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:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Fram (Result: Stale)

Page: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (first three reverts), [2] (fourth revert)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3] 20.26 12 January
2. [4] 20.33 12 January
3. [5] 20.35 12 January
4. [6] 10.04 13 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No warning directly, but the page was fully protected due to the first 3 reverts (a protection Pigsonthewing was aware of obviously), and the fourth revert followed the unprotection (edit summary: "Protection expired"). Pigsonthewing, a veteran editor who was in a distant past even blocked for a 3RR violation, is (or should be) aware of the policy. Fram (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a bean-counting (and pointed - see my & Fram's interactions on the talk page of that page) nomination. The former edits occurred after I (twice) raised the matter on the talk page, but was reverted without any comment there. The fourth edit is clearly in a different part of the non-article-space page, which has been rapidly edited by many people; on a different topic; and regarding a different editor. And all it did was mere housekeeping; restoring an edit which was removed as breaching a period of protection, after that protection had edited - I doubt the editor I reverted had any objection. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pointed" in the sense that I created a page where you started edit warring to remove opinions you don't agree with, even though the intention was explicitly to list different opinions? "Pointed" in the sense that you disrupt an attempt at open discussion about a subject you care about, trying to stifle arguments against your position and reinstating arguments for your position? Oh yes, it is very pointed from me. I notice that you used the same tactic in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 21#Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata where User:DePiep asked you to retract your personal attack. Fram (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Stale At this point a block would just be punitive. @Pigsonthewing: is warned that further edit warring may be grounds for a block even if 3RR is not met. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Saleh Hamedi reported by User:Pahlevun (Result: Protection)

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saleh Hamedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:03, 11 January 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:07, 12 January 2017
2. 14:11, 12 January 2017
3. 16:05, 12 January 2017
4. 16:13, 12 January 2017
5. 12:20, 13 January 2017

Diff of warning: 12:44, 12 January 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• 15:35, 12 January 2017
• 15:38, 12 January 2017
• 15:43, 12 January 2017
• 16:23, 12 January 2017
• 16:54, 12 January 2017

Comments:
There are lots of content removed without ANY discussion, such as:

• My well-sourced edit at 15:32, 12 January 2017
• "War" and "allies" in the Template:infobox war faction
• First sentence and the rest of the reliably sourced content in the lead
• Unexplained removal in membership section
• Removal of "Terrorism" from Template:Portal

I asked for case by case discussion at 15:30, 12 January 2017, but the user did not bring his explanations on the cases above in the talkpage. I asked for a WP:RSN discussion at 16:23, 12 January 2017, which the user did not comply with. Pahlevun (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Protected. Due to concern about possible socking, I've placed the article under extended confirmed protection for one year. Several new accounts with no other interests and good knowledge of Wikipedia have sprung up to defend the group that is the subject of the article. This seems like too much of a coincidence. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:107.184.220.254 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Blocked)

Page: Terence Crawford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.184.220.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8] – restored the redundant zeroes for draws and no-contests
2. [9] – same
3. [10] – same
4. [11] – same; should've tripped 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments: IP:107.184.220.254 is edit warring against consensus (achieved in early 2016 at WikiProject Boxing, which resulted in MOS:BOXING) by inserting zeroes for draws and no-contests, which are redundant given the total number of fights vs. losses. Identical edits also being made repeatedly at Juan Díaz and Errol Spence‎.. and quite a few more now that they've gotten going. No edit summaries or talk responses. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

User:174.103.115.142 and User:74.135.90.179 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi)

Page: Hangover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.103.115.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 74.135.90.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 03:34, 13 January 2017, this is by IP 174.103.115.142
2. diff 19:31, 13 January 2017 by IP 74.135.90.179
3. diff 20:09, 13 January 2017 by IP 74.135.90.179
4. diff 04:22, 14 January 2017 by 174.103.115.142 again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff at 174.103.115.142 and diff at 74.135.90.179

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hangover#Korean_remedy

Comments:

This is a heavily spammed article. Latest is this person using 2 IP addresses promoting a Korean remedy now marketed by a US company. Determined to get WP:PROMO content into WP. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Would support a block. This edits is simply spam[13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

A block would not work. They will be assigned a new IP number and would not know about the block. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Suswaralakshmi reported by User:GSS-1987 (Result: Blocked)

Page: S. Aishwarya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Suswaralakshmi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: old revision

'Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:05, 13 January 2017‎ (Added content)
2. 17:24, 13 January 2017‎ (→‎Family: Added content)
3. 17:31, 13 January 2017 (→‎Family: Added content from S.Aishwarya s website. Kindly do not remove any content!!)
4. 22:21, 14 January 2017 (→‎Family: Added Content ~~~~SS)

Diff of edit warring: link and link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Talk:GSS-1987 and Yunshui talk page

Comments:
The user continuously adding unsourced material earlier removed by Meatsgains. I reverted his edit yesterday and warn the user on his talk page also explained him not to add unsourced contents in edit summary and on my talk page but I see no effect of warnings and suggestion and today the user left a message on Yunshui's talk page and made a false statement that he is adding contents after an agreement with me. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you EdJohnston, I don't want to perform another revert on the article so do you mind reverting this revision to remove unsourced claim of Awards and Recongonitions? Cheers – GSS (talk|c|em) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Revert already done by User:Lemongirl942. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Namarly reported by User:Jytdog (Result: BB 24h)

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

---

Page: Lot's wife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Namarly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff, changed "God" to "Jehovah", added New Testament content based on confessional source, Christian POV language
2. diff, reverted my taking that out, and other changes I had made including removing unsourced content.
3. diff
4. diff, note yelling
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened several sections at Talk:Lot's wife, when they finally replied there, was lots of WP:YELLING - see Talk:Lot's_wife#New_section, yikes.

Comments:

Relatively inexperienced editor (started last fall, has (per edit history) 144 contribs. Article needs to be locked, I think. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog has clearly violated 3RR, and yet runs to notice board before I got a chance to

Frankly, and honestly, it's funny that Jytdog went to this board before me (to poison the well) when I was JUST ABOUT TO, since Jytdog clearly has violated 3RR. Check out the history and see the blatant violation (which is nothing new to him, since this whole thing that he started was a violation of WP policy and recommendation, to find better source, if you don't like the source, rather than wholesale removal of someone's hard work and paragraph etc). He's very pot-kettle-black here. (And by the way, my occasional all-caps were not meant as "yelling" but as emphasis, similar to italics...he in bad faith took it the wrong way of course, as it was not whole blocks of sentences, but just a word or two here and there...but he's giving the false impression when he says there was "lots of yelling". No, there was not "lots", there was none in actuality, and rare all-caps, as you can see, with no changes at all by me, on that talk page. He's exaggerating big time...do not take what he says at face value.) Jytdog has clearly surpassed 3RR on this matter. (Also, whatever Admin sees this, please read carefully not only the whole edit history, where this editor has gone way beyond 3RR, but also check out the Talk page, and my statements there. [User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] is the one who should have been reported. He has things a bit backwards.)

He began the edit warring, by violating WP policy to modify, rather than wholesale remove for "I don't like" reasons. If he had a big problem with the source, WP policy is to maybe find a better source, rather than wholesale removing someone else's hard work and accurate edits. The article was sorely lacking, any elaboration of what was briefly stated in the lede. It was good faith, sourced, and accurate, and he spat on it, and removed it, and has violated 3RR big time here. Click the entire history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lot%27s_wife&action=history

Namarly (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

article is in good shape now. There was no need for all the drama. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

King of Hearts I am not sure whether this block was appropriate, given that the disruption had ceased. To me, the block seems punitive, rather than preventive. Yes, edit warring occurred, but it stopped before the filing of this report. Personally, I think a warning would have done the job here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: They have shown no evidence of backing down, and it's not just edit warring: accusations of bad faith, inappropriate use of talk pages, battleground mentality, etc. I consider it likely they would resume the behavior after waking up if I did not place the block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I had a look at the Talk:Lot's wife and I see both discussing mostly on the talk page after approx 23:00 UTC (with no edit warring on the article after that). There was ample chance to edit war, but it did not happen. The accusations of bad faith, inappropriate use of talk pages, battleground mentality, etc. is restricted to Namarly, (who I believe doesn't have enough experience editing Wikipedia, and who made the bold edits in the first place). Reading the talk page, I see that Jytdog had proposed asking a question at RSN. A good action would have been to simply protect the article - that would ensure the least disruption and also allowed other editors to opine, while giving a chance to Namarly to understand the rules on Wikipedia. Blocking both is counterproductive here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Jytdog's edits here but there is no question that both were edit-warring, the dispute was ongoing and both needed to stop. The last edits on the talk page (refactoring the talk page, accusation of POINTy behavior) indicate very clearly that the dispute was ongoing. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The dispute was ongoing on the talk page - but the article itself was not subject to edit warring after the filing of this report. I see a lot of baiting by Namarly here. We don't block editors punitively, particularly longtime productive editors. The refactoring of the talk page was perfectly fine per WP:TPG and the comment about pointy behaviour was not an accusation (it came after the other editor admitted to a pointy edit). I honestly think was a bad block. If a 3RR violation is all it takes to be blocked, we could simply have bots to do the job. We have admins for a reason. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If there was no ongoing dispute then why did Jytdog bring this here? He seemed to feel there was. It boomeranged, which is one of the risks of bringing a report here when both sides are revert-warring. Experience is no excuse for edit-warring; if anything it is an exacerbating factor. This new editor seems to have a POV and made odd changes but there are simple ways of dealing with such situations that don't involve edit-warring. ANI is one. 3RR is a bright line rule and being experienced does not mean one gets a pass and we come down hard only on the new account. Coretheapple (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

User:Juheardddddddddd reported by User:2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (Result: Indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:
He made three reversions. He added vandalism like: 1979– he should've never started, McKagen looking like an old Kurt Cobain, and McKagan in West Hollywood, California, on March 1, 2012. I would suggest him an indefinite block. Regards, 2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I reported him in Wikipedia:Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. Thanks. Regards, 2602:304:68AD:3220:412E:6010:18BD:5C7A (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: 48h)

Page: Times Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23], though a block history this long serves as its own warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Does not technically meet 3RR but Beyond My Ken has been repeated reverting multiple users since the end of December and has just recently made 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. @Alansohn: I would like to remind you to also stop edit warring, as you are very close to being blocked yourself. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User: JFG

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

---

User:JFG

This editor deleted a file that had been added twice to the article Donald Trump Russia dossier, lying and stating it was copyrighted. He also lied that it is not being linked to on other articles on Wikipedia, and lied that the article is not under 1rr. (It is.)

I asked him to go to the talk page, as this was restored by two other editors and yet he continued to revert my restoration of the file which had been added by two other independent editors. He is on 4rr on a 1rr page. My reversions should not count because he reverted first, and thus my reversions after the 1st were only to enforce the 1rr rule, as this was my first reversion, which merely restored the article back to its stable state. 63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Examples: 1st revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=760153559&oldid=760140949

Here, he lies and says this is a copyrighted file, despite no evidence of a copyright. I revert him and ask him to get consensus on talk page, since 2 other editors have already indpendently restored this material, leading me to believe consensus is for inclusion. I also point out the article is also used by other Wikipedia pages.

2nd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=next&oldid=760154100

Here, he violates 1rr, deleting the file again, despite engaging in no discussion. He makes his second lie, stating "it is not hosted on other Wiki pages" despite its being hosted on the corresponding page in German wikipedia. (He speaks German too, apparently, and it stated the same on the Wiki commons page where he was also warring, so he has no excuse for this lie.)

3rd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=next&oldid=760155423

I ask him to provide evidence that a copyright exist, and he provides none, reverting again, referencing a non-existent policy, adding to his growing pile of lies.

4th revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_Russia_dossier&diff=next&oldid=760157564

Outrageously, he states that the article is not under 1rr, when he knows that it is, and would have clearly seen had he gone to the talk page, as I asked him to before reverting material that had been restored by 3 editors (myself and 2 others earlier.)

This editor deserves a block of at least a month for his shameful, outrageous, mendacious behavior. My reversions of his were within policy, as after his first revert, I was allowed to revert his illegal reverts on sight. Plus, he never went to the talk page. 63.143.203.101 (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I shall let the IP's insulting language speak for itself. The file in dispute was added to Commons with a misrepresentation of license. License was first falsely asserted as {{PD-USGov}},[25] then changed to {{CC-by-2.0}}.[26] Both are unsupported. IP user has been deleting several tags contesting the license, and vocally edit-warring about my supposed need to prove the copyvio.[27] However the burden of proof for a valid license sits squarely on the uploader's shoulders, per Commons:Licensing#License information. My warning for disruptive editing has been ignored. Consequently, I urge a WP:Boomerang block on this IP user, which appeared out of nowhere just to contest my removal of this unlicensed material, both here and on Commons. A CheckUser investigation would be welcome. — JFG ^talk 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

a checkuser for what? So sorry that my IP is not stable, your majesty. Listen: you LIED ON THE TAG, stating that the file was copyrighted. How difficult is that for you to understand? If you would like to propose a deletion discussion without poisoning the well with a LYING tag that states the file is copyrighted, then go ahead, but I will not allow you to post information that you know to be false and have no evidence for. You are the most dishonest editor I have ever come across. You lied about four separate matters of fact:

1. You lied that the file is copyrighted and clammed up when I asked for proof, doubling down with more lies 
2. You lied That the page is not under 1rr restriction (all politics pages are, as you know; 
3,  You invented a policy and then sent me to 2 nonexistent pages as "proof" on my talk page (thanks!) 
4. You lied that the file is not used on other Wiki pages (as you can plainly see on the Wiki commons page)

You have been exceedingly dishonest and deceitful here. It is not an attack to point out your mendacity and flaunting of policy. I warned you this would happen if you did not cut it out, and I informed you immediately that this has been restored by 3 editors and not to remove without going to the talk page, and you just told more lies. The manner in which you've conducted yourself is disgraceful. Please learn to be honest and not make things up until you find the lie that wins you the argument or you can get away with. It is not an attack to say someone is lying when they repeatedly say things that are demonstrably false.209.140.39.119 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Another IP sprang up to continue the edit war at Commons [28] with exactly the same language and reasoning: 24.188.103.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Please somebody investigate and cut them out. — JFG ^talk 10:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I have requested an SPI for the four IPs involved and the original file uploader, who may or may not be the sockmaster. — JFG ^talk 11:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

enjoy. I'm sure the checkusers will appreciate your request to waste their time, which lacked any relevant diffs or evidence in support of your claims. I already told you that my IP address is not stable and that the IP addresses are all me multiple times. I have no control over this. Moreover, I have no idea why you think that named account is "the sockmaster." . It seems obvious you only submitted an SPI report as a last-ditch effort to save yourself from the mighty Hammer of Thor coming down on you for your highly illegal and unethical conduct. . 63.143.193.78 (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. JFG appears to have been mistaken re: 1RR, but has kept to 3RR, showing good faith. In contrast, the IP has gone over both 1RR and 3RR, even though they're clearly aware of edit warring policies. I suspect that IP 209.140.46.252 is also a sock of 63.143.203.101, continuing to edit war on the page. Marianna251TALK 09:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"JFG appears to have been mistaken re: 1RR, but has kept to 3RR" another dishonest editor. Unequivocally, totallu, absolutely False. I listed 4 reverts in the diffs above,, so he did not even "keep to 3RR." Hard to also see what the point of this claim is, since it's a 1rr page. If my aunt had testicles, she'd be my uncle. Point is, JFG violated both 1RR and 3RR, and violated the "no lying" rule 4 times , with 4 separate utter fabrications209.140.39.119 (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

it is a 1rr page, so whether or not he kept to 3rr is not relevant. Also, how exactly did he keep to 3rr? He reverted 4 times, as shown in the 4 diffs. The first removal was a reversion, since the material had just been restored by user:Casprings, after having previously been added. He deserves a block and the above argumemt by an involved editor is disengenuous. He was the first to revert, so obviously has more reversions, as is plain to see.63.143.201.7 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:2003:77:4F6D:C853:D1E4:38BF:BDFD:F534 (Result: )

Page: several pages (see below)
User being reported: عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم is engaged in constant edit warring on the following articles:

• Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): attempt to remove material without concensus on the talk page [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], the last 2 being a violation of the 1RR for articles related to the Syrian Civil war.

• Shahba region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): attempt of blanking a whole section of properly sourced material without using talk page [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], the last 2 being a violation of the 1RR.

• Tell Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): attempt to delete Category:Kurdish communities in Syria though in the discussion on the talk page it was stated without objection that this town has a significant Kurdish minority (and this is relevant for this category) [39], [40], [41], [42], the first 2 and also the last 2 being a violation of the 1RR.

In addition misleading edit summaries: referring to talk page, while the discussion there came to a different conclusion or no consensus exists [43], [44], unjustified accusations of vandalism [45], [46].

Comments:

• Corrected user link in section title. 2003:77:4F74:5A78:9C87:EB7B:28FA:9366 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This is intersting. I am reported by an edit-warring IP for trying to restore some neutrality to articles monopolized by one or two edit-warring users with a long hitory of edit-warring and blocks (e.g., user 2A1ZA editing from Germany, same as this IP!!). The articles in questions are almost entirely based on non-rekiables sources (or no sources at all) and the OR (including most of the maps used). Please check out the Talk pages and history of those articles. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be very clear that you're participating in edit warring in Tell Abyad, as like the IP. You referred to the talk page as the reason for your reverts but the discussion there hasn't even ended yet and there is no clear result, so your edit summaries for the reverts are completely invalid. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:KebabRemover reported by User:editor abcdef (Result: Indef)

Page: Free Syrian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KebabRemover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

User is a single-purpose account whose only edits are vandalism on the page Free Syrian Army. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by Widr (talk) as a vandalism-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:HarryM54321 reported by User:BrightRoundCircle (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Ren & Stimpy Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HarryM54321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Warnings

attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:
Contributor will not discuss changes despite existing consensus and reliable sources rejecting these changes. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• HarryM54321 has been blocked for 12 hours by Ad Orientem, but I'd like to add that this seems to be vandalism as well as edit-warring. (I did report HarryM54321 at AIV) The same type of changes reported by BrightRoundCircle were persistently made by HarryM54321 at multiple articles. These consisted of an apparently random changing of years, done so as to not make it stand out too much. (add a year here, subtract one there) --AussieLegend (✉) 03:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that assessment and was thinking much the same thing when looking at the page histories. Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call and they will adjust their editing practices. Otherwise I fear this will not end well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Victorcrowley reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: )

Page: Doom (2016 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Victorcrowley (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]
5. [63]
6. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

User:90.213.130.132 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

Page: Merseyrail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.213.130.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]

Slow-running, but they clearly have no intention of stopping.

Raised at Talk:Merseyrail#Battery-electric_trains

Abusive responses there, and at Talk:Merseyrail#Edit_War_by_Kitchen_Knife

There is a tenuous reference to the possibility of using battery-electric trains on a particular railway line between North Wales and Liverpool. This is credible, as is using electro-diesel hybrids, or indeed doing nothing (as has gone on for years). The anon IP though is keen to push a version that far exceeds the source, including adding photos of rolling stock from the other end of the country in a way to suggest that this other class is going to appear on this line.

Their language skills also fail WP:CIR. Particularly their misunderstanding of preclude, to a level that made their original draft just too hard to comprehend.

Their only responses have been persistent and abusive.

Raised here because there needs to be a clear statement that this is edit-warring and unacceptable, such that it can then be reverted as simple vandalism in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Let us make this clear...I have not been abusive in any way whatsoever but have had abuse aimed at me. The talk page on Merseyrail proves that. That is abundantly clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Merseyrail#Battery-electric_trains
• I have had constant abuse from user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kitchen_Knife, who has offered nothing positive to the advancement of the article.
• I would not say it was edit war, more of an edit argument on the Talk page. There has been change to responses on the Talk page. The only edit war is by user Kitchen Knife. His last one was some clear form of spite/attitude, as it took away vital references.
• Using the word 'preclude' was appropriate, as I proved on the Talk page, but some did not like it so it was removed, so not an issue. Just find another word. No problem with me. But I received derogatory comments regarding my English from Kitchen Knife and Andy Dingley, which had no base. Andy Dingley is still going on about it, which is non-issue.
• Here is my response to user Absolutelypuremilk which sums a lot up.

1. First, the reference is from Network Rail in the Welsh RUS. Your opinion is that it is a throw away line. Opinions do not matter, yours, mine or anyones. The RUS is a serious document not speculation from a tabloid. I suggest you read back. I used the Welsh RUS as the reference.
2. Andy Dingley stated "there's nothing here indicating that batteries have been considered for Merseyrail". The RUS mentioned ""In the longer term, potential deployment of rolling stock with the ability to operate on battery power for part of their journey may provide the ability in an affordable manner to improve the service offering between the Wrexham – Bidston route and Liverpool". OK, he did mention that English was not his first language so he may have got mixed up. No problem.
3. Andy also discredited the Welsh RUS reference. He then found a magazine article on battery trains running on the Borderlands which was a good find. He thought it was a better reference. I incorporated it, so some cooperation. This mag article used the Welsh RUS as a reference, which I also used as a reference, which Andy Dingley thought was not good enough. I doubt he read matters through properly. No problem both are in. Sorted.
4. Kitchen Knife has offered nothing positive thinking I am some chap who was blocked 7 years ago. He must have a thing about this chap.
5. Kitchen Knife constantly insults me. Wiki is firm and clear on editors insulting.
6. Kitchen Knife has never backed up anything.
7. Kitchen Knife has never been positive or attempted to cooperate to improve the article.
8. Kitchen Knife has been negative all through.
9. The only edit war is from Kitchen Knife. He removed a sentence removing the references Andy Dingley and I brought to the article, which made it POV only. A form of vandalism as far as I could see. It put the references back in.
10. Kitchen knife in 'Reading the runes' above was mixed up about Warrington West station. In general chatting I him told where the station was to be. That may have affected him.
11. Now I ask this again... Kitchen Knife will not cooperate on advancing the article and continually insults me. I will NOT be bullied. Internet bullying is taken very seriously by the authorities these days. Will someone tell me how this editor can be stopped if he does not desist? Absolutelypuremilk, I assume you have this knowledge.
12. Now you, Absolutelypuremilk, appear to have joined in an unprovoked gang attack. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• The picture is of the UK battery test train to add value and the picture comments state that. It does not state that this will be the sort used, as it is only a test. I could have put in a fully operational Japanese battery train, which are taking fares right now in Japan, but I kept it UK centric.
• Andy Dingley wrote:...."There is a tenuous reference to the possibility of using battery-electric trains on a particular railway line between North Wales and Liverpool. This is credible, as is using electro-diesel hybrids, or indeed doing nothing (as has gone on for years). The anon IP though is keen to push a version that far exceeds the source," Andy does state it is credible. The reference is quite clear and not tenuous, coming from Network Rail. It is the base of the mag article Andy found, and approved by himself with my backing, and was inserted into the article. Andy writes above "a version that far exceeds the source". I did no such thing. I added that Network Rail suggested/proposed battery trains after a successful trial in the UK.
• I inserted a mere paragraph, with references about Network Rail's suggestion/proposal of battery trains on the line, which has produced a remarkable totally out of proportion negative response. I changed the article to appease some of the editors a number of times. They had a problem one word which was changed and an extra ref was suggested which I again inserted.
• Much of it is clear, it is editors backing each other up for the sake of it, because they are all Wikipedia editors in some sort of "club". That is the impression given. This is not good for Wikipedia.
• I do not want people blocked, just want them stop being abusive and dropping their negative attitude. I want cooperation with no arrogance, as that is all that is needed. That is not much to ask for. It is best the people involved use their efforts in a positive manner to cooperate and advance the article. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

QED. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Matt Smith reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warned)

Page

Taiwan under Japanese rule (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Matt Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Wrong use of policy WP:COMMONNAME. The issue is not about article title. Please get consensus first. Undid revision 760294590 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
2. 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Discuss in the talk page if you want to revert a stable revision. Undid revision 760292881 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
3. 02:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "WP:IAR. The previous "administration" is Qing. Also, revision 730434008 had became a status quo. Please gain consensus first. Undid revision 760286856 by Lemongirl942 (talk)"
4. 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC) "helped changing to {{efn}}"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• User talk:Matt Smith#January 2017
• User talk:Matt Smith#January 2017 (2)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talk:Taiwan under Japanese rule#Infobox preceding entity - Qing vs. Republic of Formosa

Comments:

Disruptive editing. Although a talkpage discussion was started by another editor, MS continues to edit war through it. User page informs us they are apparently here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on this particular topic. Further: @Admin: You will forgive me if I do not debate the matter with the party here now I have made my report; I merely suggest they perhaps misunderstand WP:EDITCONSENSUS and what is WP:NOT3RR. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 03:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My edits on 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC) was not a revert. So I would like to ask User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to correct his remarks.

User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, who started this section, did not follow instructions at WP:Consensus. After a discussion was started by another editor, he still reverted a stable revision before we reach any consensus. So I think he is not entitled to accuse me of "disruptive editing" or "edit warring". --Matt Smith (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, User:Matt Smith has a habit of Wikilawering and a persistent refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. See [here] for an example. Somehow they have a strong POV about Taiwan/ROC related articles and will c continuously change any information. Even after being asked to discuss, they will still edit on the article. This is disruptive and sucks up valuable time of other editors. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I conforms to policies as much as I can. Imo, many times these disputes are resulted from some editors' mis-interpretation of policies. For example, as pointed out by me in the link provided by User:Lemongirl942, she has her own far-fetched interpretation of policy WP:BRD. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the discussion about my "far fetched interpretation of BRD. I suggest someone read this in full to actually understand why Matt Smith is way off mark here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: User:Matt Smith is warned for edit warring about the history of Taiwan. Though he did not break 3RR on this article, he has been consistently editing since fall 2016 to direct it to his point of view. He also made 6 edits at Republic of Formosa since 12 January to impose the same POV there. As he states on his user page, "TAIWAN IS NOT REPUBLIC OF CHINA, NOR IS IT PART OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA." He does not want to accept that something called Republic of Formosa (1895) ever existed as a real state, and more recently, he insists that Taiwan remained part of Japan from 1945 to 1952. The holder of such strong opinions may not be capable of editing neutrally on this topic. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Catrin00 reported by User:Lemongirl942 (Result: )

Page

Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Catrin00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 04:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 04:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760302598 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"
4. 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760246284 by Phoenix7777 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [71]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [72]
2. [73]

Comments:

Crossed 3RR and refusing to discuss on the talk page. Has been already warned by another editor. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that the user is not aware that they have a talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:EF52:B200:A99B:9F22:D013:7EAC reported by User:Cobblet (Result: )

Page: Counties of Uganda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:6000:EF52:B200:A99B:9F22:D013:7EAC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:

Edit-warring at Counties of Uganda and Maracha District by user also using IPs 2605:6000:EF52:B200:F02D:8152:909C:8A77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 208.54.86.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 3RR breached on the former page without responding to my concerns and edit summaries make it clear user is reverting out of spite. Same user has also reverted a copyedit I made to Jessica Horn. Requesting revert and semi-protection of Counties of Uganda and Maracha District. Cobblet (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)