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:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: Blocked one week)

Actually Just in the last 24 hours user again became engaged in edit warring. This came right after user deleted my ANI discussion notification from their talk page [1] and then user went ahead and began edit warring again:

Page: Relations between Catholicism and Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Before any reverts: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

4th revert was slightly after 24 hrs.

User was involved in this edit war since July.

1. [7]
2. [8]

User did not mention anything on the article's talk page [9] despite request from other user.

Comments:

The other user that was involved in this edit warring specified in the edit summary certain disruptive editing agendas by VanEman. - VanEman's History also shows that majority (or almost all) of VanEman's edits are for those agendas - and it does not appear that the user is here to help build an encyclopedia. Caseeart (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I wrote last time:

"This user was previously warned and blocked for edit warring [10].

User was warned multiple times by multiple users to stop disruptive editing.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17] User went ahead and repeatedly deleted all the warnings from talk page [18][19][20] making even more difficult to discover the behavior.

Just now again VanEman reverted my edits on a different article - totally ignoring the discussion on talk page and the BLP1 concerns in my edit summaries. VanEman was also not honest in the edit summaries. Instead of specifying that he/she was reverting and edit warring my edits the user made it sound like they were simply adding new material by using summaries "minor corrections" "add testimony by the school" "add results of hearings" - when in fact all three of those edits were really reverting my edits and ignoring the talk page " Caseeart (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Caseeart (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - VanEman has also displayed problematic editing at Western Wall, specifically a slow motion edit war usually consisting of reverting thrice in one day (staying within the letter of 3RR) against consensus and without discussion. After my recent attempt to open discussion, the only reply was this rant which had nothing to do with the resolving the issue.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Thanks for the well put together report. Swarm ♠ 01:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:110.168.232.98 reported by User:Supdiop (Result: Semi)

Page

Blood Duster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

110.168.232.98

1. 07:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674955303 by Supdiop (talk)"
2. 07:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674954633 by Widr (talk)"
3. 06:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674952802 by 174.91.187.234 (talk)"
4. 06:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674950735 by 121.219.61.6 (talk)"

Diffs of the user's reverts

110.168.231.216

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674956158
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674956534
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674956736

Diffs of the user's reverts

110.168.232.201

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674961153

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.168.232.98#August_2015
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.168.231.216#August_2015
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.168.232.201#August_2015

Comments:

Warning given by Widr. Supdiop (Talk🔹Contribs) 07:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly all three are the same user vandalising the page concerned. 121.219.61.6 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Darkwind. Also, one of the IPs has been blocked for making a legal threat. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Editorchief1988 reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Sport in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editorchief1988 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments: Editorchief1988 (a new user) is attempting to remove content without explanation (I've also posted on their talkpage about the need to use edit summaries). Judging by their contributions a report to WP:ANV would've been equally justified, so a long-term/indef block might be a good idea. The other user involved in the edit war, Melbourne367 (talk · contribs), is also quite a new user, but I think their violation of 3RR is justified given the edit they were reverting is very close to outright vandalism. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for clear edit warring and 3RR violation. –Darkwind (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Cruks reported by User:Jamie Tubers (Result:Protected)

