Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:00, 27 January 2018

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:74.12.122.27 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result:Blocked 48 hours )

Page: Tokusatsu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.12.122.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked: 74.12.122.27 blocked for 48 hours by Alexf. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steeletrap reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steeletrap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC) "we're not using their propaganda term. "Pro-life" is quite descriptive (and itself somewhat propagandistic)"
16:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC) "practicing is also used on the website, let's use a term people actually understand"
14:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822118208 by Briancua (talk) no one knows what "practical Catholic" means unless it's defined as follows"
07:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Opposition to LGBT rights */"
07:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Building a Culture of life */ pro-life is more specific. If we're going to use a propaganda word at least use one that people understand"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Editor warned here [1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor makes a show of "discussing" an issue but uses edit warring to enforce their POV.

– Lionel^(talk) 08:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Coffee NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akocsg reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [2] (note that this also contained a revert on text long discussed on the talk page in RfC).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] [8]. Notification - [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] (and other users discussing under section "Removal of relevant sourced content").

Comments:

Original edit also contained a revert of text agreed in RfC. This was challenged by multiple other editors. Editor proceeded to hit the undo button 4 times in less than 24 hours. Warned once by @EtienneDolet:. I warned and requested a self-revert prior to filing this report - and filed after editor did not self-revert.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user above simply deleted all relevant sourced content based on one sole point. Just like another user which appeared coincidentally at the very same time! In the talk page the case with user "Etienne Dolet" has been cleared, it was a misunderstanding on his part. Please see here. I also informed the user how I reverted that single piece of information on his talk page and on mine. And I did self-revert the part concerning the percentage, which was the sole point of protest. All the rest was added sourced content independent from that topic. No answer and will to cooperate was shown by "Icewhiz" while I did on all talk pages, but he simply reported me here so that all the content can be indiscriminately deleted. I have participated at the talk page and discussed and made concessions to the users involved, how can this be a reason for punishment? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriately notifying @Khirurg:, @Dr.K.:. Note that the percentage part had not been "self-reverted" - it was 20% originally in the lede, modified to 10%-20%, and then following my revert - placed by Akocsg at 15%-20% - with sourcing that is far from great, and without a corresponding change in the body (in the Demographics section) - which has a different range (18-25%). I would not say that there is an agreement on the talk-page for the modifications, to a GA class article's lede (and lede only!), as a whole - though Akocsg has agreed to some points raised by other editors.Icewhiz (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So how is it my fault that the figure in the lead and the figure in the body are contradicting? All other contents which were added are neutral facts and figures backed by sources (economical and touristic figures). Akocsg (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Repeated infractions. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deli nk reported by User:Jamesharrison2014 (Result: Both editors hereby warned)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allen_Estrin&diff=822306779&oldid=822287345

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deli_nk&diff=822309121&oldid=822304998 Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allen_Estrin&diff=822308939&oldid=822308910

Comments:
I have not exceeded three reverts of the same information. Jamesharrison2014 has made the same edit three times as well. Either block both of us or neither. Deli nk (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference here is that I attempted to work this out on the talk page by starting a discussion. I infomred Deli nk (talk) of the policy and she has reverted four times see links above. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those edits are NOT the same. Deli nk (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Both Jamesharrison2014 and Deli nk are edit warring here. Technically, no 3RR violation yet, but since both are now involved in discussion on the talk page, no blocks for now. Both editors are hereby given a final warning. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:AussieLegend reported by User:Thagana_peters (Result: Declined)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:
The user AussieLegend has also been using abusive language in edit summaries such as "removing nonsense" which I don't think is morally right or even accepted by wikipedia.

Declined Absolutely no reason for this report. Thagana_peters, you need to read WP:OWN please. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH ARCHAEOLOGIST reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Kachwaha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH ARCHAEOLOGIST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) to 19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC) to 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
2. 19:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Classification */"
19:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Classification */"
Consecutive edits made from 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC) to 19:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 19:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
2. 19:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kachwaha. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Caste-warring. Not sure if this is a competency issue or just refusal to heed warnings. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.128.128.51 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: IP blocked for 6 months (not just edit warring))

Page: Ben Bocquelet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.128.128.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are fired!."
22:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are not the boss of me. William Watterson and Randy Watterson and I am the boss of you."
22:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are not the boss of me. William Watterson and Randy Watterson and I am the boss of you."
22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "I SAID ENOUGH!!!"
22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "ENOUGH!!!"
22:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "HickoryOughtShirt?4, you are fired!."
22:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "FilmandTVFan28, you are fired."
22:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "The Wattersons on FOX! Nov 9, 1989! it's the real and new (1989-present) (The Wattersons) on Fox-- Just leave it, or I am going to count on 1, 2, 3, on you!"
22:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "the Wattersons on FOX! Nov 9, 1989! it's the real and new (1989-present) (The Wattersons) on Fox"
21:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "What if it is the real series: The Wattersons on FOX!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

22:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on The Amazing World of Gumball. (TW)"
22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Roger Greig Smith. (TW)"
22:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */"
22:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps adding false information about The Watterson Family origin. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Before I saw this report, I saw the report at AIV. I've blocked the IP for 6 months, not because they're edit warring, but because they've been adding fake info to articles for a year now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ingspite reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Mexican-American War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ingspite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Rv vandalism"
23:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
23:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822186081 by Favonian (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Okinawa. (TW)"
00:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Battle of Okinawa. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Started by reverting Favonian on two articles; I reported Ingspite as a likely sock. Now they're edit-warring their nonsense. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Psmith85 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User warned me on article talk page, then I warned them on that same page.]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Crispus_Attucks#Removing_unsourced_claims_about_heritage (discussion ongoing, I suppose)

Comments:
User has recently swept in to make wholesale changes to an article that while problematic in many ways was stable. Specifically their grand removal of any mention of Attucks' blackness (whether that was historically provable or not) rubs me the wrong way. I restored the paragraph that discusses this (with a footnote with a half a dozen academic sources) from an earlier version, and Psmith starts reverting. In subsequent reverts they seem to have understood my point, and have kept more and more of the material I restored from before, but not enough. White admin beware: I have more than once had to defend Wikipedia and its white culture from accusations that we are in fact whitewashing, and the focus was frequently on precisely this article--lo and behold, Psmith comes along and makes what was already difficult even worse. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see editor played a similar game at Olaudah Equiano, where they "warned" Stanleytux. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No one swept in. Administrators can review the talk page for reasons behind the changes. Attucks's partial African descent has been included in the introduction. Previously there was no mention of his descent in the intro, which editor took to constitute whitewashing. Multiple categories below the article that included him as an African-American were never removed. There were no changes to make Attucks appear white or non-black. No sources were removed, they were transferred to the second section which addresses the large amount of controversy regarding his ethnicity, which appears to be mixed Native American and African.Psmith85 (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Previously there was no mention...": this was Psmith's version before I saw it. This is the version just before Psmith made their five thousand changes (please use preview!)--you can see that the paragraph with "African descent" is the third in the lead; that is the one I restored. So Psmith is obviously incorrect, and at worst lying. They removed the African descent from the lead. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Psmith reverted me four times in the Attucks article, and now reverted also at the Equiano article. In other words, this editor likes to edit war, and likes to threaten with charges of edit warring on others. I wonder what this editor's problem is with black history--one of their first edits was to throw shade on House of Slaves by way of a Daily Mail article. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:217.61.20.119 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

That's 4 reverts from the same IP address. But, based on talk page comments, it's pretty obvious that the above IP (which is a proxy) is same person as this account, which made additional reverts to edit war

5. [20] 6. [21] 7. [22]

and probably this guy as well

8. [23]

(all three of these anon accounts are saying the same thing, with the same tone and grammar in edit summaries and on talk - two are confirmed proxy servers). So in addition to the appropriate blocks, semi-protection on the article is needed (an SPI wouldn't hurt either).

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

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

Comments:

Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Realphi reported by User:Rhinopias (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC) no summary
00:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Added the rationale in the talk page as per the request. Added the same adjective on Christianity and Islam page without any issues. It is opposite of Ethnic Religion which is limited to a particular ethnicity"
18:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Source doesn't work if you have adblocker on. It works otherwise. Undid revision 822315697 by Anmolbhat (talk)"
16:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC) no summary
04:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC) no summary
00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC) no summary

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Was warned here about 12 hours ago.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User was directed to the talk page via edit summaries but simply posted their rationale (which isn't verifiable nor uses reliable sources) while reinstating their edit again. This is not likely going to be resolved by pinging the user on talk pages.

Comments:

User is on a mission (see their contribs) to insert this phrase in the articles of major religions, and also create an article for it at Universalizing religion, which is currently at AfD. Rhinopias (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DHeyward reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
Probably pertinent to note that DHeyward is continuing an edit war started by a now blocked user (James J. Lambden) and the sockpuppets he was using. He also unstruck and duplicated comments by this blocked editor's sockpuppets after they had been blocked. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am involved in this content dispute. It involves multiple editors warring over the inclusion of a factoid in the lead section of Blue Lives Matter article. Significant objections to the content have been raised on the Talk page, not least that the referenced source does not mention the article subject at all. No substantive responses to those objections have been raised. Editors warring to include do so against WP:BRD, WP:BURDEN, and, more importantly, against WP:OR and WP:NPOV - core policies. Editors doing so make a WP:GAME of the 3RR bright line - rejecting reasoned discussion for weight of numbers. They should not be rewarded for such. I have raised an RfC,[28] and, while there are only a few responses as yet; early consensus is firmly against inclusion. I note also that there is a pattern of the filing editor, PeterTheFourth, appearing at articles to continue edit wars; reverting DHeyward.[29][30][31][32]; this should be addressed. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Freddy Milton Larsen reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked indef)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

10:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822434862 by My name is not dave (talk)"
09:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "latest version 8:31 was fault"
08:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC) ""
21:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
15:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
15:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 13:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC) to 14:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See User talk:Freddy Milton Larsen as a whole

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Freddy_Milton#COI_Editor_adding_essentially_a_linkedin_in_Profile

Comments:

Attempting to add information to his own Wikipedia article that is unsourced and not encyclopedic. Given enough warnings, but I must admit the editor seems extremely confused about what is going on. !dave 10:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Username soft blocked. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NaturaNaturans reported by User:Loryry (Result: Page protected)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] [34]

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

Comments:
Serially disruptive editor. Loryry (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Trxch reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822475694 by Wario-Man (talk) I am *NOT* ignoring any messages; but it's clear that you are. Please take an actual look at the edited content; stop undoing them/making claims"
15:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822471265 by LouisAragon (talk)"
13:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822453434 by LouisAragon (talk) Please take a closer look at the edits and do not just automatically undo them. Thank you."
13:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822377983 by LouisAragon (talk)"
20:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ""
20:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822339163 by CASSIOPEIA (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is so far edit warring with 4 different editors, They're currently at AN for various reasons however for the time being as they're not going to stop edit warring I feel a block now would obviously be preventive. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note 2 different editors gave them edit warring warnings which so far have all but gone ignored. –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They've also been warring over at Tabriz, Ardabil, Zanjan, Iran and Urmia. –Davey2010^Talk 16:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this has gone out of hand now.

1) I did NOT ignore any messages, warnings, etc.

2) I am not at "war" with 4 editors, but rather with 2, them being LouisAragon and Wario-Man

3) This is a free encyclopedia. Anyone, in principle, should be free to edit, add, post information. That being said, there are many people using this to their advantage by posting information derived from biased sources against a certain entity for reasons best known to them. It creates a distorted image of the topic of a given article (in this case, a country) when reading about it and finding information based on sources (whatever they may be (!)) that have written their work in a biased/inaccurate and rather emotional fashion.

This should be clear to anyone who ACTUALLY knows a thing or two about the topics of these articles and whatnot. I would not be editing articles if I would not have any proper knowledge of the topics and issues they covered.

I seriously hope this message of mine does not get overlooked and that I do not get into trouble for nothing.

Thank you. - User:Trxch, 26.08.2018

A very, very clear-cut case of edit warring. Trxch, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right (it does not seem you are, but that's really beside the point). The block is short; on the one hand, they thoroughly deserve a block since they are continuing to revert; on the other hand, there is an AN thread which may lead to a longer block. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc. –Davey2010^Talk 16:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mkhp1990 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: 2017–18 Persian Gulf Pro League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

2017–18 La Liga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mkhp1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822453381 by Kante4 (talk)"
12:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822347986 by Kante4 (talk)"
07:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822551568 by BangJan1999 (talk)"
14:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822453541 by Kante4 (talk)"
12:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 821832148 by Asturkian (talk)"
11:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822602209 by BangJan1999 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

01:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
10:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2017–18 La Liga. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constantly adding useless data despite consensus at WT:FOOTY BangJan1999 01:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also WP:RPP#2017–18 La Liga Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radisani Drzava reported by User:Resnjari (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39] "I won't stop untill you delete this page"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41] - i left comments on the editors talkpage regarding the matter

Comments:

I really didn't want to do this, as Radisani Drzava is a new editor to wikipedia. Dispute revolves around census data on the page about Radišani. Radisani Drzava, who hails from the town keeps tampering with the Macedonian census data which is fully cited and from 2002 while adding numbers based on their own observations of the current era (without citations) in the section containing the 2002 demographic data. I have tried to reason with him to no avail about desisting and the situation keeps persisting.Resnjari (talk)

User:Thefinalchapter reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: )

Page: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thefinalchapter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Two more from January 21 Twinkle didn't grab:

[42]
[43]

Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
2. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
3. 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Twinkle isn't helping much. Give me a minute to fill this out. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See previous AN3 report here

I have major CIR concern with this user. Please review the discuss on the article talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well u never answered my quest so how was I supposed to know

User:Bluebird207 reported by User:Zcarstvnz (Result: )

User being reported: Bluebird207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[44]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] All 44 reverts this user made on the same day are consolidated in the link above because he apparently bypassed all of my changes and reverted the entire page to an earlier version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[45]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have not reverted any of his work. I am afraid of this user as he appears to stalk me. I do not believe that I can have a meaningful discussion while I am afraid of his behavior towards me. Everything I do on the pages he watches, apparently does not meet his expectations.

Comments:

I have previously warned this editor about reverting three or more edits on the same day. They have hidden this from their Talk page, so I cannot see the warning and provide the exact date.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking you?! Good heavens...

If I was stalking you, I'd be looking at every single one of your edits - not just the ones to articles on my watchlist, which includes most of the articles on license plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories. These articles I added to my watchlist long before you started editing them, too.

I do appreciate that your ideas for how these license plate articles should look are not the same as mine. If I didn't, then I probably would be looking to start edit wars with you, and harassing you and deliberately making you feel uncomfortable. And I know very well that if I did that, I'd be blocked, and rightly so.

I'm more than willing to admit that undoing, in one go, all those edits you made to the New Hampshire article was not the smartest move. You obviously and understandably did not take this well, because you didn't edit any of these articles for a month and a half afterwards - not even adding images. And clearly, even after being away for so long, you're still not happy - hence your outburst on my talk page, and this report.

I will state once again that I am not, and never have been, out to intentionally cause trouble and make life difficult for other users whose ideas are different to mine. Any time I have made other users unhappy - you included - it has been the result of me not thinking clearly, not the result of malicious intent. And I do learn from these incidents - if I didn't, then far more users would be annoyed with me (and, again, I'd probably receive a block or two, and for good reason).

If you disagree, then that is your view and there isn't really anything else I can do to try to get you to change this view. In any case, I can see that it won't be a short time before enough proverbial water passes underneath the proverbial bridge. So I have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and I am going to remove each and every one of these license plate articles from my watchlist, and only edit them when the most recent serial requires updating. Nothing else will be touched, including any of your edits.

In fact, I'm going to make it a promise. I promise only to edit these articles to update the most recent serial issued, and not to play around with any edits you make. In other words, I promise to leave you be - and if by chance I break this promise, feel perfectly free to call me out on it.

Just before I go, I think you may have slightly misunderstood the three-revert rule. As I understand it, undoing a whole sequence of edits by one user - with no intervening edits by another user - counts as one single revert, rather than one revert for each edit in the sequence. So when I undid all those edits you made to the New Hampshire article, that was one revert, rather than forty-plus reverts. Still no excuse on my part, mind.

Bluebird207 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ma'az reported by User:Saqib (Result: )

Page: Muhammad Arif Butt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ma'az (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Significant RS mentioned."
17:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "7-8 RS mentioned Significant RS mentioned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Muhammad Arif Butt. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user repeatedly trying to remove necessary maintenance tags from a BLP. When I tried to explain him that the article contains OR and tags should remain, he replies saying that "Not each and everything can be referenced on Wikipedia." It is evident that he's trying to engage in edit warring. Saqib (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also please tell what those tags were? Were those tags appropriate??? M A A Z T A L K 17:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're adding OR to a BLP. Even DoB is not cited. Tags must remain there unless either you remove the OR or cite each and everyhing via RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to remove the contents you find problematic. If you think dates are so controversial, I'm removing them. Lets settle it here. M A A Z T A L K 17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should help each other on articles rather than engaging in edit wars. M A A Z T A L K 17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ma'az: There are many other things in the page that is poorly sourced or unsourced. Merely removing the dates is not going to work. And by the way, It is you who is trying to engage in edit war, not me. --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are editing it yourself now, then at least remove the tags yourself. M A A Z T A L K 17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources can be mentioned to support content of article. Please don't remove them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Arif_Butt&diff=822645989&oldid=822645930 M A A Z T A L K 17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And edit warning is given after 3 times (3-vert rule). M A A Z T A L K 17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited the page now, and still not removing tags. M A A Z T A L K 17:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some OR but the page still contains some. I'll resume working on it tomorrow and remove the tags when I am satisfied that there is no more original research. By the way, where in the world "pakistannewsreleases com" is a RS? I repeat you need to re-read WP policies. --Saqib (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You removed my similar tag in an article that had just 2 RS. And placing the same tag and giving me edit warnings on an article that has 7-8 RS or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardar_Zahoor_Ahmad&diff=822644113&oldid=822644015 . Why this inconsistent criteria??? M A A Z T A L K 18:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tag your placed on Sardar Zahoor Ahmad is not warranted. Each and everything is inline citiated via RS. You are unnecessary cluttering the Sardar Zahoor Ahmad page in retaliation. I am going to remove the tag which you have added for the second time in a row. I can see @Störm: has warned you as well not to clutter the pages with unnecessary tags. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucullus19 and User:PiCo reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: )

Page: Authorship of the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucullus19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of Lucullus19's reverts: On Authorship of the Bible

On Gospel of Mark

On Gospel of Luke

Diffs of PiCo's reverts: On Authorship of the Bible

On Gospel of Mark

On Gospel of Luke

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

Comments:
For the past month, and especially the past week, Lucullus19 and PiCo have been reverting each other over and over across several different articles. In all my years at Wikipedia, I don't think I've seen an edit war as out of place as this one. While I'd tend to agree with PiCo on the actual content, and also agree that Lucullus19 is more to blame for blatant disrespect of WP:BRD, it's also obvious that with close to 50 reverts back and forth between the two users, both of guilty of some of the wildest edit warring I've seen. Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not being myself familiar with the situation here, based on the comment above I think page protection of some kind for some length of time might be better than blocking both parties, but if one is refusing to take part in discussion and just edit warring, some block there might be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 651: / Line 651: @@
 <u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
 For the past month, and especially the past week, Lucullus19 and PiCo have been reverting each other over and over across several different articles. In all my years at Wikipedia, I don't think I've seen an edit war as out of place as this one. While I'd tend to agree with PiCo on the actual content, and also agree that Lucullus19 is more to blame for blatant disrespect of [[WP:BRD]], it's also obvious that with close to 50 reverts back and forth between the two users, both of guilty of some of the wildest edit warring I've seen. [[User:Jeppiz|Jeppiz]] ([[User talk:Jeppiz|talk]]) 18:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
+:Not being myself familiar with the situation here, based on the comment above I think page protection of some kind for some length of time might be better than blocking both parties, but if one is refusing to take part in discussion and just edit warring, some block there might be reasonable. [[User:John Carter|John Carter]] ([[User talk:John Carter|talk]]) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards