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:Adamclemance13 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Indef)

Page

Glory Days (Little Mix album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Adamclemance13 (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 20:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC) to 06:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 18:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC) to 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 18:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
   2. 18:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has long-standing history of edit-warring, without even discussing with other editors. Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) previously blocked this user for this behavior, and since their return, they've continuing on this pattern of behavior. Clearly they are not here to edit constructively. They've been warned, discussion attempts have been able, and they've refused to discuss anything. livelikemusic talk! 20:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I said the next block would be indef, but I'd rather another admin handled this. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for long-term edit warring. This user has made 552 edits, but they've never posted to an article talk page. They do not use edit summaries. Their own talk has a whole string of warnings going back to April. It would be optimistic to believe they are going to change their approach any time soon. Warned by Ritchie333 about the possibility of an indef block back in August. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:C. W. Gilmore reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

Page

Pacific War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

C. W. Gilmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC) "Those were Dutch East Indies assests, not the Dutch government in exile in London, which played no role in Pacific events. Royal Dutch assest stranded in the Pacific were roled into the control of the Dutch East Indies administration."
2. 16:33, 23 October 2017 (UTC) "If Mexico does not belong, neither does the Dutch Government in exile, for at least the Mexicans fought and died in the Pacific Theatre while the Dutch in exile in London did nothing of interest, only the the Dutch government in East Indies saw action."
3. 22:33, 22 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806576793 by Darkness Shines (talk) Information was correct and documented, edited by DS in mistake, please go to talk page before you cited for edit warring, thanks"
4. 21:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 805763599 by Darkness Shines (talk) Mexico was at war with the Axes Powers (1943-1945) and fought under the USA in the Philippines for the liberation of Luzon."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Dutch government in London, exile */ Bye"

Comments:

No warning give on users talk as he has requested I not post there, I warned him twice on the talk page that he was on 3RR, he has choose to ignore those Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The issues were brought up on the Talk page, but instead of discussing it through, Darkness Shines is applying a different standard for Mexico than for the Dutch government in exile and refuse to support why one should be listed but not the other when Mexico supplied more troops as assets than the Dutch in London. Also it degrades the contribution of the Dutch East Indies government and all their contributions to the war effort. Rather than talk this out on the Talk page. Darkness Shines just reverts, first.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• Two other editors have reverted Gilmore, I am not the one editing against consensus Darkness Shines (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• [1] you are sitting on this page edit warring with nothing in the Talk page until I started it.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So you revert three different editors and I'm the one edit warring? 😂 Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are [2] as there was nothing factually incorrect in the posting. If the Dutch government in exile in London, living on British handouts deserves to be listed, then the Mexicans sending troops to fight and die deserve to be listed as well. And I'm not the only editor you went to war over this instead of giving factual evidence on the Talk page to support your position[3]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• When asking for evidence of why the Dutch government in exile stayed as a major player and Mexico was dropped: "The Dutch government in exile in London could not even govern, trash collection. They had no part in the Pacific war and far less than Mexico that sent troops that fought and die. The Dutch East Indies government were on their own and as such should be listed separately for their contribution in the Pacific Theater. If Mexico does not make the list, than a government existing on handouts in London, most assuredly does not. If you can name any major resources sent to the Pacific from the Dutch government in exile in London, it might be quite different, but at least Mexico sent some 300 airmen and support forces to fight in the Philippines. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)"

I got NO response to this except to have him revert the change without cause.[4] even though Mexico's contribution is shown in the article [5] and the Dutch government in London did nothing. It was the Dutch East Indies government that supplied ships and troops.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

This editor has been harassing me for sometime, snooping around my posts and even into my sandbox: [6] and I tried working it out with Dough Weller [7] but this continues. User:Darkness Shines explicitly agreed to remain civil with other users as a condition of their account block being lifted in May 2017 (archive). This restriction was to last until 29 November, or 6 months (diff). However, recently the user has persistently made abusive, combative, and/or snide remarks on Talk:Patriot Prayer:

• 18:03, 28 September 2017 ("just read the fucking policy and stop being obtuse")
• 01:39, 30 September 2017 ("as usual you refuse to fucking listen")
• 13:27, 1 October 2017 ("what the fuck are you on?")
• 13:40, 1 October 2017 ("O look, another geographically challenged person")
• 15:33, 6 October 2017 (accusation of trolling)
• 15:49, 6 October 2017 ("you'll be getting abusive language soon enough if you keep being a dick")
• 15:51, 6 October 2017 (changed "being a dick" to "pissing me off")

An anonymous user requested that Darkness Shines specifically strike that last comment (diff), which Darkness Shines has not done. I haven't included all the instances of gratuitous profanity by this user at Talk:Patriot Prayer either. I have made some edits to that article, and would like to contribute further, but Darkness Shines is single-handedly creating an atmosphere of hostility and stubbornness that makes constructive work on the page, including consensus-building, impossible.

Rather than discussing the facts of participation of the actors on the Talk page, all I got was threats [8] C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Any reason in particular you are violating your topic ban? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, this is the ban: "You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)" and this was explained to you on Doug Weller's page. Then why were you even snooping in my sandbox?C. W. Gilmore (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

When Doug Weller asked you to leave me alone, your respones was: "On the plus side I've never given a shite 😁Darkness Shines (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)"C. W. Gilmore (talk) 04:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please explain what a tban is. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

From my Talk page archives:[9]

"Topic ban"

"I closed the ANI discussion; it will not surprise you that it closed with a topic ban. You are not to edit Patriot Prayer or its talk page. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)"

• "So, this is a "ban placed by the community"; you can find it registered at WP:Editing restrictions. To appeal, please look at the outlined procedure at WP:UNBAN. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)"

This still does not explain Darkness Shines' incivility, snooping around my sandbox (where I was gathering information for my appeal) and all the rest. I've told DS the areas I'm at, but only to be reported again.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

And Darkness Shines only response to this was was post:

"Three times in a row, keep it going." [10]

-Before DS deleted it, because I have NOT changed the page in question and I AM trying to work it out with the other editors, but DS is just interjecting 'NO' into any suggestion without explanation and making no helpful contribution.[11] This is exasperating as DS sits there making no contribution to consensus while deleting my changes for violating consensus.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I feel you might better take this to ANI. Darkness Shines has clearly violated the condition to remain civil. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: I don't know how to do that, can anyone help me? Sorry but as an older person, computers are no easy things to deal with, I'm trying but it's a slow process.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How unfortunate that you do not while, from the above, being so familiar with so many other aspects of Wikipedia. I will do it myself if it seems to be necessary. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast:Where do I go? What information do I need to bring? How do I format my appeal? I have never even reported a sockpuppet.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I will start searching and figure it out, I was hoping not to have to spend a few days learning the ropes, but things are getting better, except for less foul language as of late. Thanks C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Technically this is four reverts, even though the material varies. Gilmore has two previous edit warring blocks and a recent topic ban. Gilmore should not be editing about Patriot Prayer anywhere on Wikipedia, even in their own sandbox, and risks a sanction if they continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Indef)

Page: Battle of Talas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12] - the pertinent text is "Decisive Abbasid victory".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16] (with a (weak) attempt to add a cite, but a revert none the less)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this edit war at all.

Comments:
Tarook97 is back after their fourth block for edit warring. After a brief outbreak of constructive editing they appear to be back to their old habits. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please take a look at this? This is 4 reverts in less than 4 hours from an editor with a long history of blocks for edit warring. I hope it might be relatively uncontroversial... Pinkbeast (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – This is the user's fifth edit warring block. They never joined the article talk page, where there is some disagreement about the significance of the Battle of Talas (decisive or not). It seems unlikely that this user will change their approach to Wikipedia editing in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Graemp reported by User:Mapreader (Result: blocked 24 hours)

Page: Richmond Park by-election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Graemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Comments:

The same user was reported on WP:ANI on Friday for multiple breaches of 3RR, here - the diffs for three of these breaches are in the linked ANI report. So far no administrator has commented. The user is adamant that WP:BLPPRIVACY only applies to biographical articles, despite the clear statement that it applies to all WP articles in the introduction to the policy, and repeatedly reverts in breach of WP:3RR. MapReader (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit/ Further - there is now a fifth revert on this page from Graemp[24], as another editor intervened to defend BLPPRIVACY and s/he got reverted too.

And also subsequent breaches of 3RR by Graemp here[25][26][27][28] and here [29][30][31][32] MapReader (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Windwillows reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Laura Skandera Trombley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Windwillows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38]
6. [39]
7. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

For several months, an editor has used multiple accounts (Windwillows, Biomimix, FrankDelanor) to remove well-sourced negative information from Laura Skandera Trombley. Multiple editors have warned him or her and there has been a section in Talk open for several months all with no reaction or participation from this editor. He or she has also used misleading or false edit summaries. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Long term edit warring by a user who does not participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:213.205.194.118 reported by User:Sakura Cartelet (Result: )

Page

Ian Carmichael (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806914997 by KH-1 (talk) unexplained reversion"
2. 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "Use the talk page with good reasons, not edit warring"
3. 22:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806910852 by Skywatcher68 (talk)Not IDONTLIKEIT"
4. 22:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "Of minimal use and misleading. Please see the talk page"
5. 22:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 806905601 by Vanstrat (talk) This tells us nothing intelligent. Credit readers with some intelligence"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ian Carmichael. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite the user having posted something on the talk page they have continued to remove the infobox from the Ian Carmichael article despite being opposed by multiple editors. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 22:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours — Maile (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

User:108.63.105.34 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Semi)

Page: Ernst Zündel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.63.105.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]

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

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

Comments:

• IP editor has been informed on his talk page and on the article talk page that he should not edit war, and should await a consensus on the talk page, but his response was

  OK buddy don't tell me what to do or not, I perfectly understand what "take it to talk" means but it doesn't preclude me from modifying changes which I judge as unfair. This is an open encyclopedia remember that boyo? Take your God complex down a notch. [51]

  and

  I am not in any edit-warring war, I made a legitimate edit that was in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and I even explained my move in the Wikipedia talk page. I don't care what you and your "colleagues" view as allowed or not, my only crime was to change "anti-racist" to "anti-racists'". I will make a report to Wikipedia and put an end to your "career". [52]

  Clearly the IP is clueless, and might well benefit from an example of a short block.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• The IP just reverted the fourth editor to remove their edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:49ersBelongInSanFrancisco reported by User:Wildcursive (Result: No action)

Page: Steve Wynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (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. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

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

Comments:
Constructive revision and discussion on article talk page are welcomed. However, this kind of rude and repeated removal of the whole 2,324 bytes paragraph concerning a widely-reported news is kind of vandalism or abuse of editing privilege, especiually a very very detailed 57,462 bytes 200+ lines content already existed. -- Wildcursive (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! My apologies if I offended. I was concerned because the content that was added by User:Wildcursive appeared to be mostly about somebody other than the subject of the article (mostly about Guo Wengui, the number of spies sent after him, his Twitter accounts, etc.) and it carried a heavy political point of view (describing China's government as "dictatorship" and rife with "corruption"). These subjects were mostly unrelated to the actual article. I noted my concerns on User:Wildcursive's talk page with an NPOV message. I did not receive any notifications on my talk page until after the last time I edited the article. For the reasons above, the changes appeared to me to be political spam and I reverted it as likely spam. It appears that User:Pinkbeast has proposed a way to word the story to focus on the actual subject and remove the political bias. I think that solves this problem and I thank User:Pinkbeast for the constructive solution. My apologies if my revert was too fast and next time I will try to think and communicate more clearly about why borderline content can appear inappropriate.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Considering the very very detailed 57,462 bytes 200+ lines content already existed before my edit, including art collection and accolade, my edit is proportionally. Words about Guo, who is described as the biggest threat to the Chinese Communist party even harsher than the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, is to emphasize how important Guo is and why Wynn's behavior is extremely inappropriate (some already mentioned it was illegal). If you read all those sources, you will find my edit was based on them. -- Wildcursive (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No action. User:Wildcursive was on the edge of a block, but It appears that a compromise has been reached, thanks to new wording provided by User:Pinkbeast. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:Spiny Norman (Result: No action)