Page

List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674867242 by Wikicology (talk) this list is about the stable 2015 Forbes version and not in real time"
2. 23:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674901707 by Jamie Tubers (talk)"
3. 04:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674916600 by Jamie Tubers (talk) this version shows the stable version as it says "2015 Nig. billionaires list"! Do not remove this edit"
4. 04:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Lists */"
5. 04:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 Nigerian billionaires list */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has been engaging in edit warring on the article List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth for some days now. First he kept removing the "incomplete" template which was placed in the article to enable users to add lists for previous years, but this user kept stating that "the article is complete". Further more, he started changing figures in the article, from the long standing appropriate version, saying that "the list is about 2015 not realtime", like we still are not in 2015. He also ignored that there's no consensus on whether figures for current years should be realtime or not. He also started changing wordings of the subheading in the article to try to support his stance; for example, he deleted the main subheading "lists", and changed the "2015 list" to the main subheading, when the article clearly isn't year-specific. The user has been disruptive on other articles too as it is evident on his talkpage, with several warnings. He left a message on my talkpage, which seem almost like an harrassment; Myself and one other editor replied and tried to make him see reasons, but he never replied or tried to resolve the dispute. Instead, he went ahead to perform several reverts again. He has also violated 3RR. Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree with the statement above and I tried to find an agreement on the talk page of the article, but without any response. Instead User:Jamie Tubers and User:Wikicology are denouncing me bringing up examples from my talk page. This is poor and ridiculous. I have been working on several pages named List of (German, Swiss, Austrian and many more)... billionaires by net worth to shape them up in the same style. I got never any complaints from nowhere. The complaints come from 2 Nigerian editors when they tried to put figures into the article which are showing the real time ranking and not the stable 2015 version as like here. It is obvious that both users feel hurt in their national pride and want to leave their country people always stand in a better light. They are not willing to understand my neutral point of view. We cannot change every day the net worth data (because they can change daily) and that is why I put 2015 Nigerian billionaires list as a subtitle. Next year we could add a 2016 Nigerian billionaires list. Easy as that. Thanks for understanding. Cruks (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• You only decided to leave a message at the article's talkpage hours after another user had already reported you for disruptive edit at admin incidence page. Moreover, the message you left is more of an authoritative comment anyway, rather than someone who wants to resolve a dispute. At the end, it still doesn't change the fact that you were edit warring, to the extent that you broke the 3 revert rule.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: --- It doesn't appears to me that user:Cruks is here to build an encyclopedia. I never noticed their disruptive behavior until I found this ridiculous warning on Jamie Tubers's talk page. I responded to them here explaining to them why the user's edit did not constitute vandalism and User:Cruks quickly left this irrelevant note on my talk page that my revert on the article, List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth is not useful even when I never reverted anything that changed the list. I responded here telling them why the List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth should not only be on the list of Nigerian billionaire compiled in 2015 but also other years. They responded here that I shouldn't treat them unfairly simply because they want to justified their action. I edited the article [22] to enhance the inclusion of "list of Nigerian billionaire" compiled in other years to reflect the title but they abysmally reverted my edit. When I checked through their talk page history, I discovered that the editor is problematic. Last week, they created Declan Costello (economist), a blatant copyvio that was speedy deleted per G12 by User: Jimfbleak. A day before the page was deleted, I found this warning] by JMHamo on their talk page regarding an edit warring on Morgan Schneiderlin. I also saw this warning on their talk for not been using the edit summary. There are also several warning on their talk page regarding the addition of poor sources to article such as this one. When I considered all this misconduct, I really don't think that this editor can contribute usefully to Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Both comments above are clearly unfair. What has to do my talk page with the edits on the Nigerian billionaires? Nothing at all! It seems to be clear that both users poke around in the past of other people because they themselves have no more convincing arguments. My final conclusion is that both users mentioned are not interested in bringing arguments forward to my edits instead, it's all about them another user badmouthing. Thats how it is. Cruks (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Consecutive edits count as one action; 4:21, 4:22 and 4:23 count as one action. There is no 3RR vio demonstrated here. However, the absence of any conversation about this on the talk page is concerning; there's a reason why there's a section for "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". That has not happened here. Article protected for three days to allow this important step to take place. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nihil novi and User:Libesruinssineced reported by User:Mfb (Result: Libesruinssineced blocked )

Page: List of multiple discoveries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Nihil novi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Libesruinssineced (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

