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:78.129.111.57 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Semi, Block)

Page

Jerry Siegel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 19:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 17:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 15:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jerry Siegel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'm not sure what the IP editor's intentions are since they haven't used any edit summaries or explained their edits on the talk page. It looks like they're also warring on Norman W. Marsh and Dan Dunn. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kurzon. clpo13_(talk) 20:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This anon IP is one at at least two being used by what is almost certainly blocked User:BaronBifford, who now appears to be block-evading as User:JungLiao. The other anon IP appears to be 188.188.81.129.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:Airplaneman. I've blocked the IP as well as User:JungLiao for a month each as suspected socks of User:Kurzon. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked)

Page: EuroBasket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crnibombarder (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]

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

Comments:
User was warned last week and the page was locked, as soon as the page lock expired he immediately comes back and begins his reverting without attempting to discuss [7]. In what to me appears to be an attempt to avoid the admin realizing he reverted an older edit rather than the more recent one. - Galatz^Talk 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I get some a proove to show this

Evidence for incorporating SFRY team records in this article:

Claim: For FIBA records and statistics, Serbia is (indirectly) the only sucessor of SFRY. A successor's records should incorporate the records of succeeded teams. Source: Pages stating "Year of affiliation: 1936" for Serbia on FIBA World Championship 2006 site [4] Source: A FIBA news item stating "The Basketball Federation of Serbia will retain the place of the former Basketball Federation of Serbia and Montenegro as a FIBA member." [5] Source: Listings of "Participation" and "Achievements in FIBA competition" for Serbia (or Serbia&Montenegro) on FIBA World Championship 2006 site stating "SERBIA & MONTENEGRO (SCG) 13th appearance (3 consecutive)". [6] (moved to #2.1) Claim: International news organizations represent Serbia as successor to the previous Yugoslavia federations Source: Listing of international competition history of Serbia National Team on EuroBasket.com references complete statistics, starting at 1950 through 2006: [7] Source: InsideHoops.com combines records for SFR Yugoslavia 3 and 2 FR Yugoslavia championships (Total 5) [8] Source: InsideHoops.com article: "It was Yugoslavia (now known as Serbia & Montenegro) who defeated the USA Senior squad and eliminated it from medal contention at the 2002 FIBA World Championship..." [9] Source: CBC article: victory over defending champion Serbia and Montenegro.....which won the gold medal in 2002 as Yugoslavia, but only one player from that team was back to defend the title. [10] Source: Inq7 article: "The third world championship in 1959 was won by Brazil; the fourth in 1963, also won by Brazil; the fifth in 1967 by the Soviet Union; the sixth in 1970 by Yugoslavia; the seventh in 1974 by the Soviet Union; the eighth in 1978 by Yugoslavia; the ninth in 1982 by the Soviet Union; the 10th in 1986 by the US; the 11th in 1990 by Yugoslavia; the 12th in 1994 by the US; the 13th in 1998 by Yugoslavia; the 14th in 2002 by Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia); and the 15th in 2006 by Spain." [11] Source: ABC sport (.au) "In late matches, Spain ousted defending champion Serbia and Montenegro" [12] Source: Radio New Zealand "Spain beat defending champions Serbia and Montenegro" [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crnibombarder (talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 days. Continuation of an edit war that has already led to protection of the article. A large fraction of all his edits seem to be reverts. This user has also removed posts by others at Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Etsybetsy (Result: Declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Note: he was recently warned for making even a single revert to the article without getting concensus on talk first: [13].

— Explanation of the wording as instructed by subst:

As mentioned, Xenophrenic (and I) were warned for making even a single revert to the article before getting concensus on talk, at September 1: [14]. At that point I actually already had concensus: [15], [16].

I get clearer concensus again: [17], [18] and make a tiny change to the Amherst portion by adding two testimonies verified by all our sources and the words "a month before" which is obviously quite important: [19].

Now Xenophrenic reverts that, removing the testimonies for the millionth time and changes massive portions of the article completely chaotically and gets into an edit war with yet another editor, totaling 4 against him now. His argument is that it's a WP:NOTAVOTE. People are at arms about his behavior but it just keeps getting passed over.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Section of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

Declined – These diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If someone opened an RfC with specific statements we could get a reading on what wording actually has consensus. It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired of going in circles and will try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ed, of course these diffs do not show a 3RR violation. They don't even show disruptive edit warring on my part. What do the above diffs show in this malformed report? The diff of the "previous version reverted to" is just an unhelpful link to the current article. The diff to an "attempt to resolve the dispute" is instead just an unhelpful link to the whole article Talk page. The 4 "diffs of the user's reverts" are instead just article improvement edits, mostly consisting of uncontroversial new content and reliable sources. Any other Admin might assume good faith and mistake this grossly malformed report as merely new user lack of competence, but Admin Ed Johnston should know better. Ed has been handling this matter for a while now, and knows this report is just the latest in a string of attempts by the single purpose Etsybetsy account to substitute baseless drama-board sanction requests in place of actual collaboration and discussion on article improvement.

While I appreciate Ed's efforts to appear impartial while addressing edit warring complaints here, I feel Ed's use of wording which paints both parties as equally culpable (i.e.; "It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired...") is unhelpful. Such language only encourages Etsybetsy's poor behavior. This AN3 report alleges that I reverted after being warned not to, but Ed is fully aware that it was actually Etsybetsy who reverted. Ed gave Etsy a chance, "there may still be time for you to undo your change, to avoid a block", which Etsy declined. Ed patiently listened to Etsy's faulty claim to consensus (which Etsy has again echoed just above in this report), and again Ed gave Etsy a chance, "Your above argument looks to be full of synthesis. I recommend you undo your contested change until a clear thread of support appears on the talk page." Again Etsy declined. Whether Ed then grew too irritated with the situation to continue, or simply lost track of it, Ed didn't comment further. I left Etsy's problematic, non-consensus edit in the article and patiently waited a full 2 weeks. With no further response from Etsy, or from Ed, I have resumed article improvement editing. Ed, you suggest (again) that we should be following the steps of Dispute Resolution, but you must know that cannot be done in a vacuum. Two to Tango, and all that. As you know, I took the initiative to open the Talk page discussion, which Etsy has abandoned in favor of revert-warring instead. I also offered to initiate an RfC for Etsy, but that was rejected, with no alternative proposal offered by Etsy. Arbitration and Third Opinion steps aren't applicable here. I'd like to initiate a Moderated Discussion, but that, too, is no longer applicable because there must first be significant discussion. The content Etsy is presently revert warring out of the article (Canadian schools; Mandan tribes; copy editing) is new content being deleted without any discussion. Suggestions? Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Igaalbania reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:44, 7 October 2016 "" (Please note: This revert was made while this report was still ongoing.)
2. 18:38, 7 October 2016 "" (Please note: This revert was made while this report was still ongoing.)
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) to 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
   3. 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
4. 19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) to 18:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
   2. 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
   4. 18:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ottoman Albania */"
   5. 18:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Republic and monarchy */"
   6. 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* World War II */"
   7. 18:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Communist Albania */"
   8. 18:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ottoman Albania */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC) to 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */ Mother Teresa was 100% Albanian, her dad was an Albanian businessman and part of the league of Prizren, and yes she is again 100% albanian!!!"
   2. 16:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
   3. 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
   4. 17:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
   5. 17:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
   6. 17:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
   7. 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* National parks and World Heritage Sites */"
7. Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC) to 16:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 15:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
   2. 15:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
   4. 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
   5. 16:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 16:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
   7. 16:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
   8. 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Language */"
   9. 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
   10. 16:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Climate */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Albania. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Mother Teresa */ reply"

Comments:

Disruption. Longterm edit-warring adding picture of Mother Theresa to the article without consensus. Also removes pictures of Enver Hoja without consensus. Does not participate on talk. Will not stop. Editor has been blocked before for disruptive editing. Dr. K. 18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. The user reverts constantly but has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Woovee reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Protected)

Page: Neo-psychedelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Woovee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

• User wants to add this sentence: "Others who embraced neo-psychedelia include Siouxsie and the Banshees [1] and The Glove [2]."

The issue here is one of WP:ONUS and WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I placed {{elucidate}} next to the text and argued my case on talk page, writing that indiscriminate namedrops of random artists is laundry list trivia that could potentially be stretched to infinity, and that the info is better located at List of neo-psychedelia artists. I suggested that if he wants those bands to be acknowledged, then he should find a source that discusses the subject as more than a passing mention (i.e. something in the vein of "[X] was a major figure of neo-psychedelia who influenced many artists of the genre").

He responded by citing WP:OWNER and WP:RS, but not before engaging in an edit war over the "abusive" tag I had placed. After giving a 3RR warning, he began removing other sourced content from the article, which looks to me like WP:DISRUPTPOINT.

Reply from User:Woovee:

1) I added completely new content yesterday.

"Journalist David Stubbs remarked that Siouxsie and the Banshees's music in 1982 had got "neo-psychedelic flourishes" with "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[8] Critic Ira Robbins stated that The Glove integrated neo-psychedelic elements in their work in 1983.[9]

I have put another source and 2 very different sentences. Each time, I've changed and improved my edits. I wp:STICKTOSOURCE, I used wp:RSs and there is no wp:OR.

2) This report is bizarre because the plaintiff has done 4RR which I didn't.

Here's his 4RR, he should have never reported someone while doing this:

1. [29] 18:51, 5 October 2016 in which the plaintiff completely erased my first edit with 2 reliable sources
2. [30] 13:45, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff again reverted my edit
3. [31] 23:29, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff accepted one of the revious source and a new one while adding an abusive tag, which is his new tactics
4. [32] 23:50, 6 October 2016 same rv than above
5. [33] 13:01, 7 October 2016 same rv than above
6. [34] 17:22, 7 October 2016 same rv than below

So, his report is abusive, and inappropriate. Woovee (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Page protected – One week. This looks like a two-person edit war. Try to get agreement on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wash whites separately reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jesse Watters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wash whites separately (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• [35] — This was the status quo when the article was page-protected from anon IPs. The disputed section at this point used the neutral subhead "Criticism"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36] — Revision as of 15:46, 8 October 2016, in which the editor changed the neutral term to the loaded "Racist behavior"
2. [37] — Revision as of 17:09, 8 October 2016, in which after a reversion to the status quo, "Criticism," he again used loaded, non-neutral language, "Racism controversy"
3. [38] — Revision as of 17:22, 8 October 2016
4. [39] — Revision as of 17:35, 8 October 2016
5. [40] — Latest revision as of 00:27, 9 October 2016. After a second, uninvolved editor restored the section subhead to the status quo "Criticism", Wash whites separately edit-warred again to make the subhead a slightly better yet still non-consensus version. Even without this fifth revert, however, he has defiantly made four — essentially saying the 3RR rule doesn't apply to himself. And as WP:CSECTION notes, "Criticism" is standard and "Controversy" should not be used except in rare situations that do not apply here. "Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled."

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jesse Watters#Edit-warring

Comments:

In order not to do a fourth revert myself, I've left the article at his latest edit. He is behaving emotionally and uncivilly, with one edit-summary reading, "Fixed the grammar so the domineering princess can understand the sentence" [42]

It's worth noting that the emotional response came after he referred to my edit as "horrific" and also made threats against me. Even after I conceded to him about the grammar of the writing, he still decided to nitpick and report me because of the title of the section. He's just as emotional as anyone else, pursuing petty conflicts to the greatest lengths, all with a touch of condescension. —Wash whites separately (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is my edit summary, which refered not to his edit or him as horrific, but to "horrific grammar" that as, phrased, called Chinese Americans "things": [43]. In any case, it doesn't mitigate his edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. User has been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Partyclams reported by User:Yoshiman6464 (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44] — Removed information from the Juanita Broaddrick article because her twitter account is "unverified".
2. [45] — Removed information again, falsely claiming that "Broaddrick's Twitter account authenticity has been called into question as it's unverified"
3. [46] — Repeating the false claim: "That may be so, but Broaddrick's Twitter account's verifiability has been specifically been called into question and cannot be confirmed at this time", even though the information was presented with reliable sources.
4. [47] — No comment.