Page: The Spread of the Eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarnetteD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&oldid=806925015 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807048850&oldid=806925015
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807055812&oldid=807055581
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807068124&oldid=807067984
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807069538&oldid=807069386
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spread_of_the_Eagle&type=revision&diff=807072900&oldid=807071912

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarnetteD#Edit_war_warning [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Spread_of_the_Eagle [diff]

Comments:

The problem is not that the fact is disbelieved but that it isn't fully referenced. What is particularly discouraging is that this user often refers to the guidelines, but the only solution she contributes is to delete - which the same WP articles clearly state is not the best solution. Issue continues on the Age of Kings page and talk page. I am aware that she was once "editor of the week" while I have only a modest track record, but on the other hand, that also should put the bar higher for her. And to be frank I find this behaviour unreasonable. This isn't the first time either. Spiny Norman (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

1) I have no idea why you keep referring to MarnetteD as "she" 2) you're the one edit warring to restore disputed material to the article and 3) from the talk page and article history it's evident that MarnetteD was correcting your mistake by changing the unsourced "North America" to the verified "US". I don't find anything "unreasonable" in that at all.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

A couple things that have not mentioned by the OP is that I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page. Then, even though they had not posted at that thread, I came up with an edit that (as Ponyo points out) included the sourced info that existed at the Age of Kings article. The OPs next move was was to remove that info. I have left the article at the OPs preferred version so action here would be punitive rather than preventative. But, of course that is a biased view on my part. I would close by noting that I did not "disbelieve" anything - I simply requested reliable sourcing for the claims being made. Instead of providing any the OP decided to comment on the contributor not on the content. MarnetteD|Talk 00:43, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The two parties reverted equally often, and User:MarnetteD has a good point that 'international success' was badly sourced. If reverting continues some admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Clesam11 reported by User:Lcmortensen (Result: Blocked)

Page

Next New Zealand general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Clesam11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 807109436 by Lcmortensen (talk)You are now lying, we have talked on the talk page about this. There is no valid reason for the current standings table to be removed."
2. 22:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "Stop removing this table please. See talk again."
3. 22:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 807078157 by Lcmortensen (talk)See talk"
4. 12:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "Giving a background on the previous election, as well as showing the current standings in parliament, is a standard of virtually any wikipedia article on an election. The activities of Parliament can and do affect election results."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Background, timeline, current standings */"
2. 22:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Background, timeline, current standings */"
3. 23:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Background, timeline, current standings */ WP:CRYSTAL"
4. 00:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Background, timeline, current standings */ replay"

Comments:

Bit of an argument between the user and myself over whether a table of a party's "current standings", 33 days out from the previous election, is appropriate. Discussion is going nowhere and resulting in constant reversions. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 00:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Can that. I'll just stay away from the article for a while and focus on something else until it blows over - let someone else argue with which way is right. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 01:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a discussion with any administrator about this, perhaps they can shed light on where I am going wrong. Clesam11 (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Pep67 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: Blocked)

Page

Phillip Leo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pep67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Added Biography"
2. 00:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Added biography"
3. Consecutive edits made from 00:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC) to 00:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "removed warning"
   2. 00:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Added article biography yet again"
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC) to 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "Put back the article biography which I originally composed myself, and also gave permission to Islandah Radio & Big Lion Productions to publish on their respective sites, (Please Do Not Delete) I am the copyright owner"
   2. 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC) "removed warning"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Phillip Leo. (TW)"
2. 00:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing file deletion tags on Phillip Leo. (TW)"
3. 01:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Phillip Leo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please also see IP edits which I think is the same user User:94.173.15.161 NZFC^(talk) 01:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I also note user commented here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Articles keep being deleted and reply explains the copyright issue to him. That and information is all unsourced and personal research. NZFC^(talk) 01:38, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. Edit warring and copyright violations. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

User:68.129.15.71 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked)

Page: Umberto Lenzi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.129.15.71 (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
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several instances of explaining the user why wikis and IMDb can't be used are also on the talk page

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

Comments:
User has been re-adding information not within the sources he claims or with sources that fail WP:RS or WP:RS/IMDb for months. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 month. Edit warring and a long-term pattern of adding unsourced information to articles, per a complaint at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)