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:SimplyCA reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]. (Previous version of article is at [2].)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] – 20:57, 11 February 2016
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6] – 23:01, 11 February 2016‎
5. [7] – 00:22, 12 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
The new editor, who had been duly apprised of proper RS citing, continues to violate WP:BLP in a case involving a minor child. Normally, I wouldn't bother to keep restoring the article to status quo, but this editor has been coming to my talk page and taunting me, and from what I understand of 3RR rules, reverting vandalism — in this case a blatant WP:BLP vio involving a minor child — is an allowable exception. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I should note that even after he found the necessary citation, he requested my help to add it. I did so, and yet he continued to taunt me on my talk page to such an extent that a disinterested third-party editor whom I do not know removed the offensive content [10] and admonished SimplyCA on SimplyCA's talk page. Clearly, SimplyCA is not someone here to work constructively, and I can only hope his edit-warring and uncivil behavior is dealt with in a fair an appropriate manner. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment New editor, needs to be given a bit of a break. Got frustrated and that's understandable when you don't know the rules and are being reverted when you think you are very right and the comments aimed at you are less than welcoming. There's definitely some biting at the new editor's talk page coming from the editor filing this report that has set the tone for and encouraged the new editor's latest comments here. In my opinion, the experienced editor who has faced this type of opposition numerous times previously in the way of edit warring probably should have just let it go and came back at a later date. There is no deadline, after all. At the very least, it would have saved a lot of back and forth and tempers rising, resulting in this report and more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi, you've been told by more than one admin to stay away from me, and more than one admin has admonished you for your horrible behavior to me and others. You have no business seeking payback by coming here and taking the side of an obvious miscreant who is not here to help build this encyclopedia. Stay away form me — your obsession to keep coming around to needle and bait me, as you've done to other editors, is sick. Moreover, you told admins you would stay away, and your word clearly means nothing.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your objection to me commenting in a noticeboard open to comments by other editors doesn't make what I've said here any less right. My comments are more in defense of the new editor you are biting than an indictment of you. Obviously, you harbor ill will toward them, but is it really necessary to add more insult to injury by saying, "an obvious miscreant who is not here to help build this encyclopedia"? I know you are capable of better behavior toward other editors, I've seen it. Please don't make things worse. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

What part of "you've been told by more than one admin to stay away from me" and "you told admins you would stay away" do you not understand? Your obsession with finding me on Wikipedia and deliberately attacking me and my motives and leveling accusatory remarks is sickening. Stay away from me.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in "finding" you on Wikipedia. I don't watch your edits, I don't follow where you go here. I see something I feel is worth commenting on if it's at a page I have watchlisted and I comment. As do others at this and other noticeboards. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no requirement to comment. Your opinions aren't absolutely necessary in order for other editors to reach a conclusion. You found a report I put up, and even in the face of a BLP vio involving a child, your demonstrably repeated desire to bait me led you to violate admins' admonitions and your own evidently worthless promise not to interact with me. Of all the millions of posts on Wikipedia, your singling me out repeatedly is obsessive. You're having fun poking at me, verbally spitting at me, daring me to lose my temper. I tell you to stop, and you refuse. Continue to harass me, and I'm taking your harassment to ANI, where your wiki-hounding did not fare well the last time. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you see a WP:BLP vio about a minor child something to ignore, and that you appear to blame the victim of the attack for "encourag[ing] the new editor's latest comments." That's sick. And as for "biting", you conveniently ignore the first, very polite note I left him at User talk:SimplyCA#Bobby Cannavale. No one here needs your obfuscations and half-truths, and I don't need your false accusations. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just commenting to note this personal attack [11] by SimplyCA on Tenebrae's talkpage. Calidum ¤ 22:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. In an attempt to diffuse the situation of bad faith by winkelvi here interjecting phrases like "Obviously, you harbor ill will toward them" to editors that they seemingly have past disputes with here, I left a brief AGF reminder on their talk page about AGF. It was a second separate one since winkelvi was assuming bad faith today in another matter. When reverting the warning (3rd RR today there) winkelvi accused me of bordering on harassment. Own your behaviour winkelvi, of course editors can comment here on the reports, but when you choose to comment only at reports about your perceived enemies it becomes disruptive. Jilllyjo (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment why is an editor on site wide 1RR for edit warring offering ill considered opinions on other editors on the 3RR board? Seems a little hypocritical. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Note. Let's start all over. Tenebrae's contention that SimplyCA's edits were BLP violations is incorrect and to extent that they were, they clearly don't qualify under WP:3RRNO. Therefore, both editors have edit-warred and should probably have been blocked early on. However, despite the back-and-forth on Talk pages between them, they seem to have reached an understanding on how the article should read, so any sanctions against them would be punitive unless the disruption to the article resumes. As for Ponyo's removal of the precise birth date of the child per WP:BLPNAME, which Tenebrae rejected, she was spot on. We do not include the precise birthdate of minor children, particularly non-notable ones. I'm tempted to remove it myself and enforce it administratively, but it's not worth backlash that will no doubt ensue. Finally, the bickering in this thread is a distraction, and that was caused by Winkelvi; they should know better. If nothing else, it was irrelevant to the topic at hand. I suggest everyone go do something else more constructive. Otherwise, I will formally close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We include basic biographical information of a celebrity's children's birth when the parents themselves broadcast it on national television, or their representatives send a statement out to press announcing it in detail. The RfC conclusion at Talk:Brian Austin Green confirms that WP:BLP allows this with reliable sourcing. It seems strange to say Wikipedia should hide the date when Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's daughter was born, when the parents themselves ballyhooed it on the covers of magazines.

