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:Kwamikagami reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: blocked)

Page

Swiss Standard German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683274989 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) if we don't know the number of speakers, we should say we don't know. that's a primary reason people come to articles like this."
2. 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "no, it's not "obvious". If you have an estimate, provide one. otherwise we have no estimate to provide."
3. 17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 23:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "tag deleted info rather than fighting violation of BOLD"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Swiss Standard German. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Sources for the claim that there are no estimates about number of native speakers? */"

Comments:

• Remark The following comments list about wrestling are not my comments. They are references of a previous post. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Remark What an escalation for a really tiny dispute. I suggest taking no punitive action towards anyone and instead recommend everyone take a step back immediately and ponder how tiny an issue the addition or removal of a '?' to indicate unknown number of speakers is. LjL (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Indeed, what a trivial issue to edit war over. Blocked for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • And pointless, because we don't use "?" to indicate problems with data in articles, we state what the problem is, either inline or in a footnote. That said, a block for editwarring that already stopped is wrong, being entirely punitive not preventative.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Remark It hasn't been the first edit war this user has been involved in. Savvyjack23 (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

  I'm starting to see it, I remember having disputes with him on the articles about the letters of the Latin alphabet, and now right after unblocking, I see POV-smelling edits like this ("or more accurately"? it's just an alternative analysis, and the article is being made awkward just to push its superiority), and right before being blocked, after my comment asking for no punitive action, he went as far as putting "deleted" as the information about the number of speakers of Swiss Standard German, just because others would revert his '?'. I am honestly unimpressed. LjL (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:46.177.119.122 reported by User:Vasconia (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Euroleague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.177.119.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1], [2], [3], [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Please, block this articles for new users or block this user. This user vandalizing a lot of articles and one user and me are trying to stop the vandalism.

• Agree with Vasconia. Absolutely inadequate ip user. He simply tries to revert article FIBA Intercontinental Cup to very old revision without any description of his reasons, and didn't use a talk page. Please block him. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think, it's a user Jaco the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), compare his edit [9] and the same by ip in question [10]. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I protected FIBA Intercontinental Cup because several IP addresses were involved, but the remaining articles were just Vasconia versus 46.177.119.122 in situations that weren't clear vandalism or anything else that warrants a blind eye. Blocked both for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a right block for Vasconia. All his edits were correct, but ip 46.77... wrongly tried to change the traditional naming of clubs etc. 109.108.251.119 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hello! user Jaco the 3rd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his revert to old revision again, without discussing on the talk page. Please block him and revert this edit. [11] It's a clear, that 46.177.119.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was his ip (used for 3RR violation). 109.108.251.119 (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• I've reverted the edit to the version that was settled upon by this discussion. However, I do believe that Jaco should be blocked for edit warring and possibly have a check user run against him to see if the IP is his.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thak you, Ditto51! 109.108.251.119 (talk) 11:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:24.210.33.160 reported by User:Nymf (Result: Semi)

Page: Jennifer Tilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.210.33.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]
7. [19]
8. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

For some unknown reason, this IP insists on blanking that Jennifer Tilly has starred in over 40 episodes of Family Guy from the lead. The IP refuses to discuss it and is instead slowly edit warring. Another user tried to reword it, in case it was the wording that the IP took issue with, but the IP just keeps removing it anyway. Nymf (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term edit war by a single, stable IP but there's also an existing problem of normal IP vandalism by a variety of people. So semi appears justified. It is simpler to do this than try to justify a long-term block of the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Afterwriting reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Afterwriting and Mark Marathon blocked)

Page

Waltzing Matilda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary comma."
2. 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Incorrect comma removed."
3. 09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683910952 by Mark Marathon (talk) Irrelevant argument. It's not a serial comma (which is non-Australian English anyway)."
4. 09:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) ""Cited source" no longer exists. Corrected grammar."
5. 09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683912750 by Mark Marathon (talk) There is NO source for this. Bizarre behaviour is not mine."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Waltzing Matilda. (TW)"
2. 07:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "/* "Australian English style" */"

Comments:

General aggressive edit warring on this article. Diffs highlight a particular micro-disagreement over whether the lede sentence should contain a comma. User:Mark Marathon also somewhat at fault for repeatedly reverting it back, but the talk page discussion is rather one-sided has a lot of undropped stick from Afterwriting. McGeddon (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I dislike edit warring as much as any other editor. I have, however, attempted to make various straightforward style and phrasing improvements to the article (with only one mistake on my part). User:Mark Marathon, however, has chosen to mass revert my edits based on a questionable claim of "Australian English" (something I have professional knowledge of). In doing so he restored a number of previous style and phrasing problems and then bizarrely blamed me for adding them to the article. All of this can be checked in the article edit history. Even when I pointed this out to him on the article discussion page he just repeated his false accusation instead of checking his own editing. He has refused to admit to this or to apologise for doing so. He appears to have ownership problems and to delight in accusing others of edit warring when he is doing so himself. The accusations of edit warring by him and User:McGeddon are highly hypocritical in their one-sidedness. This whole unpleasant matter has been highly frustrating due to what I perceive as the ownership and battleground mentality of Mark Marathon. Afterwriting (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Afterwriting and Mark Maraathan Blocked for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Thewanderer reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thewanderer (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. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

This editor has broken the 3RR rule, engaged himself in a edit-war just and ignored the talk page. He has for last two days repeatedly edited the article and has disrupted the article. Adding his speculation, and without explanation, ignored the pleads to stop edit warring and has broken the 3RR rule. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. User:Thewanderer reverted the article twice more after being notified of this edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:66.87.64.242 reported by User:CBM (Result: Semi)

Page: Natural number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.87.64.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: see comments

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29] 18:37
2. [30] 20:15
3. [31] 20:46
4. [32] 20:52
5. [33] 21:23

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] 20:55

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An IP user has repeatedly edited the article to remove a claim (well sourced, actually) in the first line. I don't think this is vandalism, per se - we can AGF about the intentions. But the issue has been thoroughly discussed in the talk page, most recently last year [35] and [36]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. Long term warring about the definition of a 'whole number' by a variety of IPs, possibly all operated by the same person. The various IPs don't wait for agreement to be reached on the talk page. If you want 'whole number' to be defined differently, open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:171.236.111.60 and User:14.164.134.159 reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: Both blocked; semi-protected)

Page: Template:Han emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 171.236.111.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 14.164.134.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]
6. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "discussion" on edit summaries

Comments:

User with multiple IPs (as named) keeps adding posthumous emperors to the navigational template despite them being only posthumous and not actual emperors, and also they are mostly red links and discouraged on navigational templates. Me and another editor Zanhe (talk · contribs) have reverted the additions but the IPs undid us with only "this is Chinese history" as their reason. When asked to clarify their reasoning[45], they responded that yes, they indeed thought they alone have the say on Chinese history. This is followed by a edit warring warning on their talk page, which is only met with another revert and a personal attack against me (last diff above). This is where my WP:AGF runs out. _dk (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've also semi-protected the article for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

User:149.62.200.251, User:212.5.158.50, User:149.62.200.33, User:149.62.200.79 reported by User:Boruch Baum (Result: Semi)

Page: History of the Jews in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

149.62.200.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

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

149.62.200.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

212.5.158.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

[46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]
8. [54]
9. [55]
10. [56]
11. [57]
12. [58]
13. [59]
14. [60]
15. [61]
16. [62]
17. [63]
18. [64]

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

[65] This is a link to the diff in which I requested others to reach a consensus on the talk page

Comments:
How do I communicate with unregistered users who don't respond to my comments or follow WP:BRD? how do I know whether the first three users are really a single user with a dynamic IP, or multiple IPs?

There may be more than one dispute at issue here, regarding the ethic background of multiple people and the legitimacy of multiple sources. Some illegitimate sources will claim a notable person is Jewish as a matter of pride, while others will make the same claim as part of an attempt at character assassination. When I have translated a cited source web-page from Bulgarian, (shalompr.org) using Google translate, the source had no relation whatsoever to to what it was being used for.

On top of the reverts of content, the reverters have been messing up citations and references, so on the current version of the page, the page generates two cite errors. I have fixed these in the past, but its getting old to repeat the same formatting fixing in the middle of an edit-war or edit-pre-war.

I would also like to note another user in the midst of all this, User:Amusecuiop. He is the only other registered user taking part in this series of events. I have contacted him a number of times on his talk page, but as you can see, while he doesn't seem to be a bad actor, he's not responsive.

I don't mind if the administrator dealing with this also contacts me on my own talk page, even if for only giving me general advice, or general discussion.