No 3RR violation, but a slow editwar going on over two weeks now, see version history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ongoing, but that doesn't stop the reverts in the article. --mfb (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: User:Libesruinssineced has been blocked 24 hours by User:Airplaneman. This editor seem not to understand the concept of a 'multiple discovery', one that is made by more than one person independently. He has restored his version nine times since 23 July. User:Nihil novi is warned that believing you are right is not a justification for edit warring. You need to take the matter to an admin board before it gets this far. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:David Gerard (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Multiple editors reverted this blog addition to a BLP, explaining in diffs: [29] [30] [31]

Comments:

This is an addition of a low-quality personal blog source to a BLP. So hypothetically I could continue to revert as it's a BLP, but I'd rather bring it to wider attention first. Per their talk page, the user has been blocked for edit-warring several times previously, so they know what they were doing - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand David Gerard's criticism. My source is an excellent article written by two Phds. I don't know why he keeps insisting my source is a "low-quality personal blog". I hope we can resolve this through discussion.Jimjilin (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Jimjilin: I've brought this up at WP:ANI#Long term pattern of POV edits and edit warring by User:Jimjilin. Up to you if you'd like to close this thread in favor of discussing there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wherever is most useful, looks like your piece there is. My concern was (a) BLP violation (b) a determined one, that hit 3RR (c) others' opinions to double-check my own, rather than just reverting myself, and it's got that now - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard, why do you ignore my question? Why do you feel my source is a "low-quality personal blog"?Jimjilin (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Looks like a larger behavioral issue is being discussed at ANI and this block is not meant to address that. The user should be allowed to contribute to that discussion but the block for 3RR is pretty straightforward. Swarm ♠ 02:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:82.132.227.156 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 19:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cyprus. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Part of edit-warring sock dynamic IPs adding POV/vandalism edits on Cyprus. Please see also the contributions of IPs 80.195.231.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 82.132.226.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Page protection noticeboard not responding. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected by Ponyo. Looks like they beat us to it. :P Swarm ♠ 01:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• It was a busy day today for socks. It must be the heat. :) Ponyo has also helped out with the Grey Wolves SPI. Thank you for blocking the original sock and protecting the article. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Supergreg22 reported by User:Amaury (Result: 72h)

Page

List of Girl Meets World episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Supergreg22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 2 (2015) */"
2. 20:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 2 (2015) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. diff=674441804&oldid=674441651

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to change to production code for Girl Meets Fish to 119, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, especially informative comments by Geraldo Perez. The only source available currently provides a production code of 219, and while this episode was obviously shot during the first season, until another reliable source comes along, 219 must stay.

User has already been warned to take it to the talk page a number of times, both on their talk page and via reverts. Amaury (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Everyone makes honest mistakes but given this editor's history of problematic behavior and the fact that the issue has been clearly addressed on the talk page there's really no excuse. Swarm ♠ 01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:50.47.2.186 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 31h)

Page

Bree Newsome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Activism */"
2. 04:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Activism */"
3. 12:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Activism */"
4. 17:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Activism */"
5. 00:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Activism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bree Newsome. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Swarm ♠ 01:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ideloctober reported by User:DD2K (Result: Declined)

Page

George Lincoln Rockwell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Read the sources more clearly, please. If articleso n JFK, MLK, and others include conspiracy theories of their intended assassinations, why can't Rockwell's? Two university books mention that theories exist for his assassination."
2. 22:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "It's not a blog source, it's a blog that used a quote from a biography on Rockwell., as well as another blog quoting sourced accounts from Party members on their theories (again from another book). Adding third source from below since it covers same topi"
3. 06:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Most politicians' legacy sections include political summaries and political notes."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on George Lincoln Rockwell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor also made reverts while logged out as an IP -- here and here. Section of other disruptive behavior at ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't make any more changes to said article. Ideloctober (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Declined User has kindly agreed to WP:LETITGO so I see no need for further intervention. Swarm ♠ 20:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:139.195.16.10 reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Hang Nadim Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */"
2. 04:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */ No misunderstanding Oripay, Just show me the Authorization Simple !"
3. 04:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */ The rules from Wikipedia not Dept of Transportation Rep Indonesia Oripay !"
4. 04:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */ Oripay where's ur Authorization ? Don't make any illegal edit"
5. 04:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */"
6. 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */ Hey Oripay if u need source, I will request authorization from Dept Transportation Rep of Indonesia"
7. 03:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */"
8. 03:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Passenger Airlines */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Indonesia re added from their airport who among the dept transportation rep of Indonesia is not official passenger.Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:68.190.244.10 reported by User:Location (Result: 31 hours)

Page: United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.190.244.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:16, 3 June 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:08, 1 August 2015
2. 21:39, 7 August 2015‎
3. 23:11, 7 August 2015
4. 23:21, 7 August 2015
5. 00:30, 8 August 2015
6. 06:06, 8 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32], [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 00:50, 2 August 2015‎ Koijmonop
2. 01:06, 2 August 2015 Location
3. 23:13, 7 August 2015 Location
4. 00:30, 8 August 2015‎ Cullen328

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:68.170.119.169 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 1 month)

Page

New York City FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 05:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has engaged in a long-term attempt at adding an initialism and shortened form of the club's name to the nickname parameter multiple times since 2015-07-27. Four different editors have reverted. Four warnings on the editor's talk page to supply sources. None for edit warring though. This is long-term edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

He's been adding unsourced content for nearly a month, so I blocked him for a month. He hadn't received an EW warning, sure, but it would appear this guy doesn't listen anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Warned)

Page: Ashoka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ashoka#Devanagari_discussion_moved_from_User_talk:RegentsPark

Comments:
Sadly, I have to say that Human3015 often games the 3RR rules. It would be a good idea to tell him that is not ok to do so. When there are talk page discussions going on, it is preferable for him to wait until consensus is arrived at. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

They seem to have backed down on the talk page now, although they have not self-reverted. @Kautliya3:, is it the backing down that constitutes gaming, ie: pushing things just beyond the limit and then sort-of retracting? - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-pinging Kautilya3 due to typo. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 reverted Sitush's 3rr notice this morning [41] with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Sitush (talk): I think I made 2 reverts, you are on 3rr," which indicates that he is trying to carefully skirt around the 3RR rules. But 3RR is only the last line in the sand. I am not sure one should be reaching it while an active discussion is going on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Human3015: not going to issue a block here as you appear to have stopped reverting quite some time ago and I don't see any immediate preventative benefit it would provide. However you clearly violated 3RR and subjected yourself to a significant block given the previous violations and will probably not be given a lot of leeway for future ones. Warned. Swarm ♠ 21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Zhh50 reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: 24h)

Page: 2011 Asian Women's Volleyball Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zhh50 (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: [link]

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

Comments:
This user who also edits sometimes behind an IP can't understand a simple fact I'm trying to tell him, in first revert he did revert another user but his next 3 are my edits. I tried to warn him in his talkpage before reporting here but he just blanked the page. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Although not truly warned with {{uw-3rr}} (which is preferred), between the clearing of the notification about the thread here, lack of response, and continued edit warring (now on two articles), this is getting a little out of hand. --slakr^\ talk / 05:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Rami.198678 reported by User:LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (Result: protected)

Page

Nabih Berri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rami.198678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Corruption allegations */ removal of a clear violation of wikepedia rules and should be revised by an admin"
2. 17:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Corruption allegations */ i removed a part not adhering to the biographies of living persons"
3. 13:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Removal of poorly sourced materials used in order of defimation of a public figuere, the same lines, edits and attempts used since 2006 by the same user"
4. 13:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Corruption allegations */ removal of paragraph that is a clear violation of wikipedia rules concering the biography of a living person and defomation of a public figuer attempts since 2006"
5. 12:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675129240 by LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) removal of a paragraph that violates Wikipedia rules"
6. 07:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "removal of a paragraph that is considered by Wikipedia as defamation of a public figure"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
2. 13:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Nabih Berri. (TW)"
3. 17:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nabih Berri. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* sock-puppet notice */ new section"
2. 17:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "/* BLP notice */ new section"

Comments:

Already suspected sock-puppet, posted to BLP notice board in addition to talk page initiative, no response and still reverting.. 495656778774 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected. There's socking but also questionable content addition + socking going on. Please seek dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 05:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:173.66.114.253 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: 31 hours)

Page

Tareq Salahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675188687 by Conifer (talk)"
2. 21:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675182788 by JJMC89 (talk)"
3. 21:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 17:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675160862 by JJMC89 (talk)"
5. 17:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675102142 by Conifer (talk)"
6. 22:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 674191863 by Conifer (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tareq Salahi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

May also be 76.4.73.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 22:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 06:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Js82 reported by User:onel5969 (Result: )

Page: Sardarji joke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Js82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43] (7/22/2015)
2. [44] (7/22/2015)
3. [45] (7/22/2015)
4. [46] (7/22/2015)
5. [47] (7/22/2015)
6. [48] (7/23/2015)
7. [49] (8/6/2015)
8. [50] (8/6/2015)
9. [51] (8/8/2015)
10. [52] (8/8/2015)
11. [53] (8/8/2015)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Js82#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sardarji joke#How Wikipedia protects minority rights & sentiments ?

Comments:

Editor has a difficult time with the concept of consensus building. And perhaps WP:OR as well (I've asked an involved editor who has access to the sources to verify the veracity of this new editor's contributions). Want to stabilize the article while consensus is reached, which, as we all know, can take some time. I've included the older reverts to show the pattern of this editor on this article. Also, please be aware that an spi was opened, since some of the reverts were by ips. You can find it here. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Instead of responding in a calm, mature way, even after an admin left an understanding message on their talk page, the editor chose not to self-revert as show of good faith, instead responding with a personal attack on the article's talk page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Article and talk page under attack by forum members

ARTICLE: List of Internet forums

A forum has put a call to its members to fight with editors in a revert war and on the talk page [[54]]

REVERT WAR (reverting the same edit from various editors 9 times):

22:00, 4 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)
source:http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/ added further description of tribalwar: source meta tags <meta name="keywords" content="technology, men's lifestyle, forum, free speech" /> <meta name="description" content="TribalWar.Com)

02:15, 6 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.223 (talk)‎
These are in the meta tags of the website, there is no formatting rule on wiki against categorizing them this way. sourced fact.)

04:11, 6 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.223 (talk)‎
(Please stop messing with the official meta tag description of Tribalwar.com. It fits the wikipedia description. An admin will get involved shortly if you keep these pointless revisions up.)

05:19, 6 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.223 (talk)‎
(Yes I believe the condensed version of most important descriptors is why there are web meta tags in the first place chap! Please stop pointlessly editing/reversing.)

09:14, 7 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎
(noegaf is different from tribalwar. follow tribalwar's meta tags from the website itself. it is a free speech forum not video games. no im not going to a talk page when i can just keep making the edit and arguing here.)

12:29, 8 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎
(Nonsense waste of time edit for something that isn't breaking any article rules. TW is not neogaf don't categorize them the same, use the meta tags of the websites thank you.)

21:45, 8 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎
(Talk first expound on a rule or something this category is breaking because there is none sourced and you are the one breaking wiki rules by pointlessly editing without stating a reason or rule break.)

06:24, 9 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎
(you on mobile phone keep reverting a majority opinion of a forum of 32000 people. literally you and an ip account (two people) vs 32000 people. please stop this heavily opinionated and non fact/rule based argument)

09:33, 9 August 2015‎ 70.27.1.142 (talk)‎

ERASING TALK PAGE DISCUSSION: Comment "(Removing irrelevant blahblahlah courtesy of this[55]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Internet_forums&diff=prev&oldid=675244934

COMMENT: There have been 18 reverts of the same table cell since 22:00, 4 August 2015‎. Its appears that members of a forum put out a call to arms to fight (specifically using this term) with editors. The owner of the forum is involved. My attempts to get a discussion on TALK and encourage consensus have not deterred the edit war. Twice, the talk page discussion has been erased.

