus was reached by you either for these changes or the recent previous ones you had claimed consensus for.[52][53] So aren't you technically the edit warrior here? Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. The next revert by either party may lead to a block. Neither of you have posted on the talk page so far in 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:JasonNolan64 reported by User:88RRRR88 (Result: No violation)

Page: American Ninja Warrior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JasonNolan64 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Ninja_Warrior&diff=653831083&oldid=653817332
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Try discussing the issue with this user. Swarm ^X 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Filer was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet per a case a WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightning Sabre reported by User:Veggies (Result:blocked indef)

Page

United Airlines Flight 93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lightning Sabre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Memorials */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been warned in the past [54] about his behavior under the pain of an indef block. Veggies (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely No indication that the warnings against disruptive behavior have been taken seriously (i.e. leaving a block notice on OccultZone's talk page). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Editors should also note that this disruptive user has also edited under IP: User:92.97.208.37, as well as another sockpuppet account - now blocked. They have also left block warning notices, when not authorised to do so. They have had multiple warnings and have taken no notice. I totally support an indef block. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

After all the discussion and warnings, this user is still asking for the block to be reviewed again - with further promises that disruption will not happen again. Frankly this is nonsense, as they have taken absolutely no notice of requests and warnings previously. I would remind admins and editors of the following:

• Deleting numerous warnings from many editors to stop vandalizing articles through March 2015.

• Ignoring warnings regarding taking credit for, and downloading, copyright images on March 24 and March 28.

• Removing legitimate Talk page comments on March 24 and March 28.

• Creating sockpuppet accounts: User:Kind Dude and IP:92.97.208.37

• Creating unauthorised "Block Warning" notices on March 28.

• Account blocked on March 25 and again on March 28.

With this extremely poor history, I urge the community not to lift the latest block. Wikipedia can well do without this constant vandalism. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.217.48 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kepler's laws of planetary motion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Newton's law of gravitation */"
2. 14:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 14:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring - March 2015 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User appears to be single purpose account spamming/soapboxing the same edit across multiple articles - Standard gravitational parameter, Orbital period, Newton's law of universal gravitation, Portal:Physics/Intro, Force, Mechanics. Also appears to be involved in an edit war at Bosnia and Herzegovina. Appears to be related to User:77.238.231.199 reported recently. FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That IP is banned User:Sevvyan reinserted the same edits he got banned for. Most probably Omerbasic promoting himself in physics and with his trone pretension of Bosnia. FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours IP blocked, semi-protections underway. Acroterion (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Littleboyck reported by User:Vuttamarr (Result: reporter blocked)

User:Littleboyc is constantly warring on a number of articles and has now violated our wonderful 3RR policy right here on New York. See

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th

Then after final warning[55],

he did fifth[56].

He is not willing to discuss his changes all of which go against consensus. --Vuttamarr (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

All of those links are to an edit made in 2013 in which Littleboyck did no reversions. Proper evidence and differences of edit warring will be needed. Also, have you warned the user that you've reported them on here? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be simple trolling; the reporter has been blocked for other activities. Kuru (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24h)

Page

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

User being reported

Kb333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653925283 by BethNaught (talk) stop it"
2. 15:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899799 by Dsimic (talk) if such consensus will affect the truth of information, then being against it is obligatory"
3. 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653899270 by Dsimic (talk) Why you not stop first?"
4. 15:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653757638 by Ahunt (talk) consensus shouldn't affect the truth of information"
5. 14:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653756540 by Ahunt (talk)"
6. 13:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is considered a kernel until someone else prove the opposite of that. if you have any thing against that just discuss it and prove it."
7. 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Linux is just a piece of code, so prove me how it's an os."
8. 12:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653740382 by Haminoon (talk) explain why you did that revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is trying to put article into their preferred version despite standing talk page agreement and being reverted by several other editors. BethNaught (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:162.212.107.47 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

Page: The Raben Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 162.212.107.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Editor is edit warring and not talking. Likely a sock. See also Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#The_Raben_Group and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Richie1Thoa Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also requested page protection. I did this as the IP has exceeded 3RR now. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

note, an admin from pp came through, and has protected the page. thanks Swarm!

• Page protected, as I saw the RFPP request first. By all means return to either board if future action is needed. Regards, Swarm ^X 02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:1.47.41.20 reported by User:DiscSquare (Result: Page protected)

Page: Evelin Banev
User being reported: User:1.47.41.20 User:1.47.166.103 User:101.99.43.253

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelin_Banev&diff=651356904&oldid=650461367
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelin_Banev&diff=653726110&oldid=653333412
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evelin_Banev&diff=653899231&oldid=653881485
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
Using multiple IP addresses, this user repeatedly changes the summary of the page without confirmed sources - the edits by this unidentified user are disruptive, inaccurate and also biased - while this living person is under criminal investigation, he is NOT a convicted criminal since his trials are ongoing with multiple acquittals and reversals of convictions.

• Page protected. Swarm ^X 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone reported by 72.196.235.154 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OccultZone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654047474&oldid=654047297
2. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654047153&oldid=654046750
3. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654046499&oldid=654045966
4. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_March_28&diff=654029424&oldid=653963867

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

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

Comments:

He keeps revet a topic I am bringing upo to delate. I tried to revert a couple times but he keep changing back with no comment and tries to call myself the vandal.

Any admin can read the recent WP:AIV report[57] and consider blocking this sock. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I've cleaned up the formatting here... but I'm pretty sure this should WP:BOOMERANG back on an IP who has a previous EW block, and who kept adding back in a non-existent AfD into the log. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually its hard to make a prpper page when all the work kept getting delated. 72.196.235.154 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note. The IP was blocked for one week by Kuru.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)