—Boruch Baum (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. Some users have been breaking the references. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Tzowu reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Both warned)

Page: Social Democratic Party of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzowu (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. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

The user shows no intention to stop edit warring. Also before he was engaged in edit wars for a multiple times, also ignoring Wikipedia rules. Now he is introducing not sourced material and ignores the talk page. What els should I have done but report him? He shows no will to end this "conflict". He has done the same thing also on this page Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User Tuvixer is a disruptive editor that is involved in yet another edit war (he's been reported many times), in which he provides no reasonable explanations for his continuous reverts. Every attempt of a discussion with him ends in the same way, he does not accept what others say and keeps acting like he owns an article. Yesterday for example he was involved in one on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015: Tzowu (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]

He also has a long history of personal attacks on others, like this one about my parents, for which he got no block.[76] Tzowu (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not reported many times. Also by framing me you will not hide your own behavior. You have made no explanations for your continuous reverts on both pages that are liked here. All yo have said about me, actually you have said about yourself. And there is a perfect example, anyone that looks at the article about Social Democratic Party of Croatia can see that you have engaged in a edit war, and have ignored the talk page, like you always do. I have asked a administrator what to do with users like you who behave like they own an article, and I have been instructed, if they do not stop reverting, to report them, as I did with you and that other user. I have not broken the 3RR, and I have been told if it goes to that extent, that I have to break it, then it is better to report a user who obviously will break that rule, rather then to break the 3RR myself. I have always begged users to stop edit-warring and to discuss the matter on the talk page, but I was always ignored. That is very frustrating, and that is Tzowus modus operandi. He always does that, probably hoping that the other user will back up and go away. He is a bully and he needs to be sanctioned. He has used the fact that I am, or was, a new user to the Wikipedia, and exploited that fact. Please stop him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

You were involved in edit wars and was reported way more times than I was, and those in which I was involved are almost all because of your behaviour. Right now you are involved in two of them, and just because your revert was done a few hours after the deadline of 3RR doesn't mean it is fine. Read WP:3RR. I always went to the talk page when you started your unreasonable reverts just because they were done by me and they all ended in the same way, you act like some sort of protector of a page and block any edits to it. This is what those discussions look like, you insult my parents [77], call me a liar [78] [79]... In the last few days you reverted changing of official coalition names (Croatian parliamentary election, 2015) and adding of County prefects numbers to party infoboxes (while for example the Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) even have the London Assembly in their infoboxes), you are just deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported. You should have been topic banned long ago, at least when the incident with Timbouctou happened and you for some reason got out of that without any block. Tzowu (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who looks at the history of that page can see that I am not the only user who edits that page, so your argument is invalid. But when you come to a page and edit something, you immediately begin to edit war just because you think that you OWN the article, or maybe have the right to edit whatever you like. Still anything you said does not explain your behavior, and will not exonerate you in any way. I am not forcing anyone to start a edit-war, but I will never back up to bullies like you. You think that you can edit whatever you want and when someone reverts your disruptive edits, you always start a edit war. Well attack is the best defense, and all you are left is with personal attacks on me. I never wanted to report you, but what choice have you left me? Have you shown any good faith and reverted yourself ant tried to resolve the issue on the talk page of the article? You have not. This is about your edits on two articles mentioned in the report. You have not explained your behavior. It would be great if you could explain how I am "deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported", wow that is really something. Anyone can see what you are doing. You are all hat and no cattle. Now when you are reported, now you are trying to explain your edits. Well sir, the talk page is for that very reason there, to explain, and not to edit-war, you have ignored that. If you have gone to the talk page, and shown any good faith and reverted yourself, this all could have been avoided. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not the one going on reverting in a rampage style everything someone adds that I don't like. How many edit wars you had just in the last few months? You started reverting Thewanderer because he added the correct names of party coalitions and me because I added the County prefects/Župans in the infobox of other parties. If you took a look at other parties, like the ones from UK I already mentioned, or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, you could have seen that others have even more information and more numbers in the infobox, just like I said in the edit summary. But no, you just had to do what you always do, revert and annoy. Just as a note, on every issue we had you were the one that started reverting and edit warring first. On the Economy of Croatia, LGBT Rights in Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, SDP and HNS parties, in all of them you started the rampage for nothing. I had more reasonable discussions even with single purpose IP's on articles that are by itself very controversial. As for this issue, I have nothing more to say. I broke the 3RR rule, but you broke like a dozen of them. And talking about personal attacks... [80] [81] [82] Tzowu (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place for you to explain your edits, you should have done that long before on the talk page of the article in question. You have broken the rule. There is nothing more to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. It looks like both sides reached three reverts. If either party continues this dispute without making a serious effort to get support from others on Talk, they may be blocked. There is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and there is WP:DRN. It can't be hard to find names of people who edit Croatian politics. You could find a neutral way to invite them to join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:72.208.249.52 reported by User:Mandruss (Result: Blocked 6 months)

Page: Howard Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.208.249.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]
6. [89]
7. [90]
8. [91]
9. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has ignored numerous user talk warnings, all directing them to the article talk page. I feel opening a thread in article talk would be a waste of time. Apparently, the other three or four experienced editors who have been involved with this issue agree.

