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:Religious Burp reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

Page

The Prayer Chain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Religious Burp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Re-formatting the page so the band's entire history isn't included in the initial synopsis"
2. 23:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655522417 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Lots of wikipedia articles use short sections for easy reference, and these will be expanded."
3. 10:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverting to previous edit. Control freak had changed it without merit. Having sections helps easy use of article."
4. 01:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655713245 by 208.81.212.222 (talk)"
5. 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655775792 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Prayer Chain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Religious Burp's recent edits */ new section"
2. 04:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC) on User talk:Religious Burp "/* Prayer Chain edits and general knowledge */"

Comments:

Editor doesn't edit much. Fewer than 200 edits ago, December 2010, editor was blocked for edit warring. No discussion here. Not sure what to do about this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm in the process of formatting an article on The Prayer Chain so it is more user-friendly and contains more information for people researching the band. I'm styling this on the U2 article which has a very easy to follow format and is rather interesting. Walter Gorlitz doesn't like this. He wants all the various information about different eras of the band to be in one bulky lot. He keeps reverting these changes. The entire history was originally formatted in the initial synopsis under his preferred format. This is sloppy. Religious Burp (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First, The Prayer Chain are not U2.

I have tried to explain how we don't need multiple short sections, you didn't take kindly to that. Your other formatting and heavy reliance on direct quotes are a problem. As an editor of the u2 article, I can tell you that there are not many quotes, and none that are as long as those you provided. There is duplication of material in your edits and a lot of WP:OR. Instead of thinking that your prose are straight from the hand of god, assume that other editors know how to edit too and are trying to create an encyclopedia just like you. You're wholesale reverts are counter-productive. The total number is troubling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) The

The first "revert" Walter has listed isn't actually a revert. It was the initial change that wasn't to his liking. He reverted all those other changes before I reverted them back, meaning he should be blocked before I am. His reverts haven't been proof-read which is obvious from sentences that don't make sense and contained wrong spellings, one sentence alone contained 4 errors. I have noted these issues on The Prayer Chain talk page, and have only been met with bullying by his alternate username Amaury on my talk page, and flawed egotistical arguments from Walter. Walter himself has acknowledged he doesn't know anything about the band that is the subject of the article, so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the page. Both Amaury and Walter should be blocked and refrain from further edits on The Prayer Chain page. Religious Burp (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to strike the section claiming that Walter and Amaury are socks as without evidence its a personal attack and wont help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Amaury had used huggle.[1] It was not even a manual edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

So is the suggestion that Amaury & Walter are different people but both making identical sloppy edits? No one has addressed the example issue of the sentence containing 4 errors, 3 of which are basic English that any decent proof-reading editor could fix, which has been reverted back to it's incorrect state 4 times by Walter and his "alleged" alter-egos! Where in Wikipedia policy is that OK? And it appears all the people commenting here have more of a history with edit-warring than I do. Religious Burp (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I will go on record and state that I am not Amaury. This is the only registered account I have ever used to edit with. Feel free to take your concern to WP:SPI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Religious Burp is warned. If this continues, a block will be issued. Your suggestion that your opponents are socks is without merit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I being blocked for reverting edits, which is what Walter Görlitz did more than I did? And the reason he reverted my edits? Because I used subsections, which is exactly how he has just edited the Jars of Clay page. Not to mention that he has completely butchered The Prayer Chain article and doesn't proof-read his edits. Well done on an obviously intelligent verdict. No warning for Walter Görlitz then, very even-handed. It's hilarious how absurd this is. Matthew 7:4-5. Religious Burp (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=655661192

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [6]

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

Comments:

• The page are currently subject to active community sanctions (1RR restriction).
• After being blocked for this behavior several times, the user continue to say he don't understand what the problem is. diff WP:DONTGETIT

Erlbaeko (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• See also this recently archived discussion about the behaviour of this user[8]. It is a POV-warrior only account, who continues edit warring as soon as he is unblocked. He never seems to learn from his mistakes/blocks. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

this is insane. I edited the article and did not edit war. I removed an obsolete bit of text - how is that an 'edit war', (diff 1)and consolidated some of the over-used Seymour hersh stuff.(diff 2) ( and consensus on talk page was that hersh is over cited and needs consolidating). Diff 3 is not anything other than a few words changing round , and is called editing erlbeako. diff 4 was removing repetition I had introduced. These are politically motivated editors who are hostile personally to me. - any look at my edit history over five years or so will see I edit over a wide range - to say I am a pov driven account is ridiculous. this is a personal animus dragging me here for no reason, aiming to get an editor they don't like blocked and banned. I find it all very upsetting but not surprising I suppose - (the recently archived discussion you link to funkmonk, a discussion you started because you hated my user page having quotes from garry kasparov and such - I changed my user page, all I left is a couple of userboxes and a photo of simone weil .) Sayerslle (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, if you only learned from your past blocks, you wouldn't be blocked again. is it really that hard not to revert more than three times? How long are you going to continue the same disruptive behaviour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

one edit was a revert of redundant material over a year old, the couple others were just edits. Sayerslle (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle: this is indeed a WP:1RR violation and you have an impressive block log. If you are blocked again for edit warring it has to be for a long time, since the last one was two months. I suggest you accept a permanent restriction from editing Ghouta chemical attack and a permanent 1RR restriction on all your Wikipedia editing. Otherwise the admin who closes this report is likely to issue a proportionate block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

have you looked at the diffs? on the talkpage not everyone agreed with erlbaekos interpretation of my edits. would you at least look at the discussion there?I dont accept if I am blocked it will be for edit -warring because that is not an accurate representation of what happened. I don't mind a1RR on all my Wikipedia edits if that means 1 edit on a page, per 24 hours only. I cant agree to a total ban on ghouta chemical attacks because that implies I accept I was disruptive at that page or out of control somehow and I regard that as absurd. Can't you ask for a bit more input from other editors or something. if the general feeling is that I am a menace at that page I'll agree , but the two editors above are political enemies who want to get me banned.Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle, when judging a 1RR violation there is no need to check the talk page. If the edits are both reverts and both by you, it's a violation. So please go ahead and accept the restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope User: Kudzu1 won't mind if I paste here what he/she wrote - 'I don't agree with your interpretation, User:Erlbaeko. The sanctions are meant to prevent disruptive edit-warring, not to constrain users from being bold. If the Del Ponte section had been added recently or User:Sayerslle had good reason to believe there was no consensus for removing the content, I would say yes, it counts as a revert and WP:1RR applies. But he was making BOLD changes, following a Talk page discussion with broad agreement, to material that was inserted into the article (during the bad old days, I might add) more than a year ago. It doesn't make any sense to count that as edit-war behavior, which is what 1RR is designed to curb ' - so, you know, I removed an old piece of SYNTH-y material and consolidated a bit of other material for which there was consensus to do - Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Sayerslle, your block log suggests that your judgment of when you have consensus is faulty. If you hadn't transgressed so many times in the past we could afford to be more generous here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

so what happened doesn't matter - its pre-judged. I pasted a comment from the talk page that I didn't write, so its not my judgment in question there. I edited the page in a responsible and reasonable manner- if this leads to a block then it will be another victory for those that game the system imo but what can I do - its tiring and it just wastes time. I am not a disruptive editor, my block log considering its six or seven years , editing in sometimes very contentious and pov driven areas, seems nothing excessive really. the last ban for 59 days was because I was stupid enough to insist on reliable sources arguing with a spa, - in the end the article got deleted it was so problematic . so it goes - believe me I am learning how it works here and if I am blocked again, or not blocked, I will learn from this exchange also. The only thing I don't like in what you suggest is the total ban from ghouta chemical attacks, otherwise I agree to all the restrictions and understand them fully now. Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 months. There was an edit war at Ghouta chemical attack, the editor's last block was for two months, and no agreement could be reached here that would ensure different behavior in the future. The last two 3RR complaints were here, on 8 February and here, on 18 November 2014. The reverts listed above in this report are from April 8, which is the very day that Sayerslle's two-month block expired. It didn't take long for him to get into trouble again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:122.171.95.11 reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: Semi)

Page

Satyendra Nath Bose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "He should be introduced by his nationality, not language"
2. 17:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Even if it was his ethnicity, a person should be first introduced by nationality. U can mention ethnicity anywhere else. See his Britannica page-http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74633/Satyendra-Nath-Bose"
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) to 18:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 655865168 by Ctg4Rahat (talk) See this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA No doubt on nationality of SN Bose. Don't make it an ego issue"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Jagadish Chandra Bose.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: I am giving references. It is User:Ctg4Rahat, who is not giving references. I gave this reference- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose Here, he is introduced as Indian, not Bengali. Then this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA. But, he is constantly making changes, without any proof User:122.171.95.11 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Edit-warring or WP:3RR are different issues, but I want to highlight this is a disputed topic with no clear consensus. An attempt was made here, but I don't feel it went anywhere. What the IP is saying, makes sense to me. Whether he is right or wrong, I am talking on that, but makes some.
  Can you guys go to article talk page and discuss it there if you have not done it already. You may ask opinion of Aditya, nafSadh etc. who are very active these days. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper from 122.*. The registered editors are warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:70.26.220.3 and User: 70.26.223.190 reported by User:108.162.157.141 (Result: Temporary semi-protection)

Page: The Amazing Race 26 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.26.220.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 70.26.223.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

70.26.220.3 and 70.26.223.190 are very likely socks as they are both new and have made very few edits and they both made the same edits. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

70 changed "France & Monaco" to "Monaco & France" with an explanation in the edit summary. 180 reverted without explanation. Then each reverted twice with no further comment. Since the first edit of 70 was not obviously unreasonable and a reason was given, 108 should have explained the revert. I don't see a reason to sanction 70 without sanctioning 108 too. I'm semi-protecting the article for one week; use the talk page, folks. Zero^talk 07:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Editing Net reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Indef)

Page: Capture of HMS Penguin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editing Net (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

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

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

Comments:

As Editing Net is a sockpuppet of User:UnbiasedVictory, globally blocked for long-term abuse, warnings and discussion are superfluous. Editing Net admitted the sockpuppetry and abuse in [edit]. I have launched a SPI but in my opinion it was mishandled by the admins, who incorrectly moved it to a related SPI into another user; this has obfuscated the issue and unduly delayed matters. Editing Net's edits have continued UnbiasedVictory's campaign of relentlessly stuffing cruft and original research into articles' info. boxes. The community is already heartily sick of Editing Net, whose recent edits are clear edit-warring. HLGallon (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:173.180.72.36 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)

Page

Brendan Gallagher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 01:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 01:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 01:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Incorrect height"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
2. 01:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Brendan Gallagher. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP address has been falsely changing the hockey player's height, even though majority of articles say 5'9" or 5'8". Callmemirela (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: User took an hour or two of a break then resumed. Callmemirela (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. An IP from 173.180.* has been trying to change this player's height to 5' 6" since December. His NHL player profile says 5' 9". EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:66.190.249.59 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "removed link to freedom from religion foundation as it is unrelated to AU"
2. 18:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "deleted entry under no heading"
3. 18:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "external links to personal opinion articles do not belong in an organization info page. If Dougweller wishes to debate "right wing religion" he needs to start an article"
4. 18:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "deleted portion that has nothing to do with AU per Dougweller's suggestions in ongoing editwar"
5. 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "deleted POV without citation for over two years"

NONE OF THESE WERE REVERTS AS ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED BY DOUGWELLER. These were simply edits.

However Dougweller did participate in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edits and reverted in excess of 3 in 24 hours while hounding me over an approximate 3 day period. He followed ALL my edits with some type of a revert.66.190.249.59 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

See [18] where I explained that consecutive edits count as one. A lot of the IP's edits needed to be reverted for various reasons, and I'm just one of several reverted. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

IP, looking at other edits is accepted and expected practice when an editor makes dubious edits to one article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Voices United */ new section"

Comments:

The IP needs to use talk pages to discuss and wait until a consensus is formed. Same behavior at Answers in Genesis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:80.111.246.210 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: IP blocked)

Page

Gender equality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 16:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Revision may not have been minor edit - Please can you discuss any changes in talk page - Undid revision 655988862 by Gobonobo (talk)"
3. 16:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Please check that you are not breaking WP:BADPOV policy - Undid revision 655914818 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
4. 22:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Not relying on one source. Including the dictionary definition , along with UN definition. There are various other definitions including EU and UNICEF, that will also need to be included."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

link

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Gender_equality#Men.27s_rights_and_Womens_rights.

Comments:

Attempted discussion at Talk:Gender_equality#Men.27s_rights_and_Womens_rights.

Been edit wasting slowly since April 6. Total of the editors have reverted this user. They continue to edit war regardless. Ignores BRD.

See user contribs for full history (on mobile and twinkle won't load them all).

User was warned about edit warring on user talk page. Will link momentarily. link. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected, IP blocked. Nakon 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Mattscards reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Shooting of Walter Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mattscards (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 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC) to 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
   2. 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) to 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"
   2. 14:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) to 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
   2. 14:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"
4. 06:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Walter Scott */"
   2. 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Michael Slager */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shooting of Walter Scott. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussions:

• Talk:Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#Ethnicity_terms.2C_again
• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Changing_the_precedent_on_race_specifications_in_shooting_articles

Mattscards' comments in the latter discussion have been particularly unhelpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor wants to remove races of subjects. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Where did User:Nøkkenbuer spring from?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, no idea but as their posts have been thoughtful and focused on content I'm hoping this is a new editor who happens to be particularly clueful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I have no affiliation with this Mattscards fellow, though I find it interesting that he claims to hail from the same hometown as I. In any case, I have no relation with him, and I consider his posts to be very problematic, even though they appear to support my cause. I appreciate the support, but his statements are very hostile. I've even cautioned him to not be so hostile in the original discussion:

    From my observations, I can say that Mandruss does appear to be rather objective and impartial in his claims. With all due respect, Mattscards, I believe you're being a bit presumptive of Mandruss. It's obvious that this is an important issue to you, and I appreciate what appears to be your support for my position, but there's no need to accuse Mandruss of anything. He disagrees with you, just as he disagrees with me, but we can reach some common understanding if only we work together in a civil manner. Also, as a friendly bit of advice, I recommend using colons before your posts to structure them as a response, so that it's easier to track and see that a conversation is occurring. You can edit the source of this section and see how I used three colons here in this response to indent it three times, as a response to Cwobeel. It's your choice, of course, but it would probably help us all better follow this discussion, yourself included. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

    I really didn't mean for all this hostility to occur from my posts. I wanted to raise some concerns, but certainly not cause any trouble. I'm really sorry about all this. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Vamsisv reported by User:Vin09 (Result: )

Page

List of Indian Premier League records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Vin09 (talk) to last revision by Vamsisv. (TW)"
2. 18:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "Don't edit war. "official you might want to look at WP:CALC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* List of Indian Premier League records and statistics */"
2. 18:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Don't revert */"
3. 18:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Don't revert */"
4. 18:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Don't revert */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user added section Man of the match Awards without proper references. The ref provided is an article that is outdated. I've already taken initiative to resolve it by writing on his talk page at 09:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC).Vin09 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• Note. @Vin09: Vamsisv has reverted three times. You have reverted twice. Based on a comment on Vamsisv's Talk page you apparently want an administrator to resolve the content dispute ("I've asked for admins intervention rather than having our own interests. Let the admins decide. Whatever they decide let's keep it."). This noticeboard is for reporting sanctionable misconduct, not for dispute resolution. All I can suggest is that the two of you stop edit-warring or both of you risk blocks. Instead, use whatever dispute resolution tools are appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghatus reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: )

Page

Indo-Pakistan War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverted to

1. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"(Undid revision 656237692 by Xtremedood (talk) I am to wiki before you came and know the rules. It is you who has violated the rule. I have open discussion on the Talk Page. Go there.)"
2. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."
3. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"Undid revision 656223115 by Xtremedood (talk) Illegitimate source. Nothing to back it up in the article or source. Does not even disclose the source of the data."
4. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
5. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"*Source is legitimate academic source"
6. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)"Undid revision 656141936 by Ghatus (talk) Sourceless is legitimate academic source."
7. 14:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)"rv 4 edits. Baseless source and the page can not be accessed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."

Comments:

Editor Ghatus has been warned for not reverting, however he has refused to adhere to the three revert rule. He has also been edit warring on a variety of Mughal-Maratha war articles and has been warned in the past. His latest comment on the 1971 history page shows his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules. Xtremedood (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus also deleted my recent warning on his page. Xtremedood (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus's Reply "Xtremedood" is told to discuss on the Talk Page of the relevant Page. He did not do it. A discussion is open there already to solve it out. He has a past history of doing such things in other pages. I have also called on three other editors to look into the matter. I just reverted his undiscussed and dubious sounding edits. Three other editors are @Lakun.patra:, @Myopia123:,@Chris the speller:. Thank You.Ghatus (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)