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

Comments:
Yoshiman6464 insists on citing Tweets associated with an unverified Twitter account that is now being questioned for its authenticity. Partyclams (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't citing directly to her tweets, I was citing reports that discuss these tweets, such as the Washington Post and Politico. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

Page

Portal:Current events/2016 October 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743357845 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)for the reason you just gave which can only serve to push bias here now I see your goal and you too are a bias pusher"
2. 08:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743356027 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Current_events#Reverts.2Fedits.2Freverts..."
3. 07:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743354420 by Shearonink (talk)I have answered your question over on talk and as for the other it is not political it is a hack/theft/crime and only for that is it in the portal"
4. 07:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743351932 by Shearonink (talk)this is not a newspaper and that is just bias pushing political spin"
5. 06:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743333428 by FallingGravity (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2016 October 7. (TW)"
2. 08:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */ Self-revert, please."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was advised repeatedly to open a discussion on the talk page, but instead simply engaged in a stale revert-war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:3RR 86.22.8.235 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Earl King reported by User:Ladislav Mecir (Result: No violation)

Page: Blockchain (database) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl King (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]
6. [55]
7. [56]
8. [57]
9. [58]
10. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [60]
2. [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
The above warning diffs provide information on nonconstructive edits on these Wikipedia pages: Blockchain (database), Bitcoin, and 1,000,000 socks for Paul Wolfowitz Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No violation – the reverts at Blockchain (database) are stale (October 6). Nothing at the other two articles needs admin attention. There are lots of people expressing opinions at Talk:Blockchain (database) which means that a good discussion should be possible. I hope you guys are aware you can make binding decisions using a WP:Request for comment. If instead you just continue to revert it won't have any useful results. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Travis505 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Blocked)

Page

War on Terror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Travis505 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
2. 16:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Wrong information"
3. 16:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Please explain to me why it's so important that you have to be the leader of everyone?"
4. 16:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "The information is wrong the US is not the leader of NATO and they never will be so I will continue to correct the wrong information being spread about NATO."
5. 16:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
6. 15:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "We are all leaders in this war not just the US, this is a global war against the terrorists and we all take part and no one is in charge of this war we are all against them. This article had incorrect information once again"
7. 13:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "The US is not the only leading force in the war on terror it's not your war we are all fighting this war together."
8. 11:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Everyone plays a part the point of NATO is there is no leader all I'm doing is stating the fact, US is not in charge of NATO, the closest thing to a leader there is the Secretary General who is Norwegian not American."
9. 11:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "This article wrongly states the US as leader of NATO, NATO is a joint coalition with no fixed leader so again I am fixing the article and removing the misinformed information that US is the leader of NATO."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Warning of edit warring [66]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk page discussion to attempt to resolve issue [67]

Comments:

Claims that the user falsely adding leader among many countries. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 15:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Note also the vandalism and sockpuppetry: [68][69][70][71][72]. GAB^gab 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Article semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chanbaek461 reported by User:Junior5a (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Park Chanyeol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Chanbaek461 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743442116 by Junior5a (talk) This is not vandalism its the truth you can look it up"
2. 17:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743440451 by Junior5a (talk)"
3. 17:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 17:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743436427 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. 17:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 16:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Park Chanyeol. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editing warring and Vandalism, Other editors was trying undo it ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Aṭlas on Moors

Hi, just wanted to alert other editors to potential problem with User:Aṭlas reverting edits on MoorsDuedemagistris (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)