Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Debresser (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 16 February 2016 (→‎User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: ): Add.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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: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: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Comments:
    Anonymous IP editor continuously adding one contestant's hometown [8] and the location where currently lives according to the show's ABC website: [9] ApprenticeFan work 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    The IP has returned to edit war [10]. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Can an admin close this already?! The IP is edit warring once again. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    >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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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:

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    Pages: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    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 ([11][12]). In addition, there is a large number of warnings in edit summaries by frustrated users reverting his bad edits over the last few days. Tradediatalk 04:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    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: [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17] (edit summary)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

    Comments:

    • Comment: It appears that User:Ditinili has been edit warring on this article. There may still be time for him to respond here and promise to wait for talk page consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The author of POV tags (in this case Borsoka) is obliged to justify their usage, otherwise they can be removed by any editor. Because all my changes were based on reliable and trustworthy sources (e.g. works of the head of the Archaeological Institute of Slovak Academy of Sciences in Nitra), I demanded several times for justification of tagging whole sections and I suggested to tag problematic sentences and to provide explanation. This was repeatedly ignored. Thereafter, the text based on reliable sources was deleted "to help understand me" which sentences are (allegedly) POVs without further explanation. Such removal of the sourced text cannot be accepted and cannot be used as the justification or explanation of the tag. Unfortunately, I had again to revert such changes. After several urges, POV-sections tags were replaced by inline POV templates, again without serious explanation (until now, there are still such inline and unexplained POV templates). Instead of fixing the problem, the author (Borsoka) focused on offensive behavior (statements about "provincionalism", "dogmatism", "limited knowledge", etc). Again, this cannot be accepted as a proper justification. Then, the above mentioned user began to "improve" referenced text, e.g. to remove proper dating from the referenced text and to replace it with weasel formulations e.g.[24]. Again, this is not acceptable and I had to revert such changes. Ditinili (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the records: my first (and continously reverted) tags at 09:05 13 February 2016 ([25]) and my comments on the Talk page at 09:03 13 February 2016 ([26]). Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, this is the tag for which I repeatedly requested justification - which sentences are POVs and why (statements like "50% of text is POV" are not sufficient). This request was repeatedly ignored.Ditinili (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the records: yes, I think that Ditinili's remarks shows that his approach is provincial and dogmatic which makes any communication really difficult with him. The development of my comments and his answers can be read here: [27] (answer: [28]), [29] (answer: [30]), [31] (answer: [32]), [33] (answer: [34]), [35], [36] (anwer: [37]), [38]. Here is the summary why I think that his knowledge is "limited" and his approach is dogmatic: [39]. Borsoka (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are responsible for fixing the problem - to properly justify POV tags added by you. Personal attacks like "your knowledge is provincial", "dogmatic", "limited" and similar do not fix the problem. Ditinili (talk) 05:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Borsoka, if there is some problem (e.g. you have added POV tags which were not justified) then fix it. You did everything to prevent fixing the problem - you accused me of POV pushing because of the text not written by me, you reintroduced incorrect POV-section tags again and again, you deleted the sourced text, you replaced non justified POV-sections with non justified POV-inlines, you raised this incident because I reverted these non justified tags (as I can do), you offended me several times. Honestly, I don't understand such behavior. Ditinili (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [40]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41] Feb 12th added "by Brian Morris"
    2. [42] Feb 14th added again
    3. [43] Feb 14th added a second time
    4. [44] Feb 14th changed other text
    5. [45] Feb 14th restored it a second time
    6. [46] Feb 14th and a third time

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

    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)[reply]

    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 [49] 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    3-revert-rule (Result: Blocked)

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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: [50]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [51]
    2. [52]
    3. [53]
    4. [54]
    5. [55]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] [58]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: 24 hours )

    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: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]
    4. [63]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

    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: [66]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [67]

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

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

    Comments:

    Stop it, otherwise I block your IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    why do you threaten people with blocks when they asked a simple question??--2A02:2F05:1F:FFFF:0:0:5679:6496 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    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:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    • [69]
    • [70]
    • [71] (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. [72]. 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 ([73], [74], [75],[76]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    User:SchroCat reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: Both warned)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [77]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [78]
    2. [79]
    3. [80]
    4. [81]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

    Comments:

    Born in Germany, to German and Irish parents, raised in Ireland. As is in the article in the lead and cats. Schro has threatened to report to ANI, perhaps for a chill effect, yet left ALL other references to German-Irish in, including the talk page cats and projects.I have added a ref in the lead, since Schros' last revert as requested. Murry1975 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    ~sigh~ This first diff isn't edit warring: it was was a bold edit. It was also a removal of what was an unsupported BLP claim. As the first edit isn't a revert, there has been no breach of 3RR (and neither has Murry1975 opened a thread on the article talk page, or left a 3RR warning either: I had given sufficient warning that the point was a BLP violation). At least he has finally managed to add a source to the claim, which is what I suggested he should do. Next time Murry1975, don't edit war to force a BLP violation: find a damned source to back up your claim. - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Condescending. You didnt quote BLP until final revert. And I as I pointed out you took out ONE occasion of the German Irish mention. No wonder your block log is the size it is. "Not even close to a nationality" and "Irish-German" isn't a nationality" while disregarding the other mentions in the article and categories. As per your BOLD edit, the R happened and the I started the D on your page, only following the rules and guidelines when YOU want is against the spirit of the project. Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh lord, what a waste of space. And how unhelpful for you to mention someone's block log which does your case no good at all. CassiantoTalk 13:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) ~sigh~ (again) Please try and be honest when you make bold statements. "You didnt quote BLP until final revert". Are you sure? What about the note on your talk page you deleted? That was before my comment in the revert. And my block log has fuck all to do with you edit warring to breach BLP, so don’t try and play silly buggers with me. Breaching BLP and edit warring (of which we are both guilty) is "against the spirit of the project", but the spirit is neither here nor there: BLP is a policy, which makes it something that should be adhered to strictly. If you are unable to understand that, or don't understand about sourcing for living persons, then perhaps you should steer clear of such articles until you can understand how BLP works. Regardless, nothing you have written makes any difference to the fact that there has been no breach of 3RR, and you have still failed to follow the right process here. – SchroCat (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment BLP is quite clear about this: you don't repeatedly add unsourced claims without a source. Policy obliges editors to remove contentious unsourced claims, and nationalities are always contentious at the best of times, especially dual-citizenships. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It strikes me that there is absolutely ZERO discussion about this on the article talk page. Can't we even try to get along before asking for admin intervention?? Please, all parties involved, go there. Here, I'll even jumpstart the discussion for you. J♯m (talk | contribs) 16:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Both warned. There was a revert war between User:SchroCat and User:Murry1975 in which the two editors seem equally guilty. Should we block both? The lack of talk page discussion makes it hard to take this complaint seriously. BLP isn't much of a defence for SchroCat when the article is packed with references mentioning this actor's German birth and his Irish upbringing. Of course it is up to consensus how his nationality should be described in the infobox; German-Irish is only one of the possibilities to be considered. If either party reverts again (prior to consensus) they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lipsquid reported by User:LjL (Result: 24 hours )

    Page
    Laffer curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Lipsquid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to

    20:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704638026 by Bonewah (talk) We just moved it with consensus. We agree to take it out of lead so now you insist in taking it out of the article. You are way, way over 3RR"

    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 705029312 by Bonewah (talk) Way over 3RR"
    2. 01:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704978325 by Bonewah (talk) That's 4 reverts in a couple of days. There is a 3RR rule. The quote is sourced."
    3. 19:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704974647 by Bonewah (talk) A sourced quote by definition isn't my point of view. You already deleted it once, this is twice."
    4. 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Problems */ Missed the ninja sourced quote removal by Bonewah"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    No warnings from me after [83] since that incident was about this editor WP:HOUNDING me after I reverted him on the same Laffer curve article.

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    [84] and [85]

    Comments:

    I am reporting this editor and not the other editor currently mostly engaged in the edit war because even though the former has repeatedly accused the latter of violating 3RR, as a matter of fact, the latter technically hasn't violated it but the former has. So Lipsquid repeatedly accuses others of violating rules, and also claims consensus that does not exist, which makes me doubt their good faith. This is together with the events I previously reported at ANI, which forced me to back away from intervening on Laffer curve or even giving Lipsquid further notices or warnings. LjL (talk) 13:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for both Lipsquid and Bonewah - although both have been on the talk page, they are still reverting each other back and forth, getting in the way of other editors, and it is that spirit of the rules, rather than the strict letter of 3RR that leads me to believe a short block is appropriate. Hopefully the block will allow you and Volunteer Marek to work out a stable version that everyone can be happy with. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: and, if I may again interject, I would humbly like to be allowed to partake in the debate again too, together with them, without receiving intimidations in the form of seeing completely unrelated edits I made on other articles reverted "at random" (if you take a look at the ANI report I mentioned above, I think you'll find it was pretty random, since my edits that were undone by Lipsquid involved fixing trouble a "rogue" editor had caused and which had been reported at ANI). Nobody seemingly had a serious look at that report, except for Lipsquid and two other people who are very much my "fans", and I felt quite helpless. LjL (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those nasty calls an admin has to make that will upset somebody - I can't in good conscience block one without the other or I would be undoubtedly screamed at for being WP:INVOLVED by the other party. I would have full-protected if I didn't see evidence of anyone other than Lipsquid or Bonewah wanting to edit the article, but I found they were, so that would have got in the way of innocent bystanders. Failing that, I would have dropped a message along the lines of "alright, all this reverting is textbook edit-warring, stop it now or there will be blocks", but I notice other editors had dropped such warnings anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Oh I'm not saying you should have blocked one and not the other. The reason I only reported Lipsquid and not Bonewah was that Lipsquid had technically violated 3RR while Bonewah had not, and yet, ironically, Lipsquid had repeatedly accused Bonewah of violating it. But at the same time, the amount of edit warring from both parties had gotten a tad ridiculous, 3RR or not.
    But aside from all this, my remark above was more a request for you - or someone - to please spend some time to look at the previous incident that involved me and Lipsquid, which is indirectly but strongly related to this one. I want to be able to take part in the Laffer curve debate again without fearing to see a mess on every other article I edit. See what I wrote on my talk page to someone previously asking for me to keep taking part. LjL (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and to show the (perceived?) hounding did not end after that ANI report, this is from more recent times. I don't see Lipsquid in that article's or in that talk page's history before he just randomly jumped in to oppose my position. Though at least this is a talk page comment and not a dry revert... LjL (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    68.194.58.163 reported by User:Yanping Nora Soong (Result: 1 week )

    Page: J/Z (New York City Subway service) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: TheManchoMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (plus his sock, 68.194.58.163)


    Previous version reverted to: [86]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [87]
    2. [88]
    3. [89]
    4. [90]

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

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

    Comments: User:TheManchoMan was just blocked indefinitely, but I am trying to get his sockpuppet 68.194.58.163 (talk) blocked as well. Thanks. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Yanping Nora Soong: Have you posted a notice at WP:SPI (Sock Puppet Investigations)? J♯m (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drovethrughosts reported by User:Cebr1979 (Result: No action)

    Page: The Walking Dead (season 6) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [91]. (Previous version of article is at [92].)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [93]
    2. [94]
    3. [95]
    4. [96]
    5. [97] (made after receiving notice and commenting on this very noticeboard message)
    6. [98] (made after receiving notice, commenting on this very noticeboard message, and acknowledging he had read and understood WP:3RR)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

    Comments:
    Uh...what's the problem here? I reverted the edits of a user twice (not three times) who added non-notable and unsourced materiel to the article and that user has since not reverted my latest edit. Two of the links you're pointing to (which are the same edit) are irrelevant and have nothing to with this. The fact that you brought this to AN3 is absurd when three reverts did not happen. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Drovethrughosts: Uhm... I brought it here because this is where it belongs and I provided "false links" of nothing. You need to read (and understand) this very closely. An editor who's been around as long as you really can't use "I didn't know that" as an excuse (I fixed the diffs, thanks for pointing out my duplicate error - all 4 of your reverts within a 24-hour period are now linked to properly).Cebr1979 (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The 3R rule is for the reversion of the same content. I reverted twice. There is no "edit war". The other user hasn't made any futhur edits. The last two edits you're pointing to are irrelevant. This edit is not a revert, it's me making a basic edit of updating the phrasing in the lead and this is me reverting an IP editor who deleted references and readded episode counts when it's been established at MOS:TV to remove episode counts in season articles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "The 3R rule is for the reversion of the same content." That just isn't true. As I've already linked to and advised you to read, WP:3RR specifically states (in a big, pink box): "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You are the editor who has now performed 5 reverts on a single page-involving same and/or different material-in a 24-hour period.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, sorry I misread that. You're making it seem any edit I make on the page is a revert. Technically, any edit can be viewed as a revert if you're updating/changing material and/or copyediting. You're taking things to extremes here. You're reporting me for edit warring when I reverted a user's edits twice. There was not an edit war. How is this a revert? Are we not allowed to update text? My edit here was valid as I explained above. If you want to be technical, I reverted three times (which is not in violation) and is no different to what you did yourself here. I'm not responding anymore until someone with authority gives an opinion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol - I can't believe you just admitted you misread it and then immediately continued to exhibit that you don't understand?Cebr1979 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I would admit I misread, because that's what I did. I'm asking you those questions. I'm asking you to give an actual rationale for your reasons of how a basic edit of updating text can be considered a revert, since you listed that edit as "evidence" of reverting, which is beyond absurd. It's amusing being accused by someone of edit warring who's been blocked five times previously, including not too long ago. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been blocked 5 times, only 3. You really do need to learn to read properly and the number of times someone else has been blocked in the past does not excuse the fact that you broke the 3RR rule today (and are showing no signs of remorse for having done so, I might add... even reverting one more time after it was brought to your attention). If you wanna pretend whichever one it is you're saying shouldn't count doesn't count... fine. That still leaves you at 4, though.... which still leaves you here.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'll "pretend" that a basic edit of updating text not to be a revert. Are you joking me? Of course it's not a revert, I'm copy editing the language. You still haven't provided any rationale as to why you linked that edit as "evidence". So, what, I'm not able to edit an article more than three times a day? That's what you make it seem like. Sorry for keeping it in top shape and not let IPs destroy the article. You're going to use this as an example? What, am I suppose to keep unsourced and wrong information in the article? You are unbelievable. Sorry for being a good editor who removes unsourced content and keeps articles in top condition. That's sarcasm by the way if you can't tell... Ugh. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell, I'm not a moron. Sarcasm, however, is just showing more and more that you feel no remorse whatsoever for having broken the 3RR and are very likely to do it again. I would have expected a warning originally however, I think the 24-hour block that WP:3RR recommends is necessary. You could use some cool down time to properly read things you need to read properly.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You still haven't addressed anything I've said or replied to any questions I raised to you. Thanks for being competent. I am asking you again, explain how this edit is a revert or edit warring. You are no position to recommend anything or to assume any future behavior of mine. I have a clean block log. The fact is you reported me for edit warring when there was no edit war. It went back and forth twice. It's over. You then cherrypicked a separate revert I made to an IP editor involving completely different material (explained above) that happened almost 24 hours prior. Again, no edit warring has taken place. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still ignoring that you've broken the 3RR. You never "misread" it (as you've said you did), you're just flat out ignoring it in order to justify the reverts you want to continue making. Your "clean block log" doesn't excuse the fact you broke the 3RR. You should follow your earlier statement and just stop commenting. You're sounding more and more panicked and unremorseful with every comment.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OMG! You just did it a 6th time even after acknowledging you had read and understood WP:3RR on this very noticeboard!!! Now, you're really starting to display both WP:IDHT & WP:OWN!Cebr1979 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Cebr1979, your behavior is getting out of hand. You are acting far torather aggressively to be taken very seriously. In my experience, an edit war is qualified as being disruptive, of which Drove's edits are not. They are not bright line edit warring. Your own failing to acknowledge Drove's question is also not helpful. You have also failed to discuss with the user through other means, whether it be the article talk page, or their talkpage. Your diff of a warning is also fictitiousa bit improper, as notifications to this noticeboard do not count as 3rr warnings, unless they are ignored. I would not have made that last comment (given that the user did infact make more reverts to the page), except for the fact that I do not see their reverts as malicious, whereas the same cannot be said for your own report. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC) [edited= 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)][reply]

    Huh? I've never even heard of you before and "your experience" is clearly flawed. I saw a rule broken and reported it. There's nothing "malicious" about it. You need to look up the meaning of the word. Your hostility here makes no sense whatsoever. Are you two friends? I should also mention, I don't have to issue a warning in advance of reporting a user unless I was edit warring with that user... and I wasn't.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, edited my post, you're right, it's way too rough. I apologise for that. So, as to explain a few of the things I mentioned:
    • It is generally concidered 'good behavior' (for lack of better wording) to leave a warning to a user before bringing their behavior to a noticeboard.
    • My calling your report malicious, while very much strong worded, is due to the fact that you have used a rule to try and get an editor blocked, despite their own admission as to having misread the rule in the first place.
    • My experience; I had edited under another account since October 2014, until I lost the password, and as such have been observing the way things work around here for over a year.
    Also, sometimes it is necessary to ignore the rules that prevent us from building the encyclopedia, within reason. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... You need to re-read everything more carefully. I specifically stated I would have supported a simple warning until another revert was made after he had read it and understood it. That was the first time I ever mentioned the word "block." There was then another revert made even after that. I did not simply come here to "use a rule to get an editor blocked despite their own admission to having misread the rule in the first place."Cebr1979 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I might need new glasses, but I can't seem to find where you state anything along the lines of "a warning would be good". (Ah, there it is) Also, it is easy enough to administer a warning yourself. But, I'll leave this alone for awhile. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC) [edited= 01:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)][reply]
    You do need new glasses and... good.Cebr1979 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. If there is a revert war here, it's hard to see. There are lots of copy edits. Cebr1979 has not posted anything on the talk page to explain the items he disagrees with. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Ed... As per usual, you're making your decision on being ill-informed, not understanding, and just plain wrong. There was never an issue with any edit war, it was the fact therw were more than three reverts made by one user to the same page within 24 hours. Anyone who read this thread would have understood that. I am also not required to make any posts to any talk page. That's also been brought up here in this thread. What's done is done, though, so... Oh, well. I'm sure User:Drovethrughosts has learnt his lesson and will be more careful in the future. Otherwise, we'll all just end up back here, right? One of these days, though, Ed, I would think you would start paying attention. I just find the way you (don't) deal with things to be so odd. Oh, well. That'll be for another day too, I'm sure. Adios, all! Have great days!Cebr1979 (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.94.61.22 reported by User:MjolnirPants (Result: Semi)

    Page: Pyriproxyfen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72.94.61.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [100]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [101]
    2. [102]
    3. [103]
    4. [104]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106] (advised IP to go to talk page in 3RR warning, IP chose to revert again instead)

    Comments:

    IP user is insisting upon naming a section about an allegation a "hypothesis" despite being corrected by multiple users. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The first is not a revert.72.94.61.22 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, it is now. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You're putting too much effort into this for such a minor point. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Says the guy who's edit warring... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Timothycrice reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 week )

    Page
    Pegida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Timothycrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC) "I think it's really ethnocentric for you to reject an article from the Frankfurter Journal. Your attitude toward Germans should not be tolerated."
    2. 23:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "You say this isn't important enough to have in the first paragraph, and that's your point of view. What we want is all the facts. It is actually someone's point of view that they are far-right movement, so let's have the facts and decide for ourselves."
    3. 21:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "This is now the second time I've told you this information comes directly from the article cited. The article says, "Foto: Pegida." That means the logo belongs to Pegida. Now you're asserting that no one in the media has alleged they are neo-Nazis!"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 08:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC) to 08:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 08:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "They are definitely enemies of Islam. What do you think "gegen die Islamisierung" means? In any event, you want to censor my way of saying things, even though you don't want to be censored."
      2. 08:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "I described even more thoroughly this time. What we want is the facts from the first paragraph all the way through to the last sentence in the article, not just what you think shouldn't be censored."
      3. 08:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC) ""
      4. 08:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC) ""
      5. 08:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "We want all the facts."
      6. 08:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "We want the whole truth, even if it's inconvenient, so here are the details about their logo that you don't want people to know about, for some reason."
      7. 08:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC) "Rephrasing it to make it clear these are symbols they perceive to be extremist, and they are all being thrown in a trash can in one of the logos they use."
    5. 22:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "It just takes a little bit of common sense to realize that a Third Reich swastika being thrown in a trash can is a protest against Nazism. Read the article, it clearly says the image belongs to Pegida!"
    6. 22:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC) "Expanding on the fact that the Third Reich swastika is different than the swastika used in Jainism."
    7. Consecutive edits made from 22:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC) to 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
      1. 22:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
      2. 22:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    • See thread here where he calls one of the editors participating in the discussion "schizophrenic".
    Comments:

