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

When Other Legends Are Forgotten reported by 81.132.249.228 (Result: Semi, Both warned)

Page: Talk:Ethnocracy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

<![1]-->

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6][7]

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

Comments:

Editor was blocked just three days ago for reverting sourced content from this article 10 times over a month. He's now deciding to remove my edits from the talk page. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

This is disruptive use of edit board- see above - a similar request was just rejected yesterday with a conclusion that "Editors who are permitted to edit the article may revert an IP without being sanctioned for violating WP:1RR". Someone needs to block this disruptive IP who is removing {{ARBPIA}} tags from a page subject to WP:PIA3, without even being allowed to edit that page in the first place. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

An admin User:MusikAnimal has already refuted your sanctimonious opinion here [8], who you were very rude to as he didn't tell you what you wanted to here, and you've ignored him and continued your editwar. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Ethnocracy and Talk:Ethnocracy have been semiprotected. User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten is warned not to remove posts by others from talk pages. If the IP wants to make a sock charge, use WP:SPI. Failure to do so risks a block. The implications of WP:ARBPIA3 aren't fully understood yet so we aren't sure what rules prevail at Ethnocracy or its talk page. But meanwhile, edit warring is still forbidden. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, seeing as When Other Legends Are Forgotten was warned not to remove posts by others from talk pages which he agreed not to do[9], shouldn't my edits now be restored? An SPI is already in progress. 81.132.249.228 (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you have more questions about the Ethnocracy dispute, continue on my talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Sigehelmus reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Warned)

Page: Eusebius (bishop of Milan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) & Pope Evaristus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sigehelmus (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. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Sigehelmus has chosen not to use the talk page, instead snide remarks and false accusations are being used.

Comments:
User:Sigehelmus has added unsourced information to two articles, stating the two individuals are regarded as Eastern Orthodox saints. I have simply asked for references. Instead, Sigehelmus responses have been;

• "NO
• "He is an Orthodox saint -ipso facto-. Check the articles for other Pope Saints before 1054 AD, and the basic history of Christianity while you're at it.
• "Ipso facto. See history of Christianity and countless other saints' articles before Great Schism 1054 AD (and especially before the Photian Schism ~867 AD
• "It is self-proving. Please learn what the history of Chalcedonian Christianity is.
• "See your talk page please. In which he posted an accusation of original research on my talk page.General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Eusebius (bishop of Milan
  

Not sure what this editor's problem is. But the misplaced accusation of OR and continued snide remarks do not a community encyclopedia make. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Saint Pope Evaristus - http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm

Saint Eusebius, Bishop of Milan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_12_(Eastern_Orthodox_liturgics)

This took not even 20 seconds of searching, I'm dead serious. I was waiting for you to take that step instead of wantonly deleting. And your edits to me did count as WP:OR, and you dismissed it as "trolling" and reverted it. Trolling does not mean what you think it means. And again, I just wanted you to realize that the Orthodox position is that nearly all Roman Catholic saints pre-Schism are also saints in the Orthodox Church *unless* they have done something worthy of their cultus being heretical or schismatic, like Saint Augustine (and even that is tenuous). You're covering this with red tape for no reason.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 02:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Warned for edit warring. The listed diffs pertain to two different articles, so WP:3RR was not broken. Sigehelmus - your changes are more likely to be accepted if you give an explicit reference. Hand-waving about Chalcedonian Christianity doesn't meet WP:V. EdJohnston (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:VinceCustodio reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: Blocked)

Page

Bloomberg TV Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [18]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

it was the message did summary what he doing the changes the website, then please ignore the block user. the activated to [19] was not a deadlink. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked indefinitely WP:DUCK of a blocked account with an identical edit. Mkdw^talk 08:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Oripaypaykim reported by User:VinceCustodio (Result: No action.)

No violation. Discussion continued at User talk:Oripaypaykim. Mkdw^talk 09:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Bloomberg TV Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Dear admins. We would like to request your kind judgement on user: Oripaypaykim. This user is recommended to be banned/blocked based on the ff. grounds:

1) This user has difficulty in understanding that the website he is including in the article is a non-functional website that has "dead links." The said user keeps on reverting the changes.

2) Also, the user has previously included additional "locally produced" programs that are non-existent and without any sources. I removed these programs and yet the said user has reinstated the "erroneous" titles again.

