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:Remembernowandnow833 reported by User:Iseptuelenta (Result:Both warned)

Page: Bella Dayne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Remembernowandnow833 (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. [915305182] Removal of biographical data
2. [914682575] Removal of biographical data, with fake explanation
3. [910287370] Falsification of birth date, removal of birth name, removal of biographical data
4. [909685550] Falsification of birth date

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See warning on user talk page

Comments:
Iseptuelenta (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Iseptuelenta:, you are also edit warring; you are restoring disputed unsourced content to a WP:BLP. I've removed the BLP violations, as well as the unsourced promotional material added by Remembernowandnow833. If either of you edit the article to add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced content, it will likely lead to a block of your account. And no, IMDb is not a reliable source.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
• @Ponyo: I added relevant info about Bella Dayne, including references, to her Talk page. Iseptuelenta (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I've left some policy pointers on that page.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Iseptuelenta: You are now edit warring with me, the administrator reviewing your report, to restore the disputed content that was remove per WP:BLP. I left clear instructions on the article talk page as to how to proceed; please don't continue reverting.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Troy102 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Troy102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 01:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 00:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 22:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 22:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ""
6. 20:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

(Previous discussions)

• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)#There must be better than this
• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)#Fan reaction missing
• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/Archive 2#Viewer ratings
• Talk:Doctor Who (series 11)/Archive 1#Rotten Tomatoes

Comments:

Continued addition of user-ratings despite hidden note warning against such additions, and being reverted and warned by three separate editors. Editor has no intention to discuss after performing the exact same edits every time. Has clearly violated 3RR. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv🍁 04:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:101.179.104.172 reported by User:Lupin VII (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Soccer in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915414254 by Jevansen (talk) Please read the discussion where it says SHOULD and not MUST. My edits are not unconstructive. This discussion is intractable. Take me to ANI. This is not the forum for thi."
2. 03:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915400026 by HiLo48 (talk) consistent BRD misuse over numerous YEARS to push an AGENDA. Take it to ANI..."
3. 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915325624 by ToBeFree (talk) Wikipedia:BRD_misuse"
4. 15:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915325182 by Theinstantmatrix (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Soccer in Australia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None, no evidence of this... discussion is happening on my TALK page not on the actual page... complete misuse of BRD principles and WP:NOT. People acting like horses arses instead to push an agenda. If you want an agenda go stand on your own soap box, or start a forum. --101.179.104.172 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

You accuse everyone who disagrees with you of "BRD abuse", and claiming editors are on soapboxes. It's getting old. Lupin VII (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv🍁 04:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased to see the quick action taken here, but would just like to add something to the discussion. On the user's Talk page I politely drew their attention to the relevant part of our MOS, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia), and received the following reply - "Are you drunk or jut stupid? Please read my comments on the actual page sometimes it takes a person bold enough to break conventions to deal with thi stupidity. As I said above this is not the page for this discussion. Take me to ANI. I dare you." Apart from wondering if a 24 hour block will solve the problem, I don't think I need to make further comment. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, that was one of several examples of incivility by this IP. I trust that if this editor returns after the 24 hours are up this will not continue. If it does, feel free to ping me or report it to AIV. No one should have to be subjected to that. – bradv🍁 04:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Air7777 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Air7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915313416 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Stop re adding routes that don't even operate and removing sourced content"
2. 13:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */ Readded routes that were removed by editor who refuses to reply when questioned about their inconsistent removal of future routes"
3. 13:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Airlines and destinations */"
4. 18:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915177308 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
5. 16:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 914690460 by Charlesdrakew (talk) Still referenced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This has previously been discussed at the article talkpage. Charles (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A previous discussion where there was no decision to remove future routes and a discussion you weren't even involved in. Air7777 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv🍁 16:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:43.239.115.251 reported by User:QueerEcofeminist (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Girish Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Removed the disclosed payment warning as Girish Sharma is a YouTuber with more than thousand videos published. Girish Sharma has done more than 3 thousand events. He is an anchor with zoom tv. So fans definitely wanted to know about his personal life and early life. So I strongly believe the personal life information at Wikipedia will help the people to know more about him. As people always wanted to see the date of birth, initial career, struggle of Television celebrit..."
2. 05:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Person is Indian Television Anchor"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC) to 21:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 20:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ added college and study information"
   2. 20:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Career */ added about his Anchoring videos on YouTube"
   3. 21:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Added the right picture in right Article. As people were getting confused between Girish sharma a footballer and Girish Sharma Anchor. So to clear who is the Right person"
   4. 21:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */There are enough Articles by leading Indian newspapers such as Times of India, Deccan cronicle, Free Press Journal, Scroll, Mid-Day Featuring information about Girish Sharma. So it can not be a paid page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

repeated removal of maintenance tags QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for disruptive editing. – bradv🍁 16:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:139.5.158.152 reported by User:Emadix (Result:Blocked one week)

Page

2019 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree! Please do NOT remove references without a valid reason. Please do not abuse user privileges."
2. 10:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree! Do NOT remove references without a valid reason."
3. 10:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree! Do NOT remove references without a valid reason."
4. 10:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. Please keep your personal opinion for yourself. Wikipedia should remain factual, even if you disagree!"
5. 10:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism."
6. 10:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism."
7. 10:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. Violence of the rioters is well documented. They have attacked government buildings and the police, beat up passers-by, shut down the airport, etc. Please do not post personal views without references."
8. 09:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915447423 by OceanHok (talk)"
9. 09:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid vandalism by 157.193.240.143 (talk) Added references. Please refrain from further vandalism."
10. 09:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
11. 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
12. 09:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
13. 09:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"
14. 09:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid vandalism. The article must be fair and balanced as opposed to being a mouthpiece for one side. The changes made are well referenced and aren't even controversial at this point in time. Please respect factuality, even if you disagree!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 10:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2019 Hong Kong protests."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:‎Nicoljaus reported by User:Aleksei m (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: John of Kronstadt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Comments:

User Nicoljaus always returns his version, does not allow me to edit the article at all. He does not write neutrally. I suggested to write according to Kizenko ([5]), ([6]), but he doesn’t want. He wrote that it will be a fan club ([7]). I consider this to be an absurdity. I am sorry, if my edits were edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. – bradv🍁 16:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:173.166.36.18 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

White Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Critical Race Theory has absolutely no place in this article. PPOV is not appropriate."
2. 16:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "As per previous editor: Critical Race Theory has no place in this article other than placing subjective perspective and causing controversy. Critical race THEORY should be covered on the Critical race theory wiki.That is a CLEAR edit summary. Please do not revert without explanation."
3. 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915499859 by Dharmalion76 (talk)"
4. 16:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Agree with previous removal."
5. 16:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915416409 by Hmains (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on White Americans. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User went to talk page here EvergreenFir (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please also note these two edits ([8], [9]) which came from an IPv6 geolocating to the same area as the reported IPv4 EvergreenFir (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv🍁 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Nickjnowak reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "El cid, el campeador: I just sent it to you. Please read and do not undo my edits."
2. 16:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "I have attempted to explain the issue here previously and I have communicated with those editors who have undid my updates. There is NO association between Lamborghini and so-called "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica." The individual who purportedly owns "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica" is a serial trademark infringer and con-artist. To the extent you continue to revert my changes, you are simply perpetuating something that is not true. I'm unsure what I need to do to get other editors accept this fact."
3. 12:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915460926 by FlightTime (talk)"
4. 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915459232 by FlightTime (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC) to 11:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 11:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915332873 by A202985 (talk)"
   2. 11:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Lamborghini LatinoAmerica is not licensed by Lamborghini SpA. In fact, Lamborghini SpA has brought a lawsuit against Lamborghini LatinoAmerica in United States District Court for the District of Virginia alleging trademark infringement and counterfeiting."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Lamborghini. (Using Twinkle"
2. 12:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:FlightTime) (Using Twinkle"
3. 15:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Please stop emailing me"
4. 16:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Lamborghini. (Using Twinkle"
5. 16:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "/* New message from FlightTime */ STOP IT"
6. 16:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users. (Using Twinkle"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have repeatedly reached out to editors who have questioned my edits. In fact, I personally responded to flighttime after he (or she) emailed me directly. I have provided editors what I believe to be sufficient source material for my deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lamborghini_Brief_In_Support_of_Personal_Jurisdiction_Over_Defendant_Garcia.pdf

Why other editors who have no knowledge of the issue continue to revert my edits seems suspect to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickjnowak (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Mr.User200 reported by User:Here come the Suns (Result: No violation)

Page: Israeli–Lebanese conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr.User200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]

The page is subject to a 1RR limitation, as one that is clearLy part of the Israeli Arab conflict: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction : "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. "

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

• No violation. The restriction linked above goes on to say This remedy may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice. This page does not have that edit notice affixed. – bradv🍁 20:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's incorrect. the page IS tagged with that template. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, yes, I just applied the edit notice and talk page notice. – bradv🍁 21:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

No , you just tagged the talk page, but the article page itself carries a notice of the restriction, which is displayed when you try to edit that page. Here come the Suns (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I applied that edit notice 20 minutes ago. It did not exist at the time of the linked diffs above, and it did not exist at the time of this report. – bradv🍁 21:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:1kmtkmt reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 48 hours; sock indeffed)

Page

DNA history of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1kmtkmt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915502463 by Khruner (talk)"
2. 16:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "removed arabocentric claim"
3. 17:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "removed arabocentric claim"
4. 16:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "removed arabocentric claim"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on DNA history of Egypt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not technically 3rr but all of their edits have been the same changes. Also edited as [15]. @Khruner: may have more to say. No response to warnings on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 20:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've blocked 1kmtkmt for 48 hours for garden-variety edit warring. They need to form an argument on the talk page as opposed to popping in every day to blank the content.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, Lady, this is a sock and 48h just won't cut it. Happy Friday! --Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Our Good Cop, Bad Cop routine is en pointe.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

PayMe31 reported by theinstantmatrix (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: MTV Video Music Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PayMe31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17] - Took out biased, unneeded information that does not tell the whole story.
2. [18] - Deleted stan culture rhetoric. Biased useless, opinionated garbage.
3. [19] - Removed biased opinionated stan culture rhetoric.
4. [20] - Removed biased stan culture rhetoric.
5. [21] - Removed stan culture rhetoric.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] - Warned by ToBeFree

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor in question has not responded to any complaints nor they started a discussion on the talk page other than edit summaries. Evidently a SPA.

Comments:

Above. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Hopefully they find something more constructive to do when this expires. – bradv🍁 23:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1702:2741:7C20:D16E:C92B:AF1F:FDAE reported by User:BigDwiki (Result: No violation)

Page

University of South Alabama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1702:2741:7C20:D16E:C92B:AF1F:FDAE (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 22:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC) to 22:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
   1. 22:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915549718 by BigDwiki (talk) Wikipedia is not a forum for listing arrests on academic campuses. This is not a list of all students that have been arrested on campus, nor should it be."
   2. 22:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Removed due to the fact that this is not a forum for listing random arrests of 2 students on an academic campus."
2. 22:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 915549025 by BigDwiki (talk) Wikipedia is not a forum for listing arrests on academic campuses."
3. 22:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Removed uncited information that was based on an opinion-editorial article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on University of South Alabama."
2. 23:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on University of South Alabama."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

It looks like the IP has been at it[23] for a while when it comes to their disruptive editing. Lupin VII (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG; I don't think the IP is being disruptive in this case. User:BigDwiki is editing against two editors (myself and the IP). The sections BigDwiki insists on reinstating violate several policies, including WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYNTH (e.g.; " [24] "The university was widely criticized for the arrests and subsequent publicity" - No sources to support "widely criticized," just one opinion column. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

• No violation. User:BigDwiki is further cautioned not to exceed 3RR. – bradv🍁 23:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ekspertiza reported by User:HawkAussie (Result: Sock indeffed)

Page: Germany national football team statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Germany national football team results (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ekspertiza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts: Germany national football team statistics

1. [25] - The inital edit that kicked started this edit war.
2. [26] - please write talk page and discuss
3. [27] - unnessesary reducings..
4. [28] - discuss at talk page first....it could be your opinions....please stop it....

Germany national football team results

1. [29] - The inital edit for this one too.
2. [30] - merging doen not need, because all of merged parts are not as same form
3. [31] - you can add other page links to this page but dont seperate table...
4. [32] - i showed reason of seperated form's disadvantage....

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] - For the Germany national football team results page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: It was mainly discussed on the WP:Football page which is linked here

Comments:
Ekspertiza has reverted around ten edits from fellow Wikipedians as I feel like he wants to be a person to own these two articles that he created despite the consensus of the WP:FOOTY group. HawkAussie (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked Ekspertiza as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Frank Bright reported by User:Bill497 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Gülen movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frank Bright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

This will be a special case, I actually want to report two users if I can, who I strongly believe are the same person. The reason for the report of the accounts is, edit warring, removing sourced material and adding POV. To the article Gulen Movement. I initially reported them as an sock poppet[39], but since the one of the accounts started to edit war I felt the urge to contact the administrators on this board. Thanks.

The two users are: User:Frank Bright and User:Gardendr who had been inactive since 2017, and started making the same changes on the same article on the same day... Bill497 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected. Please work out your differences on the talk page. – bradv🍁 02:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Richhoncho reported by User:Koavf (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:Spin the Bottle (Juliana Hatfield song) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richhoncho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)&oldid=915725601 (a version of this talk page with a redirect manually listed as N/A-class, other edits change it to a redirect)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpin_the_Bottle_%28Juliana_Hatfield_song%29&type=revision&diff=915674515&oldid=378109947
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASpin_the_Bottle_%28Juliana_Hatfield_song%29&type=revision&diff=915681964&oldid=915681398
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)&diff=next&oldid=915684379
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)&diff=next&oldid=915723535

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARichhoncho&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=915727566&oldid=913527954

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koavf&oldid=915725832#Talk:Spin_the_Bottle_(Juliana_Hatfield_song)

Comments:
Looks like the user asked me to post here in his last revert. As per WP:3RR: "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. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." and he undid my work four times and then explicitly called out WP:3RR in the fourth edit. Kind of a head-scratcher as he's also posting to my talk at the same time about this but it's clearly him undoing edits I made on this page four times in 24 hours and then evidently asking me to post here. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

This is dumb. How about just redirecting the talk page like we do for all other redirects? In any case, No violation – bradv🍁 02:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, Many talk pages are not redirected. See Category:Redirect-Class articles and the tens of thousands of articles there. Seems like it's four instances of undoing my work in 24 hours--what am I missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As Bradv, says this argument is just dumb. Koafv showed that he was not interested in anything but making a point, rather than serving any useful purpose at WP with this edit. He wanted to add a redundant tag, but didn't 'approve' of my assessment of that tag.

For the record, I am editing these redirects in the same way for a number of years and and have only had one person who so adamently beleives I am wrong, Koafv. Go figure! Maybe I should have raised the complaint. It was certainly my right to do so. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Dharmabumstead reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)

Page: Super Audio CD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dharmabumstead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Sep 11 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
2. Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
3. Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
4. Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
5. Sep 13 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
6. Sep 13 Added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
7. Sep 13 Re-added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
8. Sep 13 Re-added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
9. Sep 14 Re-added the word "controversial" to diminish the impact of the 2007 AES test.
10. Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
11. Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
12. Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.
13. Sep 14 Remove 2007 AES test from lead section.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First the IP 66.235.26.174 and then the Dharmabumstead user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
The problem started with Special:Contributions/66.235.26.174 edit warring against myself and Ianmacm to remove a very relevant and prominent study from the lead section. IP 66.235.26.174 soon found his old username Dharmabumstead and resumed edit warring under that account. A talk page discussion raised worthy points but the consensus remained in place. Dharmabumstead kept edit warring, racking up five reverts in one day despite many warnings. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Binksternet racked up nearly as many reverts in the same period of time. His reason for specifically including a reference to that study in the lead of the article seems to be based entirely on his own opinion. After I supplied sources indicating that the study in question was indeed flawed and non-conclusive in the talk page, per his demands, he went ahead and reverted my changes (without comment, initially) without any further discussion or consensus as soon as the page became unlocked. I've asked for dispute resolution on this.Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected – bradv🍁 02:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Dharmabumstead (Result: Page protected)

Page: Super Audio CD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13 September Rv per WP:NPOV
2. 13 September (no comment added)
3. 13 September (no comment added)
4. 13 September (no comment added)
5. 14 September (no comment added)
6. 14 September (no comment added)
7. 14 September Rv... no consensus for this POV change

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
The lead of the Super Audio CD page has a reference to a study (discussed at length elsewhere in the article) that I believe should not be in the lead, for reasons discussed extensively in both my edit comments and in the talk page. I tried simply removing the reference from the lead, but one editor in particular seems quite intent on leaving the reference in because he insists it's "CRITICALLY IMPORTANT" to the history of SACD and is engaging in edit warring to get his way. There's a healthy discussion going on on the talk page, but he's not added anything to it and simply reverted my changes again today without comment as soon as the page was unlocked. I've requested WP:DRN on this.

Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected – bradv🍁 02:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Koncorde reported by User:Maxim.il89 (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Sunderland A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koncorde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]
5. [50]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - Talk Page 1 [51] Talk Page 2 [52] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Comments:
{{subst:void|OPTIONAL: I apologise for reverting many times as well, I didn't know about the 3RR - in the beginning, I wanted to add notable supporters, but the discussion at WikiProject Football said you can only add those names if they somehow played a role for the club. Fair enough, I've added the names of those involved with the charity operated by Sunderland. Now, [[User:Koncorde] has been reverting me and ignoring the talk page. He obviously thinks famous supporters should not be mentioned at all, which is not what the consensus says. Also, he tried frightening me with the 3RR, but he's reverted more than me! Maxim.il89 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)}}

You were advised by me using the standard 3RR template last night. For the record, so was Koncorde, but from what I can see you are the protagonist. You need to stick by the rules. So until a talk page agreement is reached please stop adding the same disputed content. FWIW, Wikiprojects are not the arbiter of acceptable article content. No matter how much they attempt to enforce their narrowly established policy objectives, it cannot trump the established content policies. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have explained multiple times why the content is not appropriate, and have assisted the user in correctly formatting the information into new sections and correcting grammatical errors and / or improving its encyclopedic quality both on Sunderland AFC and associated articles to try and demonstrate what should or could be included. The user is only concerned with circumventing the outcome of an RfC that was started explicitly because he was adding such sections.

Per the RfC that was held over on the Football talk page it was made abundantly clear that the inclusion of named individuals on an article should only be done when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list. Maxim has ignored this consensus and continues to push pointy edits. Per Leaky Cauldron, the RfC is not the 'arbiter' but it is there to establish a consensus on what is appropriate, necessary. Our decision making is founded in the principles of WP:TRIVIA and other established basics of Wikipedia editing and always has been. Koncorde (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional comment, I didn't add the 3RR. Leaky did, although I was about to also. My edits were collaborative in making adjustments to the changed content on occasions. It is not about "frightening" anyone, if I was going to do that I would have come here first or gone to the Admin Noticeboard for sockpuppet investigation. Koncorde (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the edits in question, I believe it will be clear to any reviewing that I have left clear edit summaries, and that the edits were to distinct areas about distinct information until the last revert, and that also the attempts to resolve the "dispute" existed only subsequent to Leaky applying the warning. Koncorde (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Maxim.il89 is warned they may blocked if they revert again unless they first get consensus on a talk page. The RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RFC: Celebrity fans shows that 16 of those voting are in favor of "Only significant supporters in prose". This is against including the kind of fan information that Maimil89 has been reverting to include. The text that the 16 people favor is "Supporters should only be mentioned in the article on the club when their support has had a material impact on the fortunes of that club, in which case their name should appear in a prose section discussing their impact on the club rather than as part of a list." EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)