Comments:
This is a slow-burn edit war. Beginning in July, this user has tried nine (9) times to change Hughes's birthplace without sourcing. They have been reverted by multiple experienced editors, and they have ignored numerous user talk warnings about behavior not only in this article but others as well. I see no end in sight until the user dies, and it would make no sense to continue this edit war indefinitely. Therefore it's either semi-protection or a fairly long-term block, and I think the latter is the more sensible choice as the user is not otherwise a significant contributor to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 6 months Probably more suited to WP:ANI given their posts to Talk:Barack Obama NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Jugdev reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: )

Page

Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Please refer to my earlier comments on the talk page... Key distinction has been overlooked."
2. 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684162930 by JohnInDC (talk) no explanation."
3. 21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684128172 by RichardOSmith (talk) no response on the items listed on talk page. all edits appear redundant"
4. 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "See talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Programmatic media. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ support/objections to stubbing?"
2. 19:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ r"
3. 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
4. 21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ request"
5. 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ cmt"
6. 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
7. 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
8. 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ Simple is better. Technical readers have other sources of information that Wikipedia (I hope!)"
9. 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ cmt"
10. 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ ce and sp"
11. 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Spelling/grammar correction"
12. 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
13. 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Question on revert to lead"
14. 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ PS -"
15. 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
16. 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"

Comments:

Continuing to edit war immediately after previous EW block expired. [94] Jbh^Talk 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Boonchong_chua reported by Asheshong (Result: )

Page

Agoda.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

# 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [95]
2. [96]
3. [97]
4. [98]
5. [99]
6. [100]
7. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]

Comments

• The article has been subjected to ongoing disruptive edits and edit warring by user boonchong_chua, whose history of Wikipedia contributions have focused solely on this article [[109]].

• Edits were inappropriate and unfit for an encyclopedia. Attempts to engage have been made on the article talk page as well as the user's talk page.

• Disruptive editing and edit warring with this particular user has been going on since 2014 [[110]]. History clearly shows edit warring between boonchong_chua and several other users.

• The user also appears to be biased with no intention of improving the Wikipedia article. This diff [[111]] includes what appears to be an exchange between boonchong_chua and Agoda.com customer service. A user bearing the same username - boonchong chua - has been leaving negative reviews on the Agoda.com app page on the Google Play Store claiming that it is a scam.

• The above suggests suggest that boonchong_chua is not contributing to Wikipedia objectively, while violating Wikipedia's content policies, namely neutral point of view and no original research, as well as Wikipedia conduct policies such as consensus.

• Full disclosure: I am the creator of the article. I am also an employee of Agoda Malaysia International (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. I would like to be transparent and abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and paid contributions. Any contributions made on matters related to Agoda.com will remain factual and reliably sourced. My aim is to work with impartial editors on any issues that may arise. As the article creator, I have complied with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my talk page and edit summaries.

Asheshong (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: )

Page: Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Initial RFC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Comments out my RFC to avoid outside comments
2. Restores his removal of my RFC
3. Restores his removal of my RFC, despite links to WP:TPO & WP:3RR; removes RFCid number added by bot
4. Nowiki's the RFC
5. Restores Nowiki, despite notice of having passed 3RR and a my previously requested 3rd opinion editor coming by to point out that the RFC itself has no obvious issue & editor has no explained any

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, notice re: this page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See links and discussion given above.

Comments:
I would say his initial protectionism over the page could fall under good stewardship. It's very hard for me to view repeated attempts to shut down discussion—let alone editing my talk page comments in violation of linked policy well past 3rr—as a positive thing. Also, since we're going to have eyeballs on the page now, kindly add some thoughts on the original issue regarding the formatting of the page's References section. — LlywelynII 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC should be worded neutrally before the RfC is launched. Why it is not neutral is explained by another editor who replied to a 3O request, and confirmed by me as the what for me was the reason to consider it lacking in neutrality.

Please LlywelynII consider rewording the RfC more neutrally, then we're all set to launch it properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, at this point, "over-protective" is a profoundly neutral phrasing of your behavior. I did follow the 3O's advice and removed even that minimal venting from the discussion below the RFC. All the same, your behavior at this point has been such that someone other than me should explain why you should never act like this again. (And then probably yell at me, too.) — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I can strike that last comment, the RfC has been reworded neutrally it is launched, and I'm fully OK with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Need to strike my comment as someone had posted something in between so that my comment could have been misconstrued.

Anyway, I'm fully OK with the reworded RfC and it being launched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)