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 oder 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

Please Stop RovingPersonalityConstruct

Hello, This guy RovingPersonalityConstruct repeated removed massive amounts of multiple sourced content and replaced them with his own personal opinions. When I reverted his vandalism he keeps saying that I have no sources to back up my the original contents. Then I searched and backed up the original contents with multiple sources from Chinese and Western news media he then say that my sources are not reliable and his source is !

Type 093 submarine Chengdu J-20 JL-2

Please take a look at his behavior !

In fact his only source is another Wikipedia page link to the US Department of Defense !

Please see his reverting history for evidences. I have warned him on many occasions yet he does not know how to stop nor proving me wrong. He just keeping saying that his only source is "reliable" while my many sources being "unreliable".

Admins please stop him !

Also, more amusing he now he accuse me of edit warring. I simply try to stop him removing massive amount of sourced content on three different articles. In fact, I added several sources and he just ignore them all showing now respect at all. He just try to push through his own personal propaganda using shear force ! Please just take a look at the Type 093 Submarine article. He removed almost half of the content which are all sourced. He then removed all my sourced content and call them "Unreliable" while forcing his single source another Wikipedia page for US Department of Defense which has nothing to do with 093 submarine!

Pleas stop him !

User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)

Page: The 4400 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• All times in UTC

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1. 10:15, 21 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643037359 by Drmargi (talk) you will be reported again if you continue interfering with legitimate edits"
2. 11:51, 21 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643502545 by Drmargi (talk)stop reverting, if you revert once more you will be reported"
3. 11:55, 21 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643508006 by Drmargi (talk, reported"
4. 11:35, 22 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643510945 by AussieLegend (talk)two editors known to each other colluding, reported"
5. 14:34, 22 January 2015 Edit summary "Undid revision 643664015 by Drmargi (talk)See DRN, users colluding, employing 'consensus' argument to remove legitimate edits"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:30, 21 January 2015

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page: 12:35, 21 January 2015
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on another editor's talk page: 13:45, 21 January 2015

Comments:
Twobells has a disturbing, recent history of edit warring at multiple articles (I'll leave the distant past history in the past). On 31 December 2014 he filed an AN3 report about Drmargi and as a result, Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) was protected for 5 days. On 14 January 2015 he filed another report about the same page, this time about Drovethrughosts. As a result of that report, Twobells was blocked by EdJohnston, who noted, "It seems that Twobells just isn't going to stop, no matter what anyone says. Twobells doesn't appear to have any support from other editors but he keeps reverting anyway".[2] Twobells' block was lifted on the condition that he seek dispute resolution,[3] which he did by discussing on the article's talk page, where he has received no support for his edits, which essentially use WP:SYNTH to make TV series combined US/UK productions simply because a UK TV channel purchased some early episodes of the series. Despite the obvious lack of support, and knowledge that he should pursue dispute resolution, a few days after his block was listed he started edit-warring at The 4400,[4] where the same POV edits had previously been reverted.[5] Twobells made no attempt to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and so, when he continued edit-warring, I reverted him with a direction to the talk page in the edit summary.[6] I then left a warning on his talk page,[7] which I followed up with clarification and a direction to WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO.[8] I also commented in a discussion that he had on Drmargi's talk page.[9] Despite this, Twobells' reaction was to revert me at The 4400, with the rather peculiar edit summary, "two editors known to each other colluding, reported". Twobells seems to think that all editors who "oppose" him are colluding. He has now started a discussion at Talk:The 4400, but that does not excuse the ongoing edit-warring, especially with him being aware of both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as having been warned about, and blocked for, edit-warring on a number of occasions. His discussion at Talk:The 4400 seems less like discussion and more combative, with phrases like "reverted by two editors known to each other seemingly colluding. One editor is following my edits around Wikipedia reverting at will, they've been reported and I have corrected their malicious edits and reported it to staff. If anyone other than users DrMargi and AussieLegend (seem to have some sort of NPOV agenda)". Other than the one reversion and warnings, I've had no other involvement with this issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor User talk:AussieLegend has colluded with another editor Drmargi to interfere with my legitimate edits on the 4400 TV Series and Battlestar Galactica 2004 article. This morning I instigated a DRN and this seems to be the reaction to that DRN request which shows incredible bad faith. User talk:AussieLegend has seemingly communicated with the editor Drmargi and followed me onto long-standing articles and reverted legitimate citations, refused to enter in discourse and using Original Research attempted to prevent article neutrality. The problem here is that User talk:AussieLegend hasn't checked his facts; The UK didn't 'just purchase episodes' they were a full co production partner on both BSG 2004 and the 440 tv series as reflected by the citations. In all the years I've edited on Wikipedia I have never experienced such partisan behaviour by two editors. My original question remains, why is Drmargi so against adding in the case of BSG 2004 legitimate citations? And why then follow me across to another article and do the same there?. Again, what exactly it the problem with adding legitimate citations? As for my charge of collusion, I have never assumed it of any editor before witnessing it myself yesterday. Just why are you making a complaint against someone whom you've never interacted with before? Did you try to discuss the issue on the article talk page? No, you came straight here following my DRN. Twobells (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