However, making a claim about a minor child's middle name without any citing whatsoever is very much a BLP video, so to claim "that SimplyCA's edits were BLP violations is incorrect" seems incredible to me. And I don't know how anyone can say it's OK to add a claim about a minor child's middle name without any verification at all.

Personal antipathy toward me should not excuse SimplyCA's edit-warring to insert a BLP vio, or such vicious comments that disinterested third-party editors removed them from my talk page. It doesn't set a good example, or give him any reason not to edit-war if he knows he can get away with it.

The RfC applies to Brian Austin Green only. If you want to override WP:BLPNAME altogether to include the names of minors you will need to have a binding RfC at WP:BLP.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And I find it ironic that for all this, I was the editor who actually gave SimplyCA a helping hand when he came to me and asked for help in adding the citation.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:SimplyCA is warned for personal attacks, due to comments such as this one. As to the edit war, both parties are in trouble as pointed out by User:Bbb23. Let's hope there are no further reverts without prior consensus. When User:Winkelvi commented above I guess they were trying to be helpful, but they did not succeed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:76.90.210.162 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Bachelor (season 20) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.90.210.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Comments:
Anonymous IP editor continuously adding one contestant's hometown [19] and the location where currently lives according to the show's ABC website: [20] ApprenticeFan ^work 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP had been adding unsourced content. Whilst I can agree that ABC states California, the IP disregarded WP:BURDEN and used WP:OR content by citing themselves as a source. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The IP has returned to edit war [21]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Can an admin close this already?! The IP is edit warring once again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

>scratches head< Huh?? The version they're reverting to has the home town as Marina Del Rey, CA. The version that it's being changed to is West Linn, Oregon. Where's the source for that? Right now, I'm thinking the IP might be in the right on this. Tabercil (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Previously blocked for a week in September 2015. This user tenaciously adheres to their own view and is willing to revert forever. A contestant on this show has ties to both Oregon and California, as pointed out by sources. There is a column in the table called 'hometown' which might be where they grew up and not where they live currently. This is something to be worked out by consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Legacypac reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Protected)

Page: Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version with " investigation ongoing" listed as summary in infobox

Diffs of the user's reverts: (note that this article is subject to rigorous 1RR restrictions)

1. 00:58, 11 February 2016 - removed "investigation ongoing"
2. 15:20, 11 February 2016 - removed "investigation ongoing" in violation of 1RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: where Legacypac makes clear that he is familiar with the 1RR restrictions here by reporting another user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: where Legacypac warns other editors about edit warring here

Comments:
User willfully breached 1RR on a SCW-ISIL DS article ignoring the big warning on the talk page, and 2 big warnings when you go to edit the article. This put them on top of a content dispute, where they continue to remove well sourced content. See talk page and additional warnings on the article's talk page and see the extensive discussion on the incident above where Legacypac claimed that User:Tvx1 violated 1RR.

Legacypac has been one of the most belligerently persistent edit warriors that I've seen operating currently in Wikipedia and is more than willing to use (and abuse) process to deal with his opponents, rather than solve issues amicably. Unfortunately, he seems to think that rules only apply to other people. By his own definition, he has violated the 1RR restriction on this article over a spectacularly WP:LAME issue. Alansohn (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I think you made a mistake on the second diff, did you mean this diff? HighInBC 17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Alansohn (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Alansohn evidently only filed this to make an ugly personal attack - to which I say get lost. The exact same allegation was made in the previous 3RR (where I pointed out there was no violation) and which was closed as a warning to the other party.Legacypac (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. It is hard to be sympathetic to either side here. It looks like people should be able to compromise on the wording. It does not seem that editors disagree about the facts, only about how to present the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston- please clarify that I did not breach 1RR. Also, do we have full license to say any false thing and level every kind of personal attack now because it sure looks like it from where I sit. Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering you just, less than 24 hours ago, escaped a CBAN on ISIL-related topics that had majority support (but no consensus) for similar "belligerently persistent" behavior, I think you should be thankful you've, once again, inexplicably managed to dodge the ax and not try to push it further with demands for clarifications. Some quiet modesty instead of loud braggadocio would be in order, though it's clearly too much for any of us to hope for at this point. LavaBaron (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Please find a new hobby otther then following me around spouting persistent nonsense. 23 signed post on an ANi thread, then trying to overturn the close, now posting here because you did not get your way? Use your bludgening STICK to beat your own head instead. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"beat your own head" ... Nice. LavaBaron (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000 reported by User:2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (Result: )

Page: Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 13:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 13:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria & Iraq modules. His bad faith edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000 and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000. In spite of being blocked many times for breaking 1RR, he continues to edit war & broke 1RR again. 2A01:CB04:63D:D700:2135:C5BE:CDA7:AA6D (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Those were size changes, not really anything related to content. In any case, I fail to see any good reason why you reported me, other than to get me thrown off of Wikipedia. In any case, the vast majority of your written arguments are biased and inaccurate; they sound like personal attacks to me. By the way, you can't report someone just some users are complaining or have personal issues with another. Also, the way you wrote about me sounds like you might be a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of a former user who was blocked from Wikpedia (though I could be wrong); there were multiple users blocked, some of whom are now socking, due to violating Wikipedia policy in that topic. BTW, I did not turn every single user against me, and I was not "blocked many times for edit warring", and I do not "continue to edit war" (the last time that happened was in November 2015), at least not intentionally. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

But if what happened constituted edit warring in any manner, I deeply apologize. It was not my intent, and I will take more steps in the future to prevent or mitigate future conflicts like this one. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Kordestani reported by User:Tradedia (Result: )

Page 1: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kordestani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Breaking 1RR on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 13:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Breaking 1RR on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 23:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 12:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#SDF Military Bases

Comments:
The articles on which the edit warring occurred are subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place 2 days before he engaged in 1RR violations. This user has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Before being notified of the sanctions, he had engaged in edit warring. However, his being notified of the sanctions, did not change his attitude. Also, you can see that in the last 4 days, he has received messages from 2 other users complaining about his attitude ([22][23]). In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over the last few days. Tradedia^talk 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Sureshpandey reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: )

Page

K. C. Pant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 09:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 08:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "/* K. C. Pant */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Erk, a bit too late for that now... ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

I have sent a message on the talk explaining my edits, but the editor has gone ahead with logging out to their IP to undo them, once again, without any explanation. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, plot twist. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 10:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ditinili reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:
Reverts by the same editor continue: ([30]; [31]; [32]; [33]) Borsoka (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Doctor Franklin reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: blocked 1 week)

Page

Polish census of 1931 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Doctor Franklin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by FreeatlastChitchat"
2. 07:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704718980 by Faustian (talk)REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by Faustian"
3. 03:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704698505 by Faustian (talk)REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by Faustian"
4. 06:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704555506 by Iryna Harpy (talk)REV BAD FAITH EDIT-falsification of sources by Iryna Harpy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Polish census of 1931. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

SPA has been edit warring against multiple editors. Please prot the page as well(I have already requested gold lock at the relevant venue, just needs attention) FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week by CoffeeYmblanter (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:70.124.133.228 reported by User:CFCF (Result: )

Page

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

• Helminthiasis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zika virus fever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zika virus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Umeme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bweyogerere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ggaba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "restored warnings"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously reverting and being unconstructive despite being warned by many different people. Repeatedly removed warnings from talk-page without better behaviour. CFCF 💌 📧 14:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

CommentA few of points here CFCF. 1) This report is badly malformed. You have provided no examples of any reverts and you have put several articles in the pagelinks line but only the first one shows up. Those need to be separated out 2) The last edits to the Schistosomiasis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article were Feb 6th. 3) Per WP:OWNTALK editors are allowed to remove messages - including warnings - from their talk pages. In fact your restoring them can be seen as edit warring so please proceed with caution. It would be a good idea to fix this report if you want admins to act on it. MarnetteD|Talk 17:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD—The user has been warned multiple times, which this page is alerted to. That the format of these reports is cumbersome and that following process requires ridiculous amounts of work is not my problem, but Wikipedia's. Do what you will, with it, but recognize that you are doing the community a disservice if you ignore it, not me.CFCF 💌 📧 18:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I have expanded the multiple article names under the pagelinks template. I also suggest that in the place of Zika virus fever, which does not exist, that Zika virus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was the original intended page. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 20:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TV. I have added the correct link to Zika virus to the list section so it wont get missed. CFCF whether this report is ignored or not will have nothing to do with me. It may wind up having something to do with the malformed nature of it and that will be down to you. MarnetteD|Talk 20:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv reported by User:CombatWombat42 (Result: )

Page

Magic: The Gathering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704694001 by CombatWombat42 (talk) Combat we've done this before, go to the talk page. Misogynist mean hate for woman."
2. 00:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704686026 by CombatWombat42 (talk) I think you need relearn the word misogynist, and then reread the article with a criticle eye. Take your concerns to the talk page."
3. 23:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Reception */ Reviewed the source and Wiki statement does not match. Playmats are third-party products, not cards. Nothing else in the source supports the wiki statement."
4. 21:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704670013 by 2601:80:4301:E36C:C1F3:2EAB:CC95:3B6C (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Magic:_The_Gathering. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Note: I've given a final warning to both the reporter and the person being reported, of which neither have broken yet. If the reported is blocked, I recommend a shorter block for the reporter, for being responsible for 3 reverts himself. It's been stale for 12 hours though, so I recommend neither being blocked, but either being blocked for further reverts. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Natsume96 reported by User:Einstein95 (Result: Indef)

Page: Beats of Rage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Natsume96 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Comments:
This user has previously been blocked for 1 week after a previous reporting of edit warring and has since unsuccessfully reported on the Administrator intervention against vandalism page twice, and only posting on my talk page in the latter case (User talk:Einstein95#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion) -Einstein95 (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Notice: -Einstein95 is a blatant vandal and he makes disputive edits at Beats of Rage. The content, e.g. Metro-Active X is available in search. Just using Google you can get it. So this report is fake. Natsume96 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I find it odd that an IP came in to restore content as there first edit that was the same content that Natsume96 was edit warring over in December. What makes it really odd is that the edits of this ip are followed by Natsume96 return to the article [38]. But things here don't just strike me as odd. Note that two separate but new ip's have moved to WP:FORUMSHOP this to WP:ANI at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_warring_after_3_previous_blocks.. If there's anything to do here at all it may be to investigate both parties for sockpuppetry and block them as necessary for disrupting and wasting the communities time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• I am not a sock puppet, and I kindly request that you stop making those accusations User:Serialjoepsycho. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:DUCK-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

<Personal attack removed>. 2602:306:3357:BA0:C147:8BED:78A1:FBC9 (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef by User:Drmies. I removed a personal attack by an IP editor from the above report. Also semiprotecting Beats of Rage because there is a different IP there who is restoring Natsume96's changes and could be him. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:82.132.220.67 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page

CBC News Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704814506 by Clpo13 (talk)"
2. 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704813430 by Bretonbanquet (talk) rv vandal"
3. 19:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704813146 by Clpo13 (talk)"
4. 19:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704759117 by Mezigue (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on CBC News Network. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Initial edits reverted per WP:BRD. Editor then edit warred to their preferred version without going to the talk page as suggested to defend their edits. Same behavior on Connie Booth and 2010 Pichilemu earthquake along with WP:3RR violations. See also Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. clpo13_(talk) 20:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Besides the edit warring, this is likely block evasion, as 82.113.183.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was making the same edits on the same articles before being blocked. clpo13_(talk) 20:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Clpo13" is reverting without bothering to think of a reason. This is highly disruptive behaviour.82.132.220.67 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You're site banned – nobody needs a reason to revert you. Anyone can restore your edits and take responsibility for them if they wish. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even ignoring the obvious behavioral clues, please read WP:BRD for why you need to come to consensus when reverted instead of edit warring. At any rate, you've violated WP:3RR on three articles. I haven't. clpo13_(talk) 20:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks by User:Ponyo. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note Placed result in section title. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cirflow reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40] Feb 12th added "by Brian Morris"
2. [41] Feb 14th added again
3. [42] Feb 14th added a second time
4. [43] Feb 14th changed other text
5. [44] Feb 14th restored it a second time
6. [45] Feb 14th and a third time

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
User has been blocked for similar issues on this article a year ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, for one, why is my edit from February 12(2 days ago!) being included, and two, my edits were on two different topics! I did not go over 3RR For both topics. As for the edits themselves, on the second topic my edits were being blocked without any legitimate justification, compared to the detailed and rationalized edit summaries I gave in return, and the first topic is being discussed in chat, and I have therefore resigned from it until it has been discussed or consensus has been reached. It should also be noted that my edits for the first topic were made in order to allow for dispute resolution between two other editors. User:Cirflow

Also, the warning that I received here [48] was for a different discussion that happened a few weeks ago. To consider that a warning pertaining to this instance is wrong. User:Cirflow

The first edit definitely shouldn't count in the reverts required to violate 3RR. That being said, the 3RR deals with how many reverts are done on a page- regardless of whether or not it is a different topic. Your edits were reverted because you didn't have consensus and you should have sought to get consensus at the talk. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

While you are well over three reverts in the last 24 h. And you do not need to "get" a new warning for each time you edit war before it counts as a 3RR. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. WP:EW tells us to count the total number of reverts on an a page "whether involving the same or different material". Describing your revert as 'to allow for dispute resolution' is curious. It is more usual to propose your idea on the talk page and wait for others to support it there. Discussions on your talk suggest you see yourself as part of a long-term WP:BATTLE on this page. Consider RfC or mediation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:72.214.49.119 reported by User:Chrisw80 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Robert Clivillés (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 04:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "That's great that you feel it proper, but I don't want anything negative on my page that bears my name...

So why don't you please respect that..."

1. 1. 04:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:30, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
   4. 04:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 04:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Hey Guys, took a very unnecessary section of of my wiki, Robert Clivilles"
   2. 03:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Cleaned it up, Robert Clivilles"
   3. 03:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Cleaned up something, Robert Clivilles"
   4. 03:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Inserted a fact, Robert Clivilles"
   5. 03:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Cleaned up some facts, Robert Clivilles"
   6. 03:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Added a fact, Robert Clivilles"
   7. 04:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 04:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   9. 04:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Added some facts, Robert Clivilles"
   10. 04:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Musical career */Cleaned up some facts, Robert Clivilles"
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Hey Guys, I am Robert Clivilles and took off some in-accuracies, and added some facts. I would love some help on how I can add a photo? You can reach me at robertclivilles@yahoo.com"
   2. 03:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "This is Robert Clivilles, I really would like the controversy section taken down, please."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Notifying regarding reversion of problematic edits"
2. 04:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Robert Clivillés. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Removal of properly sourced content */ new section"

Comments:

Also edit-warring at Clivillés and Cole and C+C Music Factory Chrisw80 (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI, this has been also reported at AIV by Boomer Vial. Please disregard with my apologies and close summarily if I posted this in the wrong venue. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

3-revert-rule

Ip breaks the 3-revert-rule at R1a. The Ip delets 2 reliable sources from 2 peer-reviewed journals. --Gushtasp (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope. l have reverted it 3 times per WP:SYNTH policy. And also you were reported for disruptive editing. Additionally, that "new" users edits very likely banned sockmaster Tirgil. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

This not a playground for jokes sir anonymous. You broke the 3-revert-rule, deal with it. And you accusations are not change it. --Gushtasp (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

ln order to break it, i must reverted it more than 3 times. Also, yeah, this is not a playground and everbody must obey the WP policies such as WP:SYNTH. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I see;

revert no 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a&diff=704943423&oldid=704935582

revert no 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a&diff=704949554&oldid=704948904

revert no 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_R1a&diff=704950720&oldid=704950281

And can you tell me why you make damaged the link? Do you want to hide something? --Gushtasp (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

lt was a mistake. And again, your disriptive edits were reverted per WP:SYNTH policy. Try to read it instead of writing here. End of the discussion. Admins will decide. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Yes I read and I think you are hardly right. I didn't mixed any of the sources. They are 2 independent sources with no relation to each other. I hope the admins will decide right. --Gushtasp (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your sources do not state that "R1a is not related to lE speakers". lt is your own synthesis regarding the researchs. Last comment. As l said, admins will decide. 176.219.166.28 (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my intentions, I never stated such a statement neither do I intend to do. The statement is not even from me, it is from 2012, don't know who made it. Here is what the paper states: "R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India."

Fullstop. Anything not understanding? No problem, I can help explain. --Gushtasp (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Pranabnaik reported by User:Martin Hogbin (Result: )

Page: The Young Montalbano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pranabnaik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56] [57]

Comments:
Please could someone have a quiet word with this editor, he is trying to add information that he believes is correct but with no RSand without consensus as two editors and myself believe that it is incorrect. I am not looking for sanctions at this stage. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Suitcivil133 and User:SupernovaeIA reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result:Both blocked, article semi-protected)

Page: Football records in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock of SupernovaeIA. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SupernovaeIA/Archive)

Previous version reverted to: Not applicable due to length of edit war

Reverts by Suitcivil133:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6
7. diff 7
8. diff 8
9. diff 9
10. diff 10
11. diff 11
12. diff 12
13. diff 13
14. diff 14
15. diff 15
16. diff 16
17. diff 17
18. diff 18
19. diff 19
20. diff 20
21. diff 21
22. diff 22
23. diff 23
24. diff 24
25. diff 25
26. diff 26
27. diff 27
28. diff 28
29. diff 29
30. diff 30
31. diff 31

Reverts by SupernovaeIA (and socks):

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4
5. diff 5
6. diff 6
7. diff 7
8. diff 8
9. diff 9
10. diff 10
11. diff 11
12. diff 12
13. diff 13
14. diff 14
15. diff 15
16. diff 16
17. diff 17
18. diff 18
19. diff 19
20. diff 20
21. diff 21
22. diff 22
23. diff 23
24. diff 24
25. diff 25
26. diff 26
27. diff 27
28. diff 28
29. diff 29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Suitcivil133

SupernovaeIA

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The diffs listed above speak for themselves for the most part. This edit war has continued for eight weeks now, despite the page being fully protected three times, and both users being blocked twice. It's becoming increasingly clear that these editors will not stop edit warring on this page until forced to do so. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked both warriors for a month and semi-protected the article for three weeks. Not sure what to do with the socks but at least for the next three weeks they can not edit the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )

Page: AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments: Pretty much a textbook 3RR violation; four reverts (of two different users) in just over two hours. Minor variation in fourth revert may be an attempt to evade 3RR limits.

User:Sir Sputnik reported by User:2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:5679:624E (Result:Filer warned)

Page: 1976–77 UEFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1979–80 UEFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
1978–79 UEFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user reverted many notable edits on Wikipedia, see his edits history.

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]

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

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

Comments:

• He reverted notable material, infoboxes, referenced material on other articles, there are many, not just this 3 articles ! Is a violation of notability and improvement of Wikipedia articles.--2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:5679:624E (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• When we can revert this notable edits ? if you say he is not a vandal.--2A02:2F05:3F:FFFF:0:0:5679:624E (talk) 06:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop it, otherwise I block your IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Pb17522 reported by User:Montanabw (Result:24h)

Page: Runhappy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pb17522 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runhappy&type=revision&diff=705058627&oldid=700265191

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Runhappy&offset=&limit=500&action=history (there are over 10 RR on the 13th into the 14th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [68]
• [69]
• [70] (Where the editor expresses intent to continue edit-warring)

Clear COI editor [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pb17522 see contribs] will not drop the stick on the Runhappy article. [71]. Edits repeatedly and almost exclusively to remove reference to a trainer who was fired and filed a lawsuit against the horse's owner. Extremely notable incident and very well-sourced. Only other edits of substance this editor made have been to the article about the horse's owner. At least three members of WikiProject Equine have asked this user to knock it off, but since Feb 10, it has gotten particularly problematic, at least 8 RR on Feb 13. Also, before this editor created an account, we had at several anon IPs attempting similar whitewashing edits from the time this article was created ([72], [73], [74],[75]. Clearly a WP:NOTHERE situation. Also recommend that if this editor is blocked that the article have permanent semi kept on it because they most likely will try to return. Montanabw^(talk) 07:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Arnav19 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

Page

List of Tamil dubbed soap operas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Arnav19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 10:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 10:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Currently airing 2016 */"
   3. 10:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 10:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He keeps creating articles on dubbed TV serials, not original ones, even though it is discouraged here. He does not respond to warnings, and reverts edits by those who oppose him. Examples: En Anbu Thangaikku, Priyamana Thozhi (TV series), Poomagal and Moondru Mudichu (TV series). Kailash29792 (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)