    The reverts speak for themselves. I have nothing to add. Dr. K. 06:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:VanEman reported by User:Debresser (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [107]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [108]
    2. [109] (made after warnings on user talkpage)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see below

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mikveh#Lead_section

    Comments:

    VanEman recently made a few edits to the Mikveh artiucle, of which I undid part for reasons stated in the edit summary and on the talkpage. VanEman is edit warring about my undo.

    VanEman is a notorious edit warrior,(see e.g. the following posts on his talkpage: [110],[111],[112],[113],[114],[115]) with strong POV problems in the Judaism area (see e.g. this comment about him [116] and others). Please also note that accusing others of having a POV is a beloved tactic of his (see e.g. [117] and [118]). Now he is at it again at Mikveh. I warned him not to edit war[119] and called upon him to respect WP:BRD,[120] but to no avail. I post this here now, because I want to nip this in the bud. Debresser (talk) 07:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:84.206.48.248 reported by User:Huon (Result: )

    Page: OTP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 84.206.48.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely related: Andras0401 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [121]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [122]
    2. [123]
    3. [124]
    4. [125]

    See also previous edits by Andras0401, adding the same image:

    1. [126]
    2. [127]
    3. [128]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129] for the IP, [130] for Andras0401

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

    Comments:
    Andras0401 seems to have a history of adding images of those towers to various articles where they are of little relevance. Huon (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:K!lluminati reported by User:Panam2014 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Template:PagelinksModule:Yemeni Civil War detailed map: Difference between revisions
    User being reported: K!lluminati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    A week after the module blocking Kiluminati continues the edit war and withdraw the information and sources that talk about declines Houthis .

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [132]
    2. [133]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

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

    Comments:


    User:Ferkava reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked for 3 days. )

    Page: Ahmad Dhani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ferkava (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. [134]
    2. [135]
    3. [136]
    4. [137]

    Diff of "Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material " warning template, (for one of these edits), on user's talk page: [138]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user's talk page: [140]

    Diff of AN/EW notice on user's talk page: [141]

    Comments:
    This editor is repeatedly changing people names in this article (BLP vio?). No sources added to support changes and no edit summaries added to explain them. This editor refuses to discuss on talk page despite numerous requests to do so. - theWOLFchild 12:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]



    Page: Omar Dani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ferkava (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. [142]
    2. [143]
    3. [144]
    4. [145]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

    Diff of AN/EW notice on user's talk page: [148]

    Comments:

    This editor keeps putting the acronym of a military organization in front of the full name, in bold. (this is a BLP). This is not a big deal... at least it shouldn't be. No edit summaries provided to explain edits. Repeated requests to discuss this on the their talk page have been completely ignored. As with the above report, there is no effort at communication what-so-ever, just continued edit-warring. - theWOLFchild 13:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: this user is now apparently going through his history to find any of his edits that have been changed and is reverting them, despite any improprieties. Another three articles are now affected. I had tried to further engage this user, but he is absolutely refusing to discuss anything anywhere or even explain his reverts with edit summaries. I'm just going to leave it all for now and wait for a response. - theWOLFchild 14:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 3 days in the hope that may be enough to persuade the editor to start taking notice of messages about the problems with his or her editing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nemo bis reported by User:YannickFran (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Comparison of internet forum software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nemo bis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [149] This is the version from before the moment the content that is currently being disputed was added. This: [150] is however the last clean version.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [151]
    2. [152]
    3. [153]
    4. [154]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Comparison of Internet forum software#Features table Additionally, he's started the discussion after my first revert on my own talk page

    Comments:
    This user seems to randomly switches between User:Nemo and User:Nemo bis. --YannickFran (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=705289209"