72.181.218.181 (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I was just going to flag them on AIV given the "discussion" on the forum in question:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20150809083841/http://www.tribalwar.com/forums/archive/t-680335.html

Given the above, temp protection to autoconfirmed may be required (not just yet, however). Proper move for talk is probably the red collapsible template thing (escapes me at the moment) and mv to archive... although the racist comments in tail of talk page by IPv6 address may need to be dealt with via oversight. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- dsprc ^[talk] 09:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

IP range spanning User:171.82.160.154, User:171.82.160.162, User:171.82.160.153, etc. reported by User:Benlisquare (Result: Declined)

Page: World of Tanks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• IP range spanning:

• 171.82.160.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 171.82.160.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 171.82.160.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• and possibly more that I have missed

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I'd rather not, this user has a history of vandalising the userpages of anyone who leaves a message on his talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, I'd rather not deal with the headache

Comments:

• General nonsense vandalism (e.g. replacing images with File:Jihad.jpg) by IP-hopping editor. ISP information shows that he is from Wuhan, Hebei, China, using China Telecom. The article was semi-protected between 29 July 2015 and 5 August 2015; prior to the semi-protection this same editor has made the exact same repetitive vandal edits during July 2015. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Declined The page has been protected; that should suffice. To block these IPs is pretty useless. ceradon (talk • edits) 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jasimkhanum10 and User:Zmaghndstakun reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Page protected; users sanctioned)

Page: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
Jasimkhanum10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Zmaghndstakun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
Jasimkhanum10:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]
5. [61]

Zmaghndstakun:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Jasimkhanum10, Zmaghndstakun

Comments:
A few hours after the article was protected to prevent IPs from adding dubious material and revert-war over it registered users started doing the same... Thomas.W ^talk 19:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: User Zmaghndstakun has a history of POV editing and stonewalling changes that don't fit his preference. I first encountered him at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan. There's a dispute resolution case open at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Balochistan.23Recent_changes about a continuation of his edit-warring. The other user, Jasimkhanum10 appears to be a brand new account interested in a very specific area. The article in question, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, is about a location in Pakistan, and discretionary sanctions may be appropriate, since this is a subject area of great passion and dispute. Although I'm probably not technically WP:INVOLVED, I'm personally abstaining from taking action against either user while I get my admin chops. I encourage other admins to judge the behavior, though. I have fully protected the article for 2 days to cool off the war. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Page protected; users sanctioned. Both users are now subject to a 3-month ban from editing articles relating to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, all broadly construed. As for a block, the page has been protected, and these sanction have been put in place, so a block would be punitive at this point. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • edits) 13:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceradon I am utterly surprised for being topic ban from India Afghanistan and Pakistan. Reason number one: I have never edited any india / afghanistan page. Number two: I never voilated any WP rule except 3RR on Tank and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pages for which maximum you shold have blocked me for 24 hours on first Offence. I question Blind following of volunteer comment of a DRN competitior user Cyphoidbomb on ANI. Now how will I able to comment on DRN. Actually by doing so user Cyphoidbomb has denied my right to speak on DRN to which I was party. Can I call this democracy? Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:92.149.192.237 reported by User:109.158.107.195 (Result: )

Page: [The Fall (TV series)]
User being reported: [92.149.192.237]

Please help me resolve this. It's just gone too far now.

Page before editing by 92.149.192.237 began: [67]

Updated page as it looked before his latest addition (and how it should remain): [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts (latest to earliest):

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]
6. [74]
7. [75]
8. [76]
9. [77]
10. [78]
11. [79]
12. [80]
13. [81]
14. [82]
15. [83]
16. [84]
17. [85]

Colin Morgan is being constantly added to the opening header alongside Anderson, Dornan, Panjabi and Lynch (who are the four leads, with moniker credits (ie. starring, and, and with). He's being moved up in the info-box into an incorrect position, he's being moved in the series 2 section to before cast members who first appeared in episode 1.

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

Comments: user has been warned by several people in the comments section of the edit history page, but responds saying he is right

--109.158.107.195 (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Big-Endians reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Reza Aslan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Big-Endians (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

This user persists in adding the obvious BLP violation that the subject has called for someone's assassination, despite such a claim neither being supported by the (primary) source nor present in any reliable secondary sources.

Diffs of the user adding this claim within the past 12 hours:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]
5. [91]
6. [92]
7. [93]
8. [94]
9. [95]

Other reverts by this user within the past 12 hours:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]

Warned for BLP: [99][100] Warned (not by me) for EW: [101] (and persisted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102][103]

Comments:

• "I don't think it's a BLP violation" is not one of the exemptions from 3RR. Even if the user somehow miraculously turns out to be right, and it's not a BLP violation to add your own interpretation of a primary source as a BLP subject calling for someone's assassination, the user's still reverted 12 times in about 12 hours, demonstrated a thorough misunderstanding of sourcing policy ("The context speaks for itself"), and made insinuations about my sexuality[104] and other rude remarks [105]. Can we just end this now? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese is part of the LGBT project at wikipedia, and Reza Aslan is a prominent supporter of gay rights in the Muslim American community. All I was saying is that because someone supports gay rights doesn't give censorship rights on other topics the person might be involved in (also, supporting gay rights is not the same things about being gay). Reza Aslan's comments speak for themselves. And here is the first question after he finished his speech.Big-Endians (talk) 04:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Big-Endians blocked for 48 hours. I should let you know, it really really doesn't matter how much you think you're right, or what you think of Roscelese. Edit warriors will be blocked. Especially for an accusation as serious as what you've been trying to add, this a situation where you should seek consensus first. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:PennyDarling reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PennyDarling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]: insertion of website link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107] after my first undo and referral to talk page
2. [108] after my second undo
3. [109] after my third undo and 3RR-warning on user talk page
4. [110] after JRSpriggs' undo

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112], [113], [114], [115], [116].

Comments:
My 3RR warning resulted in a retaliating copy of the warning (including my own signature) on my talk page: [117]

User insists on my proving to them with references why their addition is inappropriate, i.o.w. putting the burden on others.

User was already explained at Talk:Special relativity#Citations, Quality and Personal Theories by user Martin Hogbin how best to go about editing here (wp:BRD). - DVdm (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:DVdm has been asked to engage in discussion towards resolution, however, has continued to delete a qualified and reviewed web link. This escalation appears to be a Point Of View conflict (WP:NPOV) that the user (User:DVdm) holds against the owner of the linked website (quote from User:DVdm on WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Relativity talk page: "Bad Source. To be avoided at all cost, at least for relativity. I have written them a few emails about this. Never got a reply."). User:DVdm has been asked to provide justifications, with links, showing the linked website to be of poor quality, but has only been able to supply hyper-links to personal web pages and forum bulletin boards, which are not of the quality required within a rigorous scientific discipline or wikipedia. The linked website is well established and was created by an expert in the field; furthermore it has been reviewed by the Physics Today (published by the IoP) and selected by the SciLinks program, a service of National Science Teachers Association. PennyDarling (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Two other users have agreed that Hyperphysics is bad: [118], [119]. The reasons are extensively explained on the article talk page. There clearly is no consensus for the addition. - DVdm (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ceradon (talk • edits) 14:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Thulqarnayn reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Ibn Nusayr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Al-Khaṣībī (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thulqarnayn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: for Ibn Nusayr:[120]; for Al-Khaṣībī:[121]

For Ibn Nusayr: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [122] (31 July)
2. [123] (All other reverts 8/9 August)
3. [124]
4. [125]
5. [126]

For Al-Khaṣībī: Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [127] (31 July)
2. [128] (All other reverts 8/9 August)
3. [129]
4. [130]
5. [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:

These are two linked articles where the user has edit-warred simultaneously. The last revert on each article is by an IP in Germany, 79.248.65.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The IP made the same identical reverts as Thulqarnayn after I had posted the 3RR warning to Thulqarnayn's talk page. Within 5 minutes of those reverts, Thulqarnayn posted this to my talk page. WP:DUCK, but I can't say whether it was a deliberate attempt to get round 3RR or whether (since it is so obvious) the user simply forgot to log in - but it's still a deliberate breach of 3RR. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(uninvolved non admin) I think either a comment by this user that they were the IP, or the results of a SPI investigation would be needed before linking them to the IP. I'm not saying its not them, but this may be the wrong place to come to that conclusion. AlbinoFerret 13:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUCK doesn't require either an SPI decision or an admission. Either its a WP:DUCK or it's not and admins regularly make that decision on their own. Of course, if it's not so obvious that it is a WP:DUCK then it would require an SPI. But I think it is obvious. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. 24 hours for sockpuppetry; 24 hours for socking. ceradon (talk • edits) 14:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:109.64.38.239 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

Page: Gigi Hadid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.64.38.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [135] 16:39, 10 August 2015 (re-added infobox MOS vio, raw URL)
2. [136] 16:43, 10 August 2015 (the same)
3. [137] 16:44, 10 August 2015 (the same, plus restored commented-out uncited claim about siblings, for a BLP vio)
4. 16:46 10 August 2015 (same as #3 above)]
5. [138]
6. [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:

I have cited every detail with a ref, and improved her infobox to look more Wikipedia-esque and plain professional. 109.64.38.239 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I just wrote on the article's talk page: "He continues to compound his edit-warring, removing a cite that he had improperly placed in the infobox and then not placing it in the article body, keeping a raw URL rather than the properly cited URL, and continuing to make uncited claims about a living person's siblings in defiance of WP:BLP." In any event, he has bright-line exceeded 3RR. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As I just wrote on the article's talk page: "I have cited every detail with a ref, and improved her infobox to look more Wikipedia-esque and plain professional." In any event, you are just annoyed that my information is correct and cited. 109.64.38.239 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Marsavian reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: )

Page

Eurofighter Typhoon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675412213 by ScrapIronIV (talk) - restoration of perfectly valid new data on Typhoon's performance."
2. 12:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675411168 as It is notable as it contradicts the earlier 'However, in one to one dogfights the Typhoon was found to be superior' statement."
3. 12:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675408977 by BilCat (talk) The 2014 meet provides new insight into the relative performance of Typhoon and both sides of this insight have been impartially presented for fairness."
4. 05:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 675346945 by BilCat (talk) All Indra-Dhanush exercises are combat exercises, if one is to be removed then all should or none."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[142], [143]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to get disputed material into the article, not stopping even though they've been reverted by multiple other editors.

User:Burridheut reported by User:Zoupan (Result: )

Page: Spiro Koleka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Burridheut (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. [144]
2. [145]

Comments:
There have been countless attempts for constructive discussions. There was an ANI, and a previous EW that ended in semi-page protection. He has major WP:OWN and POV problems. The latest comments include "Please don't touch the article again." and "Get out of here, vandal. You have been warned by several users many times to stop this shameful campaign of yours." Please see the lengthy discussions on the article talk page for more information.--Zoupan 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that the user started an ANI thread regarding me and another user's involvement in that article: Disruptive users vandalizing article about Spiro Koleka.--Zoupan 18:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Low tactic, it worked for you the first time though. You complain about me few minutes after I complain about you. Why so scared? You seem so brave when you disrupt articles. Over and over. Burridheut (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)