Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


Feed-icon.svg 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.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:EzekielT reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: initial edits 02:46, 26 October 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff revert 03:03, 26 October 2018
  2. diff revert and then some 16:49, 26 October 2018
  3. diff revert and then some 20:39, 14 November 2018
  4. diff again 20:59, 14 November 2018
  5. diff again 00:02, 15 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (also notice of DS on altmed here and on PSCI here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Herbalism#Opening_Statement

Comments:
Long-term editing warring on a topic with two kinds of DS. Please block. Will escalate to AE after block if this continues. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will stop editing the herbalism page. I reverted my edit. I fixed an error, something that was not construed by the sources themselves, and clearly explained why, but you can't seem to understand. I tried to explain things to you, but you reported me before really fully understanding me and my points. I don't want fighting, I don't want reporting, and I don't want misunderstandings. And I would rather leave Wikipedia than get an undeserved block. So because of this, I am now considering retirement from Wikipedia... -- EzekielT Talk 00:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You did revert #5, which still leaves the four. You are being far too bold on a page where two kinds of discretionary sanctions apply. We have DS for very good reason and you are not being mindful. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I have no interest anymore in editing the herbalism page now. I would rather retire than get blocked. I hope I made that clear... -- EzekielT Talk 00:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Can we have an agreement: I'll stop editing the page, and you'll seize your efforts to block me? I have ceased my efforts. I'm not interested anymore. I never expected you to report me; we were just starting a discussion and it seemed all of a sudden. You hadn't said you wanted me to completely stop editing the page, so I thought doing a slight correction was okay. And I don't want any arguments with you or anyone else. -- EzekielT Talk 01:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: I am now going to take an indefinite Wikibreak, and I'm also considering retiring. Drastic, I know, but fighting with other users is just not my thing, and it's never worth it. Not that I'm ever interested in doing such a thing. I will still reply if you or the others give responses though. Also, the fifth one was not a revert: I did not undo anything, it was just a normal non-revert edit. I only made 2 reverts in a 24 hour period, not 4 as required to be blocked under the 3RR rule. As such, I did not even nearly violate the 3RR rule, so it's completely impossible for me to receive a block. So this report is invalid. Plus, I self-reverted. I am not in any way applicable to get blocked. -- EzekielT Talk 01:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you have self-reverted there is very unlikely to be a block. I don't know if you actually read the edit war notice that i left you but there is a link to WP:BRD in it. Being bold is great but if you are reverted, actually discuss it before making it again. BRD. Where there are DS -- as there are here -- you should to make really sure it is OK before making it again. That's all. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice :). -- EzekielT Talk 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can this be closed with no admin action? The editor reverted their last change to Herbalism, and has stated they will not continue editing that page. They have already been alerted to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBACU. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzekielT (talkcontribs)
  • Result: No action, per my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MrGeneric299 reported by User:Caltraser55 (Result: No action)[edit]

Second attempt to write this nothing seems to be getting through to him, need admin help--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to link the edits, but he has made at least 6 reverts to the Brisbane page in the past 2 days under the IP User talk:175.36.136.184 which I attempted to talk to, and again on User:MrGeneric299 page, both accounts were ignored and reverting continued.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, look unfortunately that wasn't me. You also attempted to talk to me once, where I responded and yet you report me. You'll also note I added a discussion on the Talk:Brisbane page as well as putting in notes the reason for the update of my montage, then you've reverted back to yours with no reason given on notes. I understand things happen at different times on Wikipedia, but I've responded to you. Not sure why you're reporting me as I have not made 4 reversions. MrGeneric299 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You have made 3 reverts within 24hours, and the other IPs were you since you kept trying to put up the same montage over and over, it's an ugly bad quality montage, you need to stop--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I made 2 reverts, and one upload of a new montage, this is not 3 reverts. The other "IPs" are not me, I'm always signed in to Wikipedia on my computer. The montage I am putting up is not an 'ugly, bad quality image.' You either have a very bad screen, or you don't understand how photography works. You really need to start making some meaningful contributions and stop editing and then arguing with other members on Wikipedia as several people have already pointed out on the Talk:Brisbane page and on your talk page. In fact, you've reverted my good-faith contributions to the page by undoing the montage I uploaded, which should in itself be a punishable offence WP:REVERT which asks the question, Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reversion? More importantly it states that you 'succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea' in the edit summary or on the talk page, which you have done neither of. Simply calling it an 'ugly, bad quality' image (which it obviously isn't) in my talk page doesn't suffice. I've already put up a discussion on I've already put up a discussion on Talk:Brisbane where we & others can discuss the montage at length and work together to create one that shows Brisbane in all its glory. You can talk with everyone there regarding the 'ugliness' and 'bad quality' of my montage, or improve your own and upload it so we can make it better! MrGeneric299 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

If no admin here is going to sort this out I will start reverting Mrgenerics bad montage, he criticizes me for having a CBD skyline that doesn't have 1 William st visible in it when you can't see 1 william st from that angle anyway, Mrgeneric your own montage has a picture of 1 William st still under construction while mine is finished.--Caltraser55 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Give the admin some time. Rome wasn't built in a day. Read what I've said and contribute on the Talk:Brisbane page, don't go making reverts. MrGeneric299 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Caltraser55 and MrGeneric299: Probably the lack of administrator response is that this is not an administrator problem. This is not the place to argue about who has the best montage in Brisbane. Stop the edit warring on Brisbane. Take the discussion to Talk:Brisbane to resolve. Kerry (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted collage to version before changes by Caltraser55 and MrGeneric299. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No action for now. User:MrGeneric299 has not edited the article since 15 November, and the IP last edited on the 14th. If the reverting continues the article may be fully protected, to require people to wait for the outcome of discussion. See instructions at top of this page for how to submit a complaint here. You should include diffs of the edit war (I tried to fix this one up). EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1003:b863:b359:915b:d6ec:b0af:20ff reported by User:Ponyo (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: EverQuote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1003:b863:b359:915b:d6ec:b0af:20ff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Undid revision 868932542 by HouseOfChange
  2. Undid revision 868947027 by Largoplazo
  3. Undid revision 868984557 by HouseOfChange
  4. Undid revision 869022698 by Ponyo
  5. Undid revision 869026872 by Ponyo
  6. Undid revision 869028384 by Largoplazo

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Non-templated explanation as to why the IP edits are being reverted provided by User:HouseOfChange here

Comments:
IP repeatedly reinserting very contentious and poorly-sourced material to the article citing "NPOV" and their determination to show it "warts and all". Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A similar IP address is now making same reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EverQuote&type=revision&diff=869104658&oldid=869082399

Not sure what to do, except to add to report by Ponyo. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's the same editor on the /64 range, so the block would need to be 2600:1003:b863:b359::/64. They're at about 8 reverts now, so I have no idea why they haven't been blocked yet.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Obvious edit warring, well past 3RR, was warned clearly. Blocked the /64 since he's rotating. Kuru (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Notthebestusername reported by User:Qualitist (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Statue of Unity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Notthebestusername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4] 06:19, 16 November 2018
  2. [5] 06:44, 16 November 2018
  3. [6] 07:32 16 November 2018
  4. [7] 07:32 16 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

  • Avoiding talk page completely. Using misleading summaries for his edits,[10] and calling people a troll.[11][12] Qualitist (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the information I have posted on the statue of unity is bonafide info, based on highly reputed references. The trouble is the statue itself is a bit like a statue in North Korea - official sources tend to be propagandists. I could make out that the page was being inundated by fake news. I tried to set this right without getting into a brawl on the talk page (I have interacted with such page editors in the past, and this tends to be a ridiculous battle against a wall). However, let me try to engage with them on the talk page.
Also, quantlist is a blacklisted id with no info on its talk page. It bears the signature that is usually used by trolls in India.Notthebestusername (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be sure to look at the article history for all those making big reverts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and my BRD request may not have been appropriate. With all the edits, I may not have understood which was the last stable version. My apologies for that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours to Notthebestusername for edit warring at Statue of Unity. If anyone believes that the current article still contains copyvio, please explain on the talk page so that it can be removed. Should the reverts continue, full protection may be necessary, so please use the talk page to get agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Woovee (Result: File deleted, no violation)[edit]

Page: File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:14, 14 November 2018
  2. 19:55, 14 November 2018 with the summary: "What part of "WITHOUT REMOVING THIS TAG" did you not understand?" Answering with this tone and screaming to another user is not acceptable
  3. 01:55, 15 November 2018
  4. 23:52, 15 November 2018 with the summary: "FINAL WARNING":
  5. 20:36, 16 November 2018

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


Comments:
User Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has entered in a wp:edit war with two users: Carliertwo and Woovee. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has started on their own these last 24 hours, a croisade on many Siouxsie Sioux and Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles against user:Carliertwo, withdrawing many files/pictures that have been online for years, regardless of other editors' objections: they even wanted to withdraw a file/picture [14] discussed on this GA promoted in 2016[15] which is vandalism. I noticed today Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's disruptive edits and sent them a message about their violation of the wp:3RR in my summary edit of the article, 14:26, 16 November 2018 saying "wp:3RR; you already did 4 reverts Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have to stop these wp:disruptive edits. This picture is perfectly valid and its presence is explained". I also sent a 3RR message warning on their talk page: result, they instantly keep on reverting for the 5th time in a row whereas a new user had told them to stop. this file was uploaded on the article in January 2016, an article since edited by a lot of users and read around 33,000 times a month. Their talk page is loaded with multiple notices of ANI and people complaining about constant disruptive edits [16] Woovee (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Since I'm the person referred to in the last sentence, I must explain that it was obvious satire and was nowhere near the truth, even though it is a true story (no, it isn't). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg has been deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC#1 per WP:F7 by Explicit: so, it appears that at least one administrator agreed with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment of the file as a violation. Just because a non-free has been used in an article for a long-time or has a non-free use rationale doesn't mean that its non-free use automatically complies with (or in this case complied with) Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it could also just as easily mean that file should have been deleted/removed a long time ago but nobody who's familiar with relevant policy noticed it until now. It appears that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz tagged the file with {{rfu}} and then notified the uploader at User talk:Carliertwo#Replaceable fair use File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg. The uploader disagreed with the tagging which is fine, and {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}} can be used for that. Removing inappropriately added non-free files is listed as an exception WP:NOT3RR and it does appear that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was at least trying to follow relevant non-free content use policy and then engage in discussion, whereas the other editor(s) were simply reverting without addressing the policy issues being raised. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) See WP:3RRNO. File has now been deleted. Merely having a rationale in the box does not make it a valid one. Nor does length of time unnoticed in an article. Suggest filer goes and reads WP:NFCC and WP:NFC#UUI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like proper handling of inappropriate non-free imagery of living persons. Yes, we allow non-free images of groups that have split up, but those images already exist, so the additional images under questions would clearly fail NFC, which is exempt from edit warring. --Masem (t) 01:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's clearly no violation here, so I'll just note for the record that 1) there were no more than two reverts in any 24-hour period (the first "revert" listed was the initial placement of an F7 deletion tag, which is in no way a revert), and 2) disputed F7 deletion tags should not be removed absent unusual circumstances, but left in place pending administrator evaluation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Repeated removal of tagging by the uploader is the chief problem here. Acroterion (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
World Chess Championship 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
211.27.126.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869316291 by Fbergo (talk)I didn't say I wanted to violate anything. If the next 4 games are all won by the same player, the 1st to 6.5 points goal would already be achieved. Otherwise, it will take an 11th game at least to do so. I know all this for certain. I'm not predicting whether the tiebreaks will happen or not or anything else.."
  2. 19:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869266960 by Fbergo (talk) As I explained in the edit summary for the edit that was reverted which is being reverted again here, the match is very likely to have at least as many draws as last time with few if any wins. Plus, it improves section placement, numbering and naming. Its not meant to continue from adding framework to future games by putting in headers without content such as the moves before the game has been played."
  3. 12:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "The part of the article about the games should be in its own section, divided into mainly 2 parts (regular and tiebreak games). Only the former is up because whilst there is a very good chance the match will start with no fewer than 7 draws like in '16, the match could still be decided after game 9."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Despite an ongoing discussion on the framework of future games (now 7 thru 12) of this match, and opposition from at least three users (Banedon, myself, and Fbergo), this user has repeatedly added uncommented empty sections for future games.

User has been warned (albeit botched in the current form) for disruptive editing and the 3RR.

Recommend a block of this IP thru at least 22:00 UTC 19 Nov, if not 23:59 UTC 29 Nov when the match will end. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:WikiInspector42 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)[edit]

Page
Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
WikiInspector42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 03:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC) to 03:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    1. 03:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869356935 by Moxy (talk) hey, same Wikipedia provides that info"
    2. 03:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Government */ according to Federal government of Mexico#Legislative Branch"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 01:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC) to 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    1. 01:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Mistake. Cortés rested for 14 years in Mexico-Tenochtitlan and did not go with his country to grant anything. New Spain started in 1535"
    2. 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates. (TW)"
  2. 03:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
User talk:WikiInspector42....Editor has never replied to any inquires [17].WP:NOTHERE
Comments:

Not sure why the editor is removing maintenance tag over and over despite being ask to stop..Moxy (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Okay, this just appears to be a good faith mix up, the state governments are unicameral while the federal government is bicameral. The rest of the edits seem to be mostly minor, good faith edits that are in some cases correct and being wrongfully reverted, such as this, where the date change appears to be an uncontentious correction of fact ("New Spain" wasn't established until 1535), or this, where they're being reverted for correctly removing Easter eggs. It's clear they're trying to communicate in good faith via edit summaries, and frankly it's ridiculous to say they're NOTHERE and refuse to reply to messages. This is crazy, this is a newbie and no one has ever made any sort of effort to reach out to them to engage in any sort of communication in good faith, not even a welcome template was extended to them, they're just being bombarded with templated messages. Making mistakes when you're a newbie is forgivable, because there's a big learning curve here, but experienced users such as you and Isacdaavid should know about WP:AGF and WP:BITE by now. I'll protect the page, but I'm giving them a clean slate on their talk page.  Swarm  talk  07:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.  Swarm  talk  07:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Content dispute? It's about tag removal....people are not reverting is minor edits. We have been trying to talk to him for almost a year. Never mind will deal with it myself. --Moxy (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:EE0:4001:694D:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Vietnam women's national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2001:EE0:4001:694D:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Good try, Softlavender. Try again."
  2. 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869404702 by Softlavender (talk)"
  3. [18]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Sock of Albertpda (talk · contribs) Hhkohh (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks /64 range Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:67.187.85.200 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Iz One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
67.187.85.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "This is K-pop genre and it's not for both."
  3. 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 04:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 00:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  6. 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  7. 22:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iz One. (TW)"
  2. 18:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* November 2018 */ re"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See talk:Iz One#Nationality dispute - no contribution by 67.187.85.200

Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page which the IP has ignored. bonadea contributions talk 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • IP is also removing the citation supporting the genre being removed (J-pop). Added a sixth revert by 67.187.85.200 Jim1138 talk 19:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Added 22:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) revert and talk page link. Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Boomerbuzz reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Restriction agreed)[edit]

Page
Kappa Alpha Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Boomerbuzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Admin Edit"
  2. 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869474116 by TheRedBox (talk)"
  3. 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869473577 by TheRedBox (talk)"
  4. 21:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869472574 by TheRedBox (talk)"
  5. 20:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ citing"
  6. 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Removed irrelevant information"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kappa Alpha Order. (TW)"
  2. 20:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Kappa Alpha Order. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Seems to be here only to remove anything negative from this article, also changed an old section heading on the talk page for similar reason. Doug Weller talk 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor was blocked, agreed to use talk, then unblocked, and is now using talk with promise to avoid article until consensus reached. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DonutsAndBakewells reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )[edit]

Page: I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DonutsAndBakewells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20] (Undid revision 869089908 by AlexTheWhovian (talk))
  2. [21] (Who’s ‘we’ this Is a convenient way for readers to be allocated to the current/most recent series of the show, if that’s what they are looking for.)
  3. [22] (Discussed)
  4. [23] (Discussed on talk page.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series)#Upcoming series

Comments:

The editor has continued to revert with edit summaries like "discussed" and "discussed on talk page", despite at the time only having a singular contribution to the discussion. I had to ping them thrice to get a reply from them. They seem to have no intent to continue discussion properly, stating that the content does not violate the given guideline/policy despite being told exactly what part it violates, ignoring detailed response in the discussion to continue adding the content into the article. Pinging Matt14451, a supporting editor who also removed the content.[25][26] -- AlexTW 00:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Yoleo reported by User:Black Kite (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yoleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Comments:
New (ish) user who has appeared at this contentious article and reverted content four times in 90 minutes despite being told more than once to use the talk page, which they have not done today. They had previously made a semi-protected request at the talk page which was rejected. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor a 31 hour block and some advice. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dheeraj Palvai reported by User:Akhiljaxxn (Result: )[edit]

Page
Telangana Legislative Assembly election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dheeraj Palvai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
  2. 18:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
  3. 16:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
  4. 06:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
  5. 16:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
  6. 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Telangana Legislative Assembly election, 2018. (TW)"
  2. 00:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Telangana Legislative Assembly election, 2018. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced pov pushing Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)