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:Theironminer reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

A new user has been trying to force their preferred version of text onto the article. Numerous requests have been made to them to use the talk page to discuss (via edit summary, talk page messages (twice) and the user's talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The block is for edit warring and personal attacks. The user did not breach WP:3RR as there were not four reverts in a 24-hour window. SchroCat, in the future, please list the diffs in order oldest first; thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Bbb23: I thought I had done - my mistake! Fingers crossed the user starts using the talk pages when they return. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Wickey-nl reported by User:JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Civilian casualty ratio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wickey-nl (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: These are the editor's edits in the last 24 hours to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict section of the article, which is within scope of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions/restrictions.

1. [8]
2. [9]

The last edit is certainly a 1RR violation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The editor is obviously aware of 1RR, as he has just commented today on the report that led to the warning of User:Yarron for breaching 1RR on this very same article. As part of that comment, he notes that he has been warned about 1RR before, and indeed, see this:[10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This content is being discussed on the talk page. Talk:Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli.E2.80.93Palestinian_conflict_-_Line_lacks_credible_source

Comments:

An administrator who reviewed the previous complaint against Yarron already noted this 1RR violation: [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for violation of the WP:ARBPIA 1RR rule at Civilian casualty ratio. I did leave a message at User talk:Wickey-nl explaining his apparent 1RR violation but his only reply just blamed Yarron and Brewcrewer and didn't even deny the violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:CarRadovan reported by User:Seader (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Republika Srpska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CarRadovan (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. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]
6. [17]
7. [18]
8. [19]
9. [20]
10. [21]
11. [22]
12. [23]
13. [24]
14. [25]
15. [26]
16. [27]
17. [28]
18. [29]
19. [30]
20. [31]
21. [32]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

This user is edit warring against several other users, against the consensus on the talk page for several days now (21 main reverts since the 10.th of June), not accepting any other version than the one which fits his own point of view. The shown difflinks are just a part of all the done reverts with 6 reverts only in the last 24 hours. Seader (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and please do not let the disruption carry on this long in the future. This person should have been warned and reported days ago. If he persists after the block, please let me know or file another report ASAP. Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

"do not let the disruption carry on this long in the future" ok. report next time will be earlier. I just had hope till the end that he will show hindsight. Kind regards Seader (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Chromedomemalone reported by User:Montanabw (Result: 31 hours)

Page: The Black Stallion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chromedomemalone (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. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]

And not within 24 hours, but it started here:

1. [37]
2. [38] and probably same editor logged out.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Simple edit-warring over removal of a tag, discussion, if any, is in edit summaries. I reverted once, another user restored the other examples. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Contributions suggest this is a possible sockpuppet account also. Montanabw^(talk) 01:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Montanabw, I suggest an SPI, or more detail. Anyway, blocked for the edit warring, 31 hours. Drmies (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:187.17.52.174 reported by User:Skyring (Result: Blocked)

Page: Paul Keating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 187.17.52.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]
8. [48]
9. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:
Several more reversions, general incivility, no real engagement. --Pete (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No real engagement! Haha, good one. I made a common sense edit. I left a clear edit summary. I further justified the edit on the talk page when requested, even though the person requesting it clearly had no actual interest in discussion. Not one person has bothered to respond sensibly. Skyring's edit summary of choice when reverting without discussion: "Yeah, I'm a huuuge fan of Keating. Talk it easy, mate. And he then accuses me of "no real engagement"! 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And yet, you have been warned that you were violating several policies, including WP:CIV and WP:3RR, yet you chose to ignore these warnings and continued attacking other editors. I'd also like to point out that being angry at others is not an excuse for this kind of behavior. Johnny338 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Still not a single rational or genuine response to my talk page discussion - people are just too desperate to warn and admonish I guess. 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the guidelines? You must understand, while anyone can technically edit Wikipedia, they need to follow certain rules and guidelines. Remind me again why you didn't wait until consensus was established. (Note: Feeling that the responses there were not "rational" or "genuine" is not an excuse to continually revert other editors). Johnny338 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of warnings and notifications here and here. --Pete (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection is also something that wouldn't go astray here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A response to the arguments presented on the article talk page certainly wouldn't go astray. Are you capable of giving one? 187.17.52.174 (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-partisan comment)It appears to me that there is a decent amount of heat all around regarding the content of this article. Perhaps full protection for a bit might cool some heads and bring about some consensus on the talk page. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 12 hours by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now can someone revert to the previous edit? Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• IP blocked for 12 hours for edit warring after what seems to be successful tag-team reverting by registered accounts, none of whom gave even a remotely explanatory edit summary. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the article to where it was before the IP user edit warred over content, hopefully people can be a bit civil and get some good work done going forward :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Arnitxe reported by User:Origamite (Result: Blocked)

Page: Potential superpowers
User being reported: Arnitxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. [57]
6. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:
Arnitxe has been changing the information to reflect the European Union, not the US. It's not always exactly the same, but it always includes that. What I find funny is that the map is ambivalent--either interpretation could be right. Please note that User:Bushranger was the one who warned him, not me. He's also been on Superpower [61], and Arnitxe has a history of doing edit warring: [62] Origamite^{\(·_·\)(/·_·)/} 22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Obiwankenobi (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Wikipedia:Categorization of people (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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:28, 9 June 2014
2. 01:35, 12 June 2014
3. 05:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ this has taken long enough, see talk"
4. 19:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613277205 by Obiwankenobi (talk) let that not keep you from trying to find a new consensus"
5. 12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ extending application per WT:COP#cont'd"
6. 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ at least something we could agree on, see WT:COP#cont'd"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [63] Warning by @Mike V:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
2. 15:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "starting draft of revised Cop#N guideline"
3. 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed language change to WP:COP#N */ refine"
4. 19:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion */ r"
5. 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion */ example of ellen"
6. 22:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Discussion */"
7. 12:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
8. 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Proposed language change to WP:COP#N */ outdent"
9. 13:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
10. 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
11. 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
12. 15:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
13. 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ better words? not sure"
14. 16:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"
15. 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* cont'd */ r"

Comments:

Francis has continually attempted to remove a particular section of this guideline that he feels does not have consensus, namely language that says that this only applies to occupations. He believes it should have much broader application, including application to LGBT categories, which arises out of a dispute over the LGBT categories for Jodie Foster. This is a delicate area of policy, and there are some inconsistencies which Francis has identified (some he has fixed), but some of his changes, such as those he is trying to make here, have far-reaching consequences and should not be undertaken lightly. I have told him, again and again, that he does have consensus to make this set of changes here, this one particular phrase around occupations has been in the guideline for a year and represents widespread practice, and the change he is proposing would lead to removal of potentially hundreds or thousands of categories from thousands of biographies. Instead of hashing out agreeable language and engaging the broader community through for example a neutrally worded RFC, he continues to make edits and tweaks directly to the policy in question, claiming that he has the knowledge of true "consensus" on this matter and that I'm simply standing in the way. Some of his edits are reasonable and don't lead to dramatic changes, so I have not contested them, but others would lead to dramatically different rules for categorization of people. Others have not yet commented besides one, who said "it is a highly radical reworking of how categorisation currently works.", otherwise it has been a discussion between Francis and myself, but instead of continuing the engagement on the talk page he continually returns to edit the policy itself with self-invented compromises. He was already warned yesterday about edit warring, but has continued today with multiple additions and reverts.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi sorry if I misinterpreted your last reply on the talk page (17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)): you said you were going to persue an enumerated list in the next talk page section (for which I had provided the direct link from the guideline page), and appeared to have no further comments on my last proposal before that comment (17:33, 18 June 2014)) --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you misinterpreted. I'm opposed to removing the "occupations" language until we hash out a complete solution, the same language you've tried to remove at least 4 or 5 times already. Indeed, we should probably not touch the guideline until we agree - and more importantly, get others to agree - on new refined language. If you revert your last change I will withdraw this report, provided we both promise to not make any further substantive changes to the guideline absent a conversation in which at least the two of us agree, and ideally several others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You said:

I think because there seems to be confusion on this issue, we are much better of enumerated cases where "standard" categories are applied, and cases where they aren't. That's what the section below attempts to do. (17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC))

... and that's all you said on the content of my last proposal (17:33, 18 June 2014). Can we agree on that? There's nothing wrong in my assumption that was an agreement on the proposed change, which was linking to the "section below" as you called it (00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ at least something we could agree on, see WT:COP#cont'd")

For the record, diff #3 #5 under header Diffs of the user's reverts above (12:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC) "/* General considerations */ extending application per WT:COP#cont'd") is not by a long shot a revert. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, my point was, we need to go beyond your proposed change, to a deeper enumeration. I don't agree with this creeping policy change, whereby we tweak little bits on the way to a better solution, especially if you remove important parts that have been deeply contested by me previously, as you know. Anyway, we don't need to have this discussion here, I'm asking you clearly to revert that last change and promise to not make further substantive changes to the policy in this domain absent clear consensus on the talk page, and I will withdraw this report. You've been continually shifting the goal posts and tweaking different parts and pasting long conversations which make it very hard for others to join. We need to have a simple set of changes we can ask other users to !vote on, not the constantly shifting ideas and various tweaks. And no, the fact that you posted something and I didn't immediately reply "nyet" is not consensus...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. "We need to have a simple set of changes we can ask other users to !vote on": right, go ahead, Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N is the place to discuss that. We don't need two different talk page sections discussing the same thing, both linked with separate "underdiscussion" tags from the guideline page. I think we can agree on that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

nb, I added two earlier diffs where Francis attempted to remove the particular piece of language in question, around occupations, showing that even though each diff is different, attempted removal of this language has been a constant.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

These older ones were reverted by Obiwankenobi

Again, #5 under Diffs of the user's reverts above doesn't fit in that list.

And #6 appeared an agreement as discussed above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, #5 was just an end-run around the 'notability only applies to occupations' argument we've been having, while on #6, do you honestly believe that, a short time after proposing a change which I have reverted on multiple occasions, my non-response can be suddenly be interpreted as consensus? I assume good faith, but why not demonstrate that good faith and self-revert since I've now made it abundantly clear that I disagree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Re. #6 "non-response": Obiwankenobi gave a response, which appeared clear to me, as quoted & discussed above.

Re. #5 Whether that qualifies as a revert by a long shot I don't know. In that case I'm sorry. OTOH Obiwankenobi's response to that edit was a clear revert (going back to his preferred version), after Obiwankenobi had been warned on his talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, do you want to de-escalate, or do you want to continue to defend your constant tweaks to policy here? The revert button is just up there. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

De-escalate seems best, to me Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N seems the way to go then. I defend my attempts at improvement. I don't defend the unindenting [64], I don't defend #5 if that could've been taken the wrong way. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

then please revert your last edit, and commit to not make further substantive changes to the policy page absent positive consensus. I will commit the same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No more reformatting of someone else's talk page edits, no more circumvention of behavioural policy (e.g. WP:CONSENSUS/WP:CANVAS), no more circumvention of WP:DEFINING, etc. thanks, that would be great. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, if you have a complaint that I violated WP:CANVASS, please bring it to appropriate board. This is the edit warring board, you have continually edit-warred your preferred version of policy, even against expressed consensus and widespread practice, I have been engaging with you on the talk page to find a solution but you continually get impatient and just move to make changes that you prefer. Again, for the last time, please revert your last change.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Above I read "... commit to not make further substantive changes to the policy page absent positive consensus. I will commit the same." (my bolding). I'm OK with that when its understood that the way to find consensus is as described at WP:CONSENSUS/WP:CANVAS. I am always committed to that, but am OK to redouble my efforts in that sense. Can we agree on that?

For instance what I like is to have content discussions on talk pages, not via edit summaries. Small effort imho, makes consensus-finding a lot swifter. Can we both commit to that? I can anyways. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I will commit to responding on talk and not just in edit summaries.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the underdiscussion tag on the WP:COP page to link to

1. WT:COP#Proposed changes, or,
2. WT:COP#Proposed language change to WP:COP#N, or,
3. two separate tags, one to #1, one to #2

(for me the choice would be #2, and close talk page section #1) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Francis, this is not the place to discuss such things. Please revert your last change and we can continue the discussion on the page as requested.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: the self-revert you propose entails keeping the same discussion alive in two separate talk page sections. Normal procedure would be to speedy-close the second section with a discussion on a topic that is already discussed under another active section header. An attempt at merging the two discussions was undone. I concede to have the discussion exclusively in the section you created. But not concurrently in the section I started and the one you started afterwards, WP:CONSENSUS says more about how to contain a discussion than only not to discuss via edit summaries.

Trying to de-escalate: you may choose where to hold the discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

that's fine. Please revert and then point the discussion to the new section. Thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Sp818330 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kevin McCarthy (California politician)‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported: Sp818330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]
6. [71]
7. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [74]

User is still reposting the identical information after warning(s) [75] Amortias (T)(C) 18:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:138.16.101.163 reported by User:Amortias (Result: 31 hours)

Page: International recognition of Lugansk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 138.16.101.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

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

Comments:
Just making whoever looks into this this that I'm aware ive reverted more than 3 times but with the intention of reverting vandalism. The reported editor is resorting to WP:NPA so have the impression he might try to turn this back on me. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Apparent shared school IP. illegal piece of trash land called "South Ossetia" is blatant vandalism, no need to report for edit warring, send it to WP:AIV. Edit summaries alone warrant a block, in my opinion. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

User:94.134.8.212 reported by User:Ebonyskye (Result: )

Page: Nox Arcana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.134.8.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

previous to edit war

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

contribs

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] The user is unsigned so I didn't leave anything on the talk page.

Comments:

I am requesting a rollback to this version of the page for Nox Arcana. While I have been editing another section, an unsigned editor 94.134.8.212 keeps reverting to remove music genres (Gothic, ethereal, dark wave) that have already been long established for this band, referenced by music reviews, other wiki editors including the wiki albums team, and can be ref'd at All Music Guide. The user has reverted multiple times, wiping out new content (including new refs to support the gothic and ethereal genres). Ebonyskye (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This person adds fake reviews. None of these reviews uses "Ethereal wave" as a genre term. Of course i'll remove non-sourced nonsense. --94.134.8.212 (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rivaner reported by User:LardoBalsamico (Result: )

Page: 2013–14 Turkish Basketball League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rivaner (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]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613661278&oldid=613660554
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613661278&oldid=613660914
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Turkish_Basketball_League&diff=613661808&oldid=613661278
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
Rivaner is a fanboy of Fenerbahce Sports Club and has been appointed by the club. He is following me and editing my edits every time. I warned him twice before bu he didn't care. I am fed up with this boy. LardoBalsamico (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)