1. [10] 12:05, January 21, 2015 diff of User edit warring/ 3RR warning
2. [11] 22:58, 22 December 2014 diff of attempt to resolve issues on talk page
3. [12] Dispute Resolution Noticeboard entry
4. [13] 17:02, 14 January 2015 attempt at resolution prior to starting DRN
5. [14] retaliatory edit warring notice

References

The DRN discussion that you started is about Battlestar Galactica, not The 4400, and I'm not involved with that, so there is no reason why I'd react to that. Your claim of collusion is bad faith and requires evidence but, for the record, I do know Drmargi, as well as a lot of other editors. Both The 4400 and BSG are on my watchlist so it's no surprise that I saw your edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

With respect, the DRN mentions moving to the 4400 tv series and reverting there also, I have since edited the DRN to make that clearer. Again, what is the problem with adding legitimate citations? You seem to want to block me for doing what any editor does and thereby prevent the addition of legitimate citations reflecting article neutrality. Twobells (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The DRN discussion doesn't actually mention The 4400 and the content dispute is not the issue here. This is about your persistent edit-warring, specifically that at The 4400. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

There has been very little edit warring on the 4400 tv series page, one revert by Drmargi who followed my edit history to the 4400 page. My attempt at putting the long-standing article back to accepted version and the only discussion on the Talk Page has been with my contribution, you've ignored discussion on the page, seen the DRN and responded by coming here. Twobells (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

1. [15] 11:41, 22 January 2015 discussion opened on the 4400 talk page

Comment: This is four reverts by Twobells in just over 24 hours, and it's part of a pattern of warring about TV shows he considers to be US-UK coproductions. I recommend a block. The charge of 'collusion' which he expressed both here and at the DRN seems bogus. He has used the DRN to criticize the behavior of his opponents. Since the mission of that board to resolve content disputes and not behavior issues I doubt they will take the case. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it amazing that Twobells has just made this reversion knowing full well that this report is open. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course an editor is going to revert the article back to it's original long-term version while discussion is on-going, isn't that what editors Drmargi and you demanded over the BSG 2004 article? They stated that the article must revert to its long-standing version while discussion and consensus is reached yet you now find that unusual and wish to raise the 3RR rule? Also, bogus in what sense? The citations confirm concretely that these two tv shows are international co-productions, I'm not the one employing Original Research yet you suggest it is MY actions that are 'bogus'? These two editors followed my edit history and proceeded to interfere with long-standing articles. The lede shows that the 4400 is a Anglo-American co-production yet Drmargi decided to revert anyway. I have just this minute reverted back the article to its original long-standing version. It is user Drmargi that reverted originally, not me. I have no interest in criticizing the behaviour of editors just requesting article neutrality. For the record I don't consider these tv productions to be international it is the citations that confirm that and my role is only attempting to improve the articles. Why there is so much fuss about adding legitimate citations I have absolutely no idea. The problem here is that the article concerned only has 3 active editors two of whom refuse to reach consensus. No matter how sad it is to say (and I always try to start from a Good Faith position) I believe now that this entire 3RR complaint is just a tool to prevent legitimate citations being added to an article and as such the above editors should feel embarrassed that they have employed such means to prevent improving said articles being improved. Twobells (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What's bogus? As I explained to you in this edit, claiming that the version that you've reverted to is "it's original long-term version" is what's bogus. The edit is most certainly not long-standing; you only added it on 23 December,[16] and even if it was, it does not justify your persistent edit-warring. As for "isn't that what editors Drmargi and you demanded over the BSG 2004 article", as I've explained, and as can be confirmed by viewing the edit histories, I have not said that at all. My last edit to the article was removal of a category before the discussion started,[17] and my only edit to the talk page was adding {{reflist talk}} on 21 January.[18] Stop claiming that I've been involved in the discussion. That claim too is bogus. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting an article back to it's stable version is not 'edit warring', a term I believe being employed by yourself as an excuse for your atrocious behaviour. The long-standing 4400 tv series article is what I was referring to, the same long-standing 4400 article that has had in its lede for years that the show is a UK-US co-production, instead of reading the article, checking the citations or opening a discussion you reverted my last edit which added the UK to the info-box which is best wiki practice as you don't 'mash names up' in the lede. If you had a problem with the UK why didn't you revert all the other editors who over the years cited the show as a Anglo-American co-production? Why just mine? Twobells (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You weren't reverting the article "back to it's stable version", you were reverting it to your preferred version, which has been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors. Despite what is in the lead, your edits were not in the infobox, and WP:3RRNO doesn't provide exemptions for that. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, the version I reverted was the stable one not 'my preferred one' please get your facts correct before stating otherwise and 'multiple editors' were Drmargi and you, not long-term article editors. Also, yes, it was the info-box Twobells (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Also, if you read the Talk Page history editors Drmargi and Drivethrughosts stated that an article must remain in its previous version while debate is on-going, I politely agreed and followed that premise this afternoon on the 4400 page reverting it back to its stable version whereby user EdJohnston pops up and starts moaning about 3RR. Twobells (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Update: I've had a break-through with editor Drovethrughosts he is happy that the BSg 2004 article reads 'co-production' and that hopefully we can add 'UK' to the info-box (after US if thats an issue). If Drmargi accepts consensus then issue is resolved. Twobells (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

1. [19] 14:49, 22 January 2015 editors Drovethrughosts and Twobells consensus

Two editors in agreement is not consensus when a third has not been heard from and, as has been explained, the BSG article is not relevant here. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That is why I wrote 'if Drmargi accepts consensus', why must you persist in repeating everything I write? As for being pertinent to this discussion then yes, it is highly pertinent in that it shows that at least two editors are willing to work together which dilutes much of your accusation. In fact, you sound rather disappointed although why that would be I have no idea.... Twobells (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This complaint might be closed with no action if User:Twobells will make any kind of a promise that guarantees that his war about US-UK coproductions won't continue. Others appear to believe that the dispute is continuing. If we are fated to see endless future reverts by Twobells then this complaint may require admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for being neutral, there never has been a 'war' on my part, the reverting has been carried out not by one editor but three two basing their argument on prohibited Wikipedia policy. All I have ever done is attempt to bring the article into neutrality as reflected by the citations, a position now accepted by one of the two editors engaged in preventing consensus. As long as we can get consensus with the last editor Drmargi I don't expect there to be any further problems. Twobells (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Twobells: It is not appropriate to edit posts made by other editors, or to significantly alter your own posts after they've been replied to.[20] --AussieLegend (✉) 17:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I haven't knowingly edited anyone's edits and I don't see any problem with correcting my own. Twobells (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The previous AN3 was here on 14 January. The unblock thread (in which User:PhilKnight asked for my opinion) can be seen here. The relevant exchange was

• "OK, so if unblocked, you won't start to edit war, you'll pursue dispute resolution instead?" PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• You have my word." Twobells (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)".

-EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I did, I returned once again and doubled my efforts in resolving the issue in Talk History and have not engaged in any edit warring on the BSG 2004 page; however, following editors trawling my history, moving to yet another article and reverting the long-standing 4400 tv series article I undid their reversion and the same three successive reversions undoing edit warring by Drmargi which followed was I believe the same reversion that counts as one? Twobells (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

1. [21] 17:02, 14 January 2015

I'm sorry, but closing this complaint is not acceptable, and I concur with AussieLegend that another, longer block is in order, especially given that Twobells went back on this word not to edit war, as given to User:PhilKnight on his talk page. For one thing, this has become an overlapping discussion of two separate articles rather than remaining focused on The 4400, where Twobells has reverted twice since this complaint was opened. Further, the ongoing problem of the infobox, whether it be The 4400 or BSG, remains unresolved (that's been the origin of both edit wars). There's no discussion on the 4400 talk page (just a blanket statement peppered with personal attacks), and no consensus on the BSC talk page regarding infofox handling. Neither Drovethrughosts or I have ever questioned that Sky1 had a limited funding role in Season 1 of BSG; that's long been stated in the narrative of the article, as are similar arrangements between the BBC and PBS, ITV and PBS, etc. to which we have directed Twobells as models of how this kind of collaboration should be handled in an article (and which he has utterly ignored.) The edit warring arises when Twobells conflates the collaborative relationship between the two companies with the country of origin (which is solely the U.S. where the company that physically produce each of the shows is located) and attempts to identify BSG and The 4400 as UK-US (or US-UK, which is equally misleading).

This situation has gotten out of hand. Twobells demonstrates an almost total lack of understanding of basic editorial, sourcing and consensus-related policies, flings arounds threats of reports, and all manner of uncivil language with impunity, and shows no sign of changing. The most recent block, his fourth for edit warring, had no effect given his quick initiation of another edit war at The 4400. Something decisive has to be done about this editor. --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not gone back on my word at all, I have not edit warred on the BSG 2004 article, any editor can see that; however, it is you who has followed me onto the 4400 tv series article and interfered with a stable version. Also, you are doing it again, employing Personal Research, all the citations state categorically that both series are international co-productions and it seems that only you now will not accept that. You state above that you had 'no problem' with Sky1 contribution then why did you always immediately revert the citations when added? Editors only have to read the history to see that I have tried to be as polite as I can against increasing hostility and rather than seek consensus as has happened with the other editor you seek instead to blame others for your edit warring and refuse to debate the issues, my 4400 reversion of your edits were of the same successive three which I understand equals one reversion. And this afternoon's when I put the stable version (which you had reverted) following this notice which I believed was the correct policy. Also, would you please cite here any 'uncivil behaviour' I am accused of? I don't believe you want to reach article neutrality, instead you seek to use any avenue to get your way. Exactly, what IS your problem with international co-productions? This afternoon I put the 4400 article back into the stable version following the complaint against me as that was the policy agreed upon on the BSG 2004 article in that the stable version is the one that remains until consensus is reached yet seemingly you wish to complain that it is 'edit warring'. You cannot have it both ways. In closing, do you think for one moment I want to be here arguing and being accused of God knows what? No, I was always more than happy to leave the 4400 tv series article in its stable December 2014 version but unfortunately both you and User:AussieLegend have edit warred your way here. Twobells (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

1. [22] Revision as of 15:53, January 13, 2015 confirming no edit warring on BSG 2004 following agreement with User:PhilKnight by Twobells

References

Blocked – 4 days. Twobells, you made five reverts in 29 hours at The 4400 per the listing at the head of this report, including one revert you made while this report was open. That's without even mentioning the US-UK coproduction war for which you were blocked earlier in January, of which this is a continuation. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The following was placed on Twobells's talk page, where it was quickly removed. I hope the admin reviewing his unblock request will consider the following, given the unblock request suggests a lack of clue regarding how we all got here to begin with. Otherwise, we'll be back in short order, I fear:

Given the pattern of editing, Twobells' readily apparent lack of understanding of what both edit warring and consensus are, his need to threaten and attack editors who disagree with him, and his almost immediate return to edit warring upon being unblocked the last time, albeit on a new article, I hope that the reviewing administrator will exercise extreme care before unblocking Twobells. Clearly, the last block did not have any effect on his behavior, and this has got to stop. There is no consensus to make the changes to the infobox that he wants, he doesn't understand what constitutes the stable version of an article, and he's simply not hearing what we're attempting to say to him. If he's quickly unblocked, history suggest he will immediately return to his previous pattern of editing. --Drmargi (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have declined this users unblock request on the basis of the evidence here and the expectation that someone with several prior blocks for edit warring should know better. I also mentioned to this user that this was a short block considering the history. Chillum 03:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:187.190.63.216 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: blocked )

Page

Neighbors (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

187.190.63.216 (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 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) to 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Neighbors (2014 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has resumed edit warring since recent block. All of that is provided in the page's history and the user's block log. Callmemirela (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Bjelleklang - talk 08:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:YaFatimid (Result: User reminded of sanctions, filer blocked.)

Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Summichum (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. [23]

(User:SarekOfVulcan’s comment: 14:24, 22 January 2015 removed allegations from lede that violate WP:NPOV, which was added back by User:Summichum )

(User talk:Black Kite remark, 08:24, 23 January 2015, Reverted them as it doesn't conform to NPOV and Content is also contradictory.)

1. [24]
2. [25] reliable source material removed.
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Warned for precaution against article covered under WP:ARBIPA:

1. [28]
2. [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The specific remark below had no effect on him:

User:SarekOfVulcan’s comment: 14:24, 22 January 2015 (removed allegations from lede that violate WP:NPOV) , which was added back by User:Summichum

User talk:Black Kite remark,: 08:24, 23 January 2015: (Reverted 2 edits by User:Summichum (talk): It doesn't matter where you put the section if it doesn't conform to NPOV. Content is also contradictory.

Other past examples to resolve:

1. [30]
2. 15:39, 13 November 2014

Comments:

The user is habitual disrupter of this BLP and other Dawoodi Bohra related article. The articles are covered under WP:ARBIPA and this user is continuing its disruption activity even after repeatitve warnings and actions. This user contribution page is full of destructive activities on this topic related articles and seems to have strong COI for the topic.

Strong action of topic ban to be imposed. User:EdJohnston is taking care of the subject most. He may like to attend the case. 106.215.180.10 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) YaFatmid (talk) 07:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

:: the above user using ip addresses starting from 106 is disrupting bohra articles and is also topic banned plus sockpupetting for user mdiet , user occultzone has filed sock complaint for him too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet . above are irrelavant links and do not represent a 3RR case, not even a 2R, I request the admin to see the sock investigation page and see how much disruption and waste of admin time caused due to sockpupetting by this userSummichum (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC),

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of indefinite
• Note  User:Summichum reminded of the discretionary sanctions in place for India/Afghanistan/Pakistan-related articles and asked to be extra careful to avoid POV. Bjelleklang - talk 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:BantleBanter reported by User:AntanO (Result: blocked)

Page

International Virtual Aviation Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643838352 by BantleBanter (talk)"
2. 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643837755 by AntanO (talk)"
3. 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643837548 by AntanO (talk)"
4. 16:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643837469 by BantleBanter (talk)"
5. 16:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643835856 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."
2. 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."
3. 16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."
4. 16:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on International Virtual Aviation Organisation."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Engaging in content removal, and user does disputed edit on my user page too. Anton^Talk 16:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinite User was already blocked for 31 hours for EW; I extended to indef as he is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Bjelleklang - talk 20:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:64.251.55.70 reported by User:AntanO (Result: Blocked for vandalism )

Page

One-child policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 17:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 17:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 17:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 17:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 17:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 16:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'One Child policy is great says jeff'"
9. 16:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Jeff'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of six months for vandalism. Diannaa (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:198.244.112.29 reported by User:AntanO (Result: Blocked one week for vandalism)

Page

Crop circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Early reports of circular formations */"
2. 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'ALIENS ARE COMING FOR YOU!!!!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!!!!!1 HIDE YOUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!'"
4. 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
5. 17:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Kommentar User:198.244.112.29 is a vandal, already reported at WP:AIV. Esquivalience ^t 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week for vandalism. Diannaa (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

User:2a02:2f08:82cf:ffff::4f71:cfee reported by User:Adrian two (Result: No violation)

Page: Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:2f08:82cf:ffff::4f71:cfee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments: The user seems to be on a vendetta against the very word "Aromanian" vulgar Latin of Romania

He just threatened me tit-for-tat if I report him. So be it.

Adrian two (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but I thought you are the blocked user Makedonovlah. For us the Romanians, Aromanian is Vlach (Romanian). I did not threatened you, I said that if you report me (that was threatening), I do the same. I am not sure what are you trying to do but I have the feeling you want Simona Halep not to look Romanian. If the administrators say you are right, then I will stop editing the article because I am not a vandal. I just have a different point of view. You could have written on my talk page first because I did not check the talk page of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F08:82CF:FFFF:0:0:4F71:CFEE (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You do not have a talk page, you're anonymous. I've signed everything, talk page etc, you're just an IP address. The second revert of my changes was done by you in two minutes, that is not "a different point of view", it's edit warring. Adrian two (talk) 15:00, 24 January 2015 (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. Tabercil (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Kristijh reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of ongoing armed conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kristijh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 13:46, 24 January 2015‎ (stable version)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:39, 24 January 2015
2. 17:19, 24 January 2015
3. 17:10, 24 January 2015
4. 13:56, 24 January 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:27, 19 January 2015 and 17:38, 24 January 2015

Discussion of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

Kristijh has recently begun inserting two dubious paragraphs into the list of ongoing military conflicts article, for which he has been warned by me and other users (see user:Nykterinos also warning him [36]). Though already edit-warring for about a week on this topic and being warned, today Kristijh made 4 consequent reverts, thus breaking WP:3RR and warranting a report here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. @Greyshark09: None of the warnings to the user of edit warring is sufficient. One isn't even a warning, and the others are in edit summaries. That said, the user did violate 3RR and chose not to participate in any discussion about their edits. Nor is the user inexperienced.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:189.8.107.196 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Pope Joan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Donna Cross, a novelist who spent seven years researching the time period, says the historical evidence is there. "I would say it's the weight of evidence -- over 500 chronicle accounts of her existence."/"
2. 03:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Even if it was just one, "all but one" = "most", definitely. Definitely not = "all". But I guess "almost all" is equally correct, and will better satisfy the clear personal position of the editors of this article :)"
3. 13:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Fine, let us discuss then the editions made in the 1st paragraph regarding "most scholars". But why had you removed this neutral paragraph, which states clearly it is one person's POV, from the critique section? That was clearly censorship and abuse"
4. 19:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643995372 by Dr.K. (talk) I suggest you read the Talk page; there indeed ARE scholars who disagree with this consensus, and this is indeed what is under discussion at the Talk page now"
5. 19:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 643996855 by Dr.K. (talk) No reason has been given as to why the references were removed. This is censorship."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pope Joan. (TW★TW)"
2. 19:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pope Joan. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Scholarly consensus */ comment"

Comments:

Edit-warring for days adding unreliable sources for WP:FRINGE theories supporting the existence of Pope Joan against overwhelming consensus on talkpage. Tendentious editing, personal attacks on the talkpage of the article. Will not stop despite warnings. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This looks like a clear violation to me. It has pov pushing, ignoring warnings and a likeliness to continue. I think a 48 hour block is appropriate with escalation of duration if it continues. Chillum 19:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment When asked Binksternet recommended that the IP perform no further edits to the article here. Unfortunately, that advice was ignored. It looks as though we have a WP:RGW situation. MarnetteD|Talk 20:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WWE Batman131 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: UFC on Fox: Lawler vs. Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WWE Batman131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First
2. Second
3. Third
4. Fourth
5. Fifth
6. Sixth

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning of his talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
This article was created for an event that happened 6 months ago. Back then a consensus was reached about the same thing the user is complaining and the result was that it would remain as it was. So much time has passed and WWE Batman131 decides to come now and start acting stubborn by reverting all edits to how the page was. I even removed a word from it so the article looks similar to articles from recent events, but he still removed them. He says he know the rules, but he doesn't respect the consensus and - even if he wanted to open discussion again - he doesn't keep the article the way it was agreed to. He know accuses me of edit warring as well, while I gave him all the chances to realize what he was doing (via summary edit when I mentioned the consensus on the talk page) and via personal message at his talk page. He even dared me to report him. I believe he should get a warning for this situation and be reminded that he can't start doing things on his own, even when people remind him that and he still keeps doing it. I gave him all warnings as possible, but he remained stubborn like plenty of the IPs we deal with that vandalize those same articles. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I must say, it's a nice report. But, I'm not vandalizing. I'm trying to resolve a problem civilly, I've done everything I should do. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As well, I didn't dare you to do anything. You said you would report me. And I told you to go ahead. WWE Batman131 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User: 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 reported by User:RovingPersonalityConstruct (Result: )

Page: Type 093 submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:306:B8BF:C0:A40B:3EC8:EBC1:5351 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 24 January 2015
2. 24 January 2015
3. 24 January 2015
4. 24 January 2015‎ - 17:08, 24 January 2015‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:RovingPersonalityConstruct#STOP_YOUR_Revert_War_.21.21.21

Comments:

Greetings,

In an attempt to remove unsourced, or unreliably sourced, information I have come into some conflict with the anon user in question. While I am using the Type 093 article here, this is occurring on multiple articles (it may be easier to check both of our contribution logs to see this.) I admit that I am likely in violation of the 3RR rule myself at this point.

The anon user contacted me on my talk page, and I have attempted to impress upon the anon user the importance of reliable sources, and explain the validity of a certain type of referencing style using bibliographies. Unfortunately, the anon user continues to use whatever sources can be find (most, if not all, unreliable) to support the otherwise unsourced information on the pages, and refuses to acknowledge that the bibliography and references to it are valid. In the case of the Type 093 article, I attempted a rewrite using what reliable sources could be found, but this rewrite has been consistently reverted by the anon user. Other articles tend to be over small sections of the article.

My apologies if this is the improper place to bring up this issue, or if I have misidentifed the issue. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 01:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________________

Hello, This guy RovingPersonalityConstruct repeated removed massive amounts of multiple sourced content and replaced them with his own personal opinions. When I reverted his vandalism he keeps saying that I have no sources to back up my the original contents. Then I searched and backed up the original contents with multiple sources from Chinese and Western news media he then say that my sources are not reliable and his source is !

Type 093 submarine Chengdu J-20 JL-2

Please take a look at his behavior !

In fact his only source is another Wikipedia page link to the US Department of Defense !

Please see his reverting history for evidences. I have warned him on many occasions yet he does not know how to stop nor proving me wrong. He just keeping saying that his only source is "reliable" while my many sources being "unreliable".

Admins please stop him !

User:Asher Heimermann reported by User:Only (Result: )

Page: Mirro Aluminum Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:03 1/24/15
2. 18:41 1/24/15
3. 19:34 1/24/15 (debatable if the original maintenance template was necessary, so I don't really consider this a significant revert if it is classified as one).
4. 00:13 1/25/15
5. 01:16 1/25/15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:23 1/25/15

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nyth83 started discussion at User_talk:Asher_Heimermann#Mirro_Aluminum_Company

Comments:

Reporting this as a previously involved administrator; saw this unfolding via my watchlist. only (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)