3) In line with this, Oripaypaykim has also "removed" several times the names of the anchors. These anchors, he was claiming are not notable. However, the names of these anchors are cited in several credible online news in the Philippines and are in fact noted on a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_in_Philippine_television&oldid=697824734

4) The user seems to be having difficulty communicating / comprehension.

Having said, user Oripaypaykim has lack of judgement and is not suitable to edit nor make any changes on this article as well as other articles on Wikipedia. As a conclusion, we would like to recommend that this user be "BANNED." As a responsible editor, I cannot just let this user input erroneous details on this article. Thank you!

Comment

He Provide the change to cignal.tv but I had nothing to do with me but activated [20] will happend. Oripaypaykim (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• No violation Editor was reverting another editor who was block evading. I will note that it could have been reported sooner and at some point there is a point where once its been reported to simply let admins handle it rather than engaging in several successive reverts. Mkdw^talk 08:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor has been warned about that (and the poor judgement of EW on the EW board). DMacks (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:78.149.203.201 reported by User:Dat GuyWiki (Result: Rangeblock, Semi)

Page: Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.149.203.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before reverting

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]

There are even more, but I'm guessing these are enough as it passed the 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
I am not sure that resolution initiative is even needed for this. The user is half vandalising half edit-warring, so I wasn't sure where to take it to.

• Result: Range 78.149.112.0/22 blocked and article semiprotected one month by User:KrakatoaKatie. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Jade D Face reported by User:Onel5969 (Result: No block)

Page: Q (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jade D Face (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Jan 1
2. Jan 2
3. Jan 2
4. Jan 2

In addition to these recent attempts, this editor has made other attempts recently to ignore consensus about this particular edit:

1. Dec 28
2. Dec 28

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Included in edit summaries above, as well as in the talk discussion below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Q (Star Trek)#Omnipotence

Comments:
Gosh, I hate reporting stuff. Such a waste of time, but having this type of discussion is even more of a waste of time, since none of the involved editors appear to be getting through to Jade on either the point of edit warring, or of consensus. I think if the editor will agree to abide by consensus, then no further action is necessary, other than this warning, but if they continue their disruptive editing a short block might be in order. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree to abide by consensus.Jade D Face (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no block, per the editor's agreement to abide by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:2.98.175.149 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Regressive left (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697903682 by Callmemirela (talk)"
2. 18:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697903079 by Callmemirela (talk)"
3. 18:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697865809 by Callmemirela (talk)"
4. 13:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697865658 by Callmemirela (talk)"
5. 02:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "No reason for this sidebar"
6. 00:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697786312 by Snowded (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 18:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs. (TW)"
3. 18:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Regressive left. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This IP is an abuser of multiple IPs and is again edit warring. They have used two IPs on Regressive Left to revert the same content. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It is part of a sock farm hitting multiple articles. Summary here ----Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Two more reverts since this notice was posted ----Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours by User:DrKay. This IP is part of a sock campaign described at WP:AN#Range block urgently required. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:79.138.132.8 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Declined )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:53, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 15:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 16:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC) to 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 16:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 17:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 18:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Emmerdale."
2. 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Emmerdale */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Declined. I am extremely disappointed with the way you have handed this Escape Orbit. You have reported a user who's last message to you before this report was:

  Hi. Sorry you think that I disrupt Emmerdale teplate. That is not at all what I'm doing. Don't get me wrong, episode counts are great, but people also need to know when the episode was aired. So please do not cause anymore problems. If you have any questions, contact me on my talk page.

Not only that, but you didn't even reply to them before you reported them. All your communication with them has been through templates. Have you even read WP:AGF? Look at Denisarona's interactions with this editor for the right way to do it. Prodego ^talk 20:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an inaccurate summary of events. My response on Prodego's talk page. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR reported by User:123Steller (Result: Blocked)

Page: Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIENGIR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]
5. [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] - the article was full-protected and when the protection expired a one revert per 24 hours rule was imposed by administrator User:KrakatoaKatie. The 1RR was broken by User:KIENGIR today.

Comments:
There is a dispute that is taking place on several articles. User:KIENGIR was also involved in edit wars on the same topic at Austrian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). 123Steller (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically the whole thing began here. USER:KIENGIR reintroduced text (with some adaptations by himself) that was removed in May of this year after a lengthy discussion, in which I and user:82.119.98.162 and user:Prudoncty and at least two other anonymous editors took part. We removed the text that was partly written by user:prudoncty and with some adaptations restored text that I had added back in 2009. On the 23. December KIENGIR reintroduced the removed text for reasons I fail to understand. Another problematic aspect is that the text was partly authored by Prudoncty, a confirmed sockpuppet of blocked user:Stubes99. This means that there is a WP:DENY aspect involved in this case. Of course the conflict is a spillover from the conflicts at Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867). What makes KIENGIR's actions even more difficult to understand is that yesterday evening, KIENGIR and I actually agreed on text for the Hungary article and are (the way I see it) on the verge of agreeing on text for the Austrian Empire article as well. Why go on with text that we have now both decided to remove from other articles here on this one? Frankly I've been baffled by the way this user operates, for some time now! On his most recent revert User:KIENGIR wrote: "If you are debating an edit, before changing it you have to reach consensus first, so long keep the article unharmed and follow DR". Shouldn't he have thought about that on the 23d of December, while this matter was already going on concerning the other two articles, before reintroducing the removed text on the article involved here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I have now wrote to User:KIENGIR on this matter here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Film Fan and User:Serijvip reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: )

Page: Creed (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Film Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Serijvip (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
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

There's little in the way of discussion from either user. The above is just the "highlights" of this edit war - I count no fewer than nine back-and-forth reverts between 18:37 and 19:24. There is an attempt to start discussions on the article's talkpage, which both users then choose to ignore. FF's block log speaks for itself as does the history log of the article in question. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments:
I used the article's talk page repeatedly - pinging the other user - as well as their talk page, with no response on either, and I was only removing an erroneous AKA that they added. I asked them repeatedly to comply with WP:BRD and requested they stopped edit warring on their talk page. It ended after a couple of extremely childish retorts from the other user, and the page has been fake-AKA-free since. Of course, if reverting vandalism on top of the information given above still qualifies as edit warring (I'm unclear on this) I will pledge not to engage in such a situation again and instead take it straight to this complaints board. Please let me know. Cheers and Happy New Year - especially to you, Lugnuts. Film Fan 17:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

By repeatedly you mean once? Or three times if you count correcting your own errors. The inital talkpage post was made at 18:56. The article history shows you made six reverts after that in approx. 20 minutes, with a further three reverts before going to the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

In this particular case, by "repeatedly" I mean three times - four including the personal talk page message. And I left the first talk page message after the first revert on January 1. If you are able to answer my question above I'd be grateful, so that I can avoid such accusations in the future and peacefully contribute to Wikipedia with the clarification I seek re reverting vandalism. Cheers. And please don't hate me. I think it's time are feud ends. Grudges do no one any good. Film Fan 19:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

First Film Fan you have been around long enough to know the difference between vandalism and a content dispute which is what this is. You were removing sourced info added by Serivjip. Next you have pledged in the past to "not engage in a situation involving edit warring" - to Diannaa among others. A few weeks or months go by and then the behavior happens again so what assurance can you give that you aren't just saying this to avoid a block. MarnetteD|Talk 01:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I suppose here isn't the place to rip those sources to shreds. My assurance is what I posted above. But to add to that, I can say that instead of judging for myself what vandalism is, in the future if I revert something of that nature (or indeed anything) that is then re-instated without any attempt from the other user to engage in a conversation despite my efforts, I will report it instead of trying to undo it. I haven't had this particular kind of situation before and although I haven't yet had my question answered, I'm getting the inclination that I should have brought this issue here after the ignored talk page comments and before the reverts clocked up. So my assurance is this: I will report instead of getting involved in what I judge to be disruptive editing. Even if an edit screams "bullsh*t" and the other user is blatantly ignoring protocol, I'll let admins deal with it. The truth is I wanted to deal with it myself to save admins the time and effort, believing I was actually doing the community a favour, but I was wrong, and at this point there couldn't possibly be any more kinds of situations that might be deemed by some to be disruptive editing that I could be unaware or unclear about. I take from this that no matter who made the first move, the first revert, the falsest misinformation, etc., WP:BRD will zap both sides. That's what I know now, and that's how I assure you there isn't a chance in hell I could find myself in this situation again. And I'd like to finish by saying I bring many productive edits to Wikipedia which benefit the community, and, like all of us, I'm still learning. Cheers. Film Fan 02:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Perene reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Blocked)

Page

Men Going Their Own Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Fixing the article. Subsequent corrections should be made from this point. Warning: do not remove contents unless you have a reason (personal agenda not included) to do so." (This is a reversion to an earlier version of article.)
2. 11:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698008716 by Ghmyrtle (talk)"
3. 11:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Fixing error in ref"
4. 12:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698011867 by Grayfell (talk)"
5. 13:08, 3 January 2016‎
6. 13:13, 3 January 2016‎
7. 13:15, 3 January 2016‎

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Men Going Their Own Way. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Most of these edits have been discussed at Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Few_issues.

Comments:

This user is removing the entire contribution I made instead of making the proper changes. He is the one that should have been reported here. If there are mistakes, fix them, do not remove 100% a valid contribution. Perene (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected by Ymblanter. -- GB fan 12:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I only semi-protected it, and edit-warring between auto confirmed users is ongoing.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at it wrong. -- GB fan 13:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like only a block will work. At least two more reverts and messing around on talk pages ----Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, what will work is for you to fix the article with the necessary changes instead of defacing. Perene (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Strongly suggest you self-revert and engage on the talk page before it is too late ----Snowded ^TALK 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Article content is under discussion here. Perene appears not to have contributed there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

If the article can't be ever edited anymore, then lock it for everyone. That's what I call fairness. Is anyone barred from trying to make valid contributions? You are removing 100% of what I inserted, so it is you that are completely wrong. I don't deserve any punishment. If there are mistakes in what I published, fix them, bit by bit, instead of reverting the whole thing and vanishing with everything. This isn't very encyclopedic from your part, it seems to me you are all following an agenda.Perene (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The "agenda" is this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what is actually happening here. You simply refuse to fix this article and wants your biased, polite and carefully-devised-filled-with-feminist-propaganda-version suited for the media interests to prevail. Like I said, this isn't encyclopedic, you aren't doing any of those edits to fix anything, you are removing the WHOLE CONTRIBUTION and you all have a clear agenda to me. Wikipedia is the best disinformation tool ever created thanks to people like you, who have nothing better to do besides bullying users who don't side with your views and spoiling what could have been good articles. This is exactly why the number of valuable contributors has decreased over the years and no one in his right mind takes this site seriously. Once again: the article isn't preventing registered users from editing, so if you are going to punish contributions, then lock it 100% until you decide when and how it should be edited. Referring to endless blather in the TALK pages isn't going to cut it. It's just another ploy.Perene (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Perene is still at it. This appears to be a case of WP:DIDN'THEARTHAT with a side-order of WP:RGW. I've given them a warning about WP:3RR, and reverted their latest edit. There's a clear case for blocking them at this point, but I'm not going to block them myself, because I've previously made substantial edits to this article. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Theoosmond reported by User:Drmargi (Result: No action)

Page: Doctor Who (series 7) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theoosmond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff=697865560&oldid=697863468]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36] "redundant edit"
2. [37] "There is no need for this edit. It makes the table too complicated."
3. [38] "Consensus not achieved."
4. [39] "I haven't claimed consensus, the edits by AlexTheWhovian that I reverted were made without consensus."

Plus one as an IP:

1. [40]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] [43]

Comments:
This is the strangest case. Alex The Whovian added a utterly non-controversial set of sub-headings to an episode table that identifies the two parts of Doctor Who Series 7. They were neat, didn't disrupt the table, in keeping with the way the season was organized, and helpful. But for some reason, Theoosmond is determined to remove them. He's claiming no consensus, but has failed to open a discussion the talk page. This editor has been warned numerous times recently, notably by Redrose64 regarding disruptive editing, and displays little understanding of consensus building processes. He has paid little attention to the warnings on his talk page, and continues to demand consensus without engaging in consensus-seeking processes, aside from some brief discussion on Alex's talk page (linked above.) I don't see this improving, especially given the somewhat erratic rationales for removal of the headings (headings!) in his edit summaries. --Drmargi (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. There doesn't seem to be a continuing war. But if User:Theoosmond reverts again, admin action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

Page

Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kendrick7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "rm template again; this has nothing to do with the civil was in Syria"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[44]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

see strong warning to this user at end of linked discussion above.

Comments:

This user does not like the SCW &ISIL Discretionary Sanctions, and has voiced this on the talk page. I believe today is the 4th time they have removed the template. These sanctions exist and serve a good purpose in controlling POV editor, especially one pushing terrorist ideology or conspiracy theories. The article is about an ISIL attack. All editors deserve to be warned about the DS, making this edit's repeated removal of the DS notification template and his mocking comments towards admins in summaries quite disruptive. While the edit warring is long term, a possible good application of these very DS against the user is in order? Legacypac (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I remain committed to the fact that the Paris attack has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War for which the sanctions were designed. Rules are not the purpose of Wikipedia per WP:KISS. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:KK Metscher reported by User:Eteethan (Result: )

Page

Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KK Metscher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "included protest flag"
2. 23:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Included protest flag"
3. 23:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "included protest flag"
4. 22:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC) "Included protest flag"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Subject warned with this. Eteethan(talk) 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the user is also a seller of flags [45] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The situation at this article is completely out of control. All work by established editors has essentially come to a grinding halt as a revolving door of IP editors and SPAs on both extremes of this debate both vandalize and sanitize this article every few seconds to minutes. All work by regular editors is now concentrated on reverting and repairing edits by an expanding group of disposable accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note The page has been semi-protected by Beeblebrox ([46]). clpo13_(talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:66.152.115.226 reported by User:Thomasmallen (Result: )

Page: Militia occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.152.115.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:23, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "Undid censorship"
2. 01:13, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "Undid censorship. keep calling it vandalism, but this is USDA Certified Grade A Censorship"
3. 01:22, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "memoryhole pls stop"
4. 01:49, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "Undid persistent vandalism by Thomasmallen (talk)"
5. 03:08, January 4, 2016 (UTC) "fixing corporate-monopoly on the coverage here.... and undoing persistent censorship"

There are many many more.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• User calls it "reverting censorship" in some edit messages. Thomasmallen (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• As per Thomasmallen, the situation at this article is completely out of control. All work by established editors has essentially come to a grinding halt as a revolving door of IP editors and SPAs on both extremes of this debate both vandalize and sanitize this article every few seconds to minutes. All work by regular editors is now concentrated on reverting and repairing edits by an expanding group of disposable accounts. LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Note The page has been semi-protected by Beeblebrox ([49]). clpo13_(talk) 03:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Ephemerance reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 698105472 by Jess (talk) Discuss in talk section. Whom is correct."
2. 00:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Definitions and distinctions */ Whom is correct; see talk section for details."
3. 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697814493 by Jess (talk) Consensus is defined when no one changes the edit. No one has compromised or contributed to the talk section yet. If you have objections, discuss them"
4. 02:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697811283 by Modocc (talk) Go to the talk section and refute the cited material. The edit is accurate to the science and elaborates on the contrary philosophic opinion"
5. 02:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697810466 by Modocc (talk) Sourced and sufficiently described/linked."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been discussing on talk, but continues to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The first set of reverts stopped at 3 within a 24 hour span. There are a number of users that will revert without adding to discussion in talk. Some users began contributing to the Talk section about the edit and discussions are ongoing. The second edit shown on January 4th was a minor "who" to "whom" grammar edit with an explanation and substantiation in the Talk section (this edit was designed only to change that specific point of grammar and no content). Ephemerance (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There were, however, three reverts within 24 hr on Jan 2, and, you have been edit warring for a couple of days overall. Please stop it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ephemerance, you're not "entitled" to 3 reverts. Read WP:EW carefully, particularly the last sentence of the last paragraph of the lead. I'm glad that the edit war has stopped. Please try to lean more heavily on the talk page and establishing consensus in the future, instead of (not in addition to) edit warring. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You are allowed up to three reverts within 24 hr. The first edit was for the sake of content. The second edit was a compromise and dealt only with "who" versus "whom." After the three reverts, a discussion has been ongoing in the Talk section and no further edits relevant to the proposed content has been reintroduced by myself. Perhaps if some of the regular users in the atheism section would choose to discuss or compromise on changes (as outlined in Wikipedia's dispute resolution policy) instead of mindlessly reverting and ignoring the Talk section there would a mutually agreeable understanding. It's not my intention to break wiki policy. There are legitimate changes that I feel are necessary for the neutrality and correctness of the article. Ephemerance (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The user has made no promise to stop (he thinks he is correct) so it sounds like this behavior is likely to continue. A sincere belief that you are right is not a defence to a charge of edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:173.55.55.190 reported by User:32.218.152.138 (Result: )

Page: Steven Avery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.55.55.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments: