Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Målfarlig! reported by User:MbahGondrong (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page

Luciana Maria Dionizio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Målfarlig! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681997395 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
2. 21:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681948063 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
3. 13:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681842157 by MbahGondrong (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ignores WP:INFOBOXREF. Constant replies with personal attacks which fails WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Shows a high tendency of WP:OWN. Have failed 3RR also in Raquel Fernandes, Rosana dos Santos Augusto, Rafaelle Souza and several more. MbahGondrong (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er, you have to be over three reverts. Anyway, the editor making this vexatious report is actively engaged in long-term edit-warring and harassment across dozens of women's football articles. It appears to have been sparked by legitimate comment made by User:Qed237 and I, with the user admitting that their subsequent campaign has been waged in misguided 'retaliation'. The editor suddenly developed their WP:INFOBOXREF obsession, but apparently only applies it to articles recently edited by one editor (me) and not, for some reason, to any others. Clearly these stupid edits are being made to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Whilst I have tried to WP:AGF on the basis that this editor's command of English is tenuous (and they are either very young or have some sort of developmental disorder), my patience has regretfully snapped. I would be grateful for any assistance in bringing this immature editor's infatuation with me to a dignified end. On a practical level the few minutes it takes to revert his nonsense is eating in to my constructive editing time, and I'm also having to do most of my stuff by IP to evade his increasingly creepy stalking. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Breached another 3RR just recently at Portia Boakye. Again revert containing personal attack, and blind revert without even checking the sources available. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean at the BLP where you are edit-warring in unsourced and patently false content? No I'm not over three reverts there either. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite this live report, MbahGondrong is still edit warring at Portia Boakye: WP:BOOMERANG? Målfarlig! (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - To be fair, you both deserve to be blocked when i check the given history of that article, but that is not my area to decide. Discuss first and leave the article alone and don't revert WHILE discussing... Kante4 (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wow, this has to be one of the most extreme cases I've ever seen. The statements by both parties are absurd to the point of surreality. This is not a singular edit war, but a personal feud that has spilled over onto dozens of articles and each party has reverted the other hundreds of times this month alone! It is absolutely shocking to me that it has gotten this out of control with no apparent attempts at dispute resolution. There are no apparent mitigating factors on behalf of either editor, although I will note for in the log that personal attacks factored into Målfarlig!'s longer block length. Both editors blocked Swarm ♠ 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:186.9.135.1 reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: The Holocaust in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 186.9.135.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Block evasion: 200.83.84.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by his own admission

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

An IP from South America used exclusively to cause damage to the article and to abuse editors verbally. – If you can, please remove his highly offensive personal attacks made in edit summaries,[8] from the article edit history. Thank you in advance. Note: This user is a reincarnation of a banned User:200.83.84.155, to which he admits on the article talk page, apparently unaware of the consequences. Poeticbent talk 03:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I edit exclusively to improve articles, as anyone can see by looking at the article history. This user edits exclusively to harm articles by reverting obvious improvements without explaining why. Sure, remove the edit summary. And kindly also remove this grotesque slur made against me by this user. 186.9.135.1 (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a sock puppet of a ban evading user Best_known_for_IP. Volunteer Marek  04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Chillum. Swarm ♠ 07:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

user:jeh reported by 119.53.109.190 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC) (Result: IP blocked as a sock)

Page: Talk:Physical Address Extension (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: user:Jeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Address_Extension&oldid=682044603

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_Address_Extension&diff=prev&oldid=682044603
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:"your poor, mistaken head", well, I have no words more to add!

119.53.109.190 (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please don't make comments about the IP's head. Can we close this and move on? Chillum 05:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war" by any definition. My remarks about the IP's head were meant solely in sympathy. However, it seems that the IP objects to that. Why the IP did not address me with this concern directly I do not know, but whatever. I certainly agree to not make any more such remarks. Jeh (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious socking by IP-hopping block evader. IP 119.53.109.190 blocked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:186.9.130.34 reported by User:Iryna Harpy (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Self-arrest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "undefined"
2. 06:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "For fuck's sake. What the fuck are you doing? Do you have ANY fucking clue what an encyclopaedia article is supposed to look like?"
3. 06:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "undefined"
4. 06:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682049375 by Denisarona (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Self-arrest. (TW)"
2. 05:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries. (TW)"
3. 06:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Left a message on My very best wishes' talk page regarding the IP's behaviour, but the edits and rants are coming thick and fast own my own talk page, etc. This editor is not going to wait for any form of discussion on the article's talk page. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to justify your reverts on the talk page, go ahead. But you're reverting just purely for the fun of it. I doubt you've even looked at the unencyclopaedic nonsense you're restoring. 186.9.130.34 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

5 pointless reverts now by this user, none with any kind of explanation, all done with the intent purely to provoke and harass.[9],[10],[11],[12],[13] They are now stalking and pointlessly reverting all my edits and repeatedly posting templates to my talk page. 186.9.132.124 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this user has at least two sock puppets which they are now using to stalk my edits. See Dixie for more utterly pointless unexplained reverts being made purely to harass. 186.9.134.92 (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Gilliam. Swarm ♠ 07:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Anon by Karl Dickman for harassment. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

  This is likely Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best_known_for_IP

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Iryna Harpy, Clpo13 by Karl Dickman for WP:3RR. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• @Karl Dickman: Iryna's fourth revert is exempt under WP:3RRNO point #3. By 06:30 the IP had been blocked and so the fourth edit was reverting a sock of a blocked editor. Stickee (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, in light of Burninthruthesky, all of Iryna's and Clpo13 reverts are exempt as it's a LTA sock case. Stickee (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 24 hours – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. By Karl Dickman to prevent edit warring. Karl Dickman ^talk 09:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best_known_for_IP, who I first ran across a few days ago. Are you seriously suggesting dispute resolution with a blocked user? Burninthruthesky (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Lioness reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Declined)

Page

Dalal Mughrabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC) to 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681888059 by AKS.9955 (talk)"
   2. 20:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "she was by d-e-f-i-n-i-t-i-o-n terrorist !"
   4. 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 01:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681822791 by AKS.9955 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dalal Mughrabi. (TW)"
2. 07:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:AKS.9955#pleas stop span the artical "Dalal Mughrabi") (TW)"
3. 14:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Dalal Mughrabi. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is consistently trying to term Dalal Mughrabi as a "terrorist". Extensive discussion has taken place on the article Talkpage and user has been made aware about the same but user does not seem to slow down. Page has been semi-protected and now I will request (separately) for full protection. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

AKS.9955 Where is the 3RR warning you gave to the new editor before reporting them? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello NeilN, This is an article related to Arab–Israeli conflict. An Arbitration remedy exists for such cases. Please refer here. Hope this clarifies. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined AKS.9955, the talk page states the article is under WP:1RR which you have also broken. In the future, please warn new editors about WP:3RR and discretionary sanctions before coming here. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Soilentred reported by User:Qed237 (Result: protected)

Page

Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682099117 by Qed237 (talk) That' s lie, you didn't restore pre-war. You restored to your own old revert. Last pre-war version is from user GAV80, made 04:49, 19 September 2015‎ (oldid="
2. 14:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682096993 by Qed237 (talk) I think we should take this to talk page. You broke the three-revert rule so please stop reverting until we solve this, thanks in advance."
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682085432 by Qed237 (talk) There is nothing that says it WILL apply here or anywhere else except basic table. Burden of proof is on YOU."
   2. 14:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 10:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681998827 by Qed237 (talk) Beacuse point is deducted only in regular table. Would a team lose a point in H2H table in case of equal points, you ignorant imbecile?"
5. 21:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 681770673 by Qed237 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:UEFA Euro 2016 qualification (3rd place). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Croatia Points Deduction */"
2. 14:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Croatia Points Deduction */"

Comments:

User fails to discuss and has made two reverts even after notification of edit warring. Clear edit warring. Qed237 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

That's a low blow. Why lie here? I don't fail to discuss. I repeat here what I said in talk page and what I said to you in revert comments - provide just 1 shred of evidence and I'll agree with you. I'm asking for just 1 official source that backs up your theory and there will be no need for edit-wars. You are right about my reverts though, altough you forgot to say that I reverted only your reverts and that you made 7 reverts in last 2 days alone. Also I already told you that I agree with reverting page to the state before you started the war with me, that's revision from user GAV80, made 04:49, 19 September 2015‎ (oldid="681734053"). There really is no need for this kind of drama, but if admins really need to to solve this - than so be it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soilentred (talk • contribs)

And now even this new revert. Also I did not lie you made several reverts without you even started to talk, and refuse to listen what the other editor wrote. So far no editor has agreed with you. Qed237 (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm listening, but I still see literally zero sources. And, ironically, that's exactly what that other editor wrote. There are no sources for your claims and I'll revert them until judgment day if you keep posting them unsourced. Soilentred (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected — @Soilentred and Qed237: You've both violated WP:3RR, on a template no less. Seek dispute resolution, or blocks will likely be the next thing to occur. --slakr^\ talk / 22:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Slakr: I did open discussion at talkpage, currently saying I am right. Could you please restore the article to the version on 18 September? Qed237 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Qed237: If there's clear consensus for the edit, use {{editprotected}} on the talk page. --slakr^\ talk / 00:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User:EllenCT reported by User:VictorD7

Seeking a block for EllenCT. While being careful to avoid violating 3RR, EllenCT has repeatedly edit warred against consensus and several different reverting editors over the past couple of weeks to install the same changes she wants in two sections in the United States article, Government finance and Income, poverty, and wealth.

Diffs (Sep. 10 - Sep. 21): [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]

On several occasions she has made these reverts with a misleading edit summary. For example, in this recent edit [25] she states, "revert to restore correct tag link to talk page section, among other things, per talk", and leads off her edit with an unrelated tag deletion and small tweak to a political party segment at the top of the edit. But if you scroll down you see the "other things" she sneaks in are the massive, contentious changes against consensus she has repeatedly tried to impose. In this example [26] she says she's merely replacing the "undisputed portion of the statement", when the change she makes is clearly very much disputed and opposed. She also frequently says "per talk", implying that a talk page discussion resulted in consensus for her change, leaving out the fact that she made an argument and most or all respondents rejected it.

EllenCT has already recently been given a warning by another editor on her talk page involving edit warring on a different article [27], and should be familiar with the rule.

When warned on the US talk page to cease edit warring, she claimed her edits weren't edit warring and indicated she would continue to make such reverts, [28] "I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary." She followed through on that with today's multiple reverts.

This occurs in the context of her serial ideological Soapbox crusade on the issue of economic inequality, and never ending attempts to insert POV material while deleting material she doesn't like, along with misrepresenting sources, RFC results, and other editors. I'll add that she has initiated four overlapping RFCs in recent weeks along these themes ([29] [30] [31] [32]), which went or are going against her. While less egregious than the edit warring, it's still disruptive to flood the page like that and derail discussion on other topics in an attempt to throw as much as one can at the wall and get something to stick or fatigue the opposition. I don't think article sanctions are in order. The page has been relatively civilized lately for being such a high traffic article. The problem is really one enormously disruptive editor. VictorD7 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• The edits being pushed by Ellen in this case (if not the entire United States article) presumably fall under the discretionary sanctions for all topics involving post-1932 American politics established by WP:ARBAP and WP:ARBAP2, which Ellen should be familiar with as a party in the former. Calidum 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of VictorD7's diffs are not reverts but constructive attempts at compromise, all of them were interspersed with relatively lengthy talk page discussion, none of them come close to violating 3RR, very few of them breach 1RR, and most if not all of the diffs that are bona fide reverts both correct a broken link from an inline dispute tag to a talk page section which has since been archived, and replace the results of four separate RFCs, the outcome of which Victor disagrees: (1) This RFC outcome was endorsed (2) unanimously here, (3) here, and (4) here. Victor was the subject of an inconclusive WP:BOOMERANG proposal after another editor complained about me on ANI, and many editors noticed Victor's years-long pattern of trying to replace peer reviewed mainstream economics sources with his favored non-peer reviewed right-wing WP:FRINGE paid advocacy "think tank" sources from e.g. the Heritage and Peter G. Peterson foundations. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined take this to AE because this is too convoluted for this forum --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning VictorD7. EllenCT (talk) 02:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• What's convoluted about 11 diffs of reverts of the same material over the past week and a half? That's clear edit warring. VictorD7 (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Code16 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Code16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682111614 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) Discussed on TP, no NEUTRAL editors have supported the removal of this well sourced and important category."
2. 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Discussed on TP - other editor wants to delete category to increase weight of A.R. Dard, at the expense of Iqbal, due to his own biases. Content is well sourced, and justification is present on TP."
3. 11:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682035951 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk) -- Undue weight does not apply - Source is a reliable and mainstream scholarly citation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Muhammad Ali Jinnah. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Proposal for new categories */"
2. 16:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Undue weight for A.R. Dard? */"
3. 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discussion */"

Comments:

Even though I am reporting him, I have not seen any "maliciousness" on his part, just bad faith and incompetency issues. I'd like to suggest that no "hard handed" action is taken like a week long block etc. He is new and just needs to learn the use of TP and consensus etc. He should also be reminded that 3Revert should not be abused even if he thinks that he is right. A 48 hour cooling off time should do that FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Response:

Please note the discussion on the talk page. No neutral editors have supported FreeatlastChitchat's position. I believe this editor is acting in bad faith, as he wants to reduce the weight of Iqbal's influence on Jinnah in the article, so that it automatically increases the weight of A.R. Dard (which isn't even properly sourced, I've brought this up on the TP as well.) FreeatlastChitchat is promoting a specific POV which favors Ahmadism on wikipedia (evident from his history) so I believe his motivations are less than neutral. Also, I am going to be adding additional 3rd party sources for that category that he keeps deleting (even though if you look at the reasoning I provided on the Talk Page, even that one source is enough as its the most reliable on the subject.) Thank you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have just added an additional 3rd party reliable source to that category which completely corroborates Akbar S. Ahmed's evidenced conclusions (even though no other editors complained that only Ahmed was used initially.) The content of this category is highly important for a featured encyclopedic article such as this. It needs to appear before the "return to politics" section, as it provides context for it. The content has now been sourced from multiple 3rd party sources, one of which is internationally recognized as an expert on this matter (Ahmed). This author dedicated an entire chapter of his book on this subject and called it "Jinnah's Conversion". cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Update 2: After I added the source from the "The Dialogue – Quarterly Research Journal," this user deleted my edit, stating that a "thesis" was not a reliable source. Apparently, this user even rejects research journals as valid sources, on top of rejecting other expert sources such as Akbar S. Ahmed's scolalrly work, when they dont agree with his own biases. Admins, I think this clearly shows an edit-warring mentality and bad-faith by this editor. I advise that action be taken against this editor who is arbitrarily deleting sourced content. Thank you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 11:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Code16 is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours; I am a few millimetres away from blocking FreeatlastChitchat as well for edit warring, just stopping short of 3RR. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jonny462 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: No violation)

Page: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jonny462 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Comments:

• 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. Stifle (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because he isn't reverting in line with the 3 revert rule, doesn't mean he isn't edit warring.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    @Ditto51: This is true, however, the threshold for longer-term edit warring is typically higher, numerically, than the 3RR's baseline of 4 over the course of one day. Furthermore, there is at least an attempt to resolve the dispute by the editor, and I would strongly suggest using {{Ping}}, {{Re}}, or {{talkback}} when replying to new editors, however, else it's not certain that they will receive your reply (as, especially nowadays, they're not necessarily going to be watching talk pages for a reply—they're probably going to be waiting for a notification to appear). --slakr^\ talk / 21:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

    • Facepalm. This is what "edit warring" comes down to? How many times, not what they're doing? This place is a complete mess. Alex|The|Whovian 02:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Sakino_Akura reported by User:Only_in_death (result: 31h)

Page

Simon Danczuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Evidence of edit warring

Special:Contributions/Sakino_Akura

Comments:

SPA here only for the purpose of inserting primary-sourced information regarding an MP's expenses. Currently Simon Danczuk is under discussion at the BLP Noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert. — Strongjam (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW - immediately before the appearance of this new editor, Binksternet [39] opined the earlier editor was a sock of HarveyCarter. Collect (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The sock Michael O'Finn was confirmed by checkuser and blocked appropriately. Looking at Sakino Akura's style of communication, I don't see any obvious tells which would connect the account to banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

TY - problem was a rapid succession of new editors interested in local sources for claims about a UK political figure, sharing a strong insistence on making their edits stick :(. The view that the page is "not a bio" seems discordant with the position that pages about living persons and mentions thereof are always covered under the BLP policy, if I recall correctly. ("I think you are under the false impression that the Simon Danczuk wiki page is a bio." seems odd) Collect (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

User:JBDVIJASDVI reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Sheena Bora murder case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682353851 by Ravensfire (talk) Restored last referenced version 3:31 / 23-09-2015 . All subsequent revert be first discussed in talk page"
2. 05:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Then we need to remove all material against all living persons mentioned in this article which are only facts not proved, i.e neither proved nor disproved. Except Sheena, who is alleged to be dead, all are living persons."
3. 04:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "The article is not a Biography of Living person (BLP). Rather it is an article on a criminal case under investigation. Such investigation are based on allegations. Allegations from all sides , with due references, to be quoted for NPOV."
4. 04:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "All the alleged information appearing in the Infobox , however duly referenced, are bracketted (...)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sheena Bora murder case. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Multiple editors have described their edits as BLP violations but the editor persists and ignores all advice and requests for discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 06:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Already blocked I'd blocked prior to this noticeboard post as I have the article on my watchlist and just got on WP to see this unfolding right at the top of it.—SpacemanSpiff 06:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. Ravensfire (talk) 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Gal777 reported by User:Clpo13 (Result: Blocked as sock)

Page

Yulia Tymoshenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gal777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:57, September 23, 2015 (UTC-7) "Undid revision 682365086 by TaivoLinguist (talk)see page discussion"
2. 06:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "on the talk page all concluded to post information about the European Court"
3. 05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682356377 by Alex Bakharev (talk)"
4. 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682353208 by Alex Bakharev (talk)The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the Europ"
5. 05:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682352558 by Iryna Harpy (talk)"
6. 04:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "the decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine"
7. [40] and seven
8. [41] and eight

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Warned by Alex Bakharev

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Yulia_Tymoshenko#Decision_of_the_European_Court_of_Human_Rights and Talk:Yulia_Tymoshenko#The_other_questionable_sentence

Comments:

Hello! On page the Yulia Tymoshenko was information about the European Court of Human Rights on 22 January 2015.The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the European Court says that Tymoshenko was a political prisoner.Regarding the Russian aggression, Tymoshenko's even created his battalion, which was fighting in the East of Ukraine.On the discussion I wrote about the decision of the European Court of Human Rights.Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko’s second complaint to the European Court of Human Rights has been discontinued, it has been confirmed.The European Court of Human Rights decided unanimously, on 16 December 2014, to strike the application Tymoshenko v. Ukraine – no. 2 (application no. 65656/12) out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 (friendly settlements) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision is final.The case – the second application brought by the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko before the ECHR – mainly concerned the criminal proceedings brought against her in April 2011 relating to contracts for the supply of gas.The court took note of the Ukrainian government’s declaration in which it admitted that the criminal prosecution of Tymoshenko had been politically motivated and in which they acknowledged a violation of her convention rights, and of various measures taken by the government as a consequence of those violations. Information on the decision of the European Court permanently removed, users are mostly from Ukraine or Russia.I request your help please I want on the page Yulia Tymoshenko was important about the court decision.--Gal777 (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You have edit warred by making 5 reverts in the last 24 hours. At this point your arguments don't matter. You are in violation of Wikipedia rules. --Taivo (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 08:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • And block extended to indef, as almost certainly another sock of User:Lidaz. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Papataunuku reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Red Peak flag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "removed false report"
2. 20:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "slanderous and inaccurate reporting does NOT meet wikipedia criteria"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) to 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "slanderous material removed."
   2. 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC) "updated flag description"
4. 13:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC) "The item has been deleted because it is not factual. It is a subjective, biased opinion and does not belong in an encyclopaedic environment. There is a robust legal position to enforce this."
5. 06:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Peak Engineering logo */ removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[42]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[43]

Comments:

Comments have been left on user's talk page and a discussion on article talk page. User has ignored them. -- haminoon (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Only withholding a NOTHERE indef block per WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Swarm ♠ 08:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Govindaharihari reported by User:Olowe2011 (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=682388981&oldid=682383312

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&type=revision&diff=682388981&oldid=682383312
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=next&oldid=682390185
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeremy_Corbyn&diff=next&oldid=682390641

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

No additional comments apart from the fact you will note that the person is removing well sourced / referenced information with no justification at all.

• Yes, I have three reverts of the disputed content there, I have also plenty of discussion on the talkpage. Talk:Jeremy_Corbyn#Violation_of_WP:BLP.2C_WP:NPOV There is no need at all to force in this disputed grouping when the subject has disputed it and has not confirmed it yet. Govindaharihari (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• You have yet to explain any reason for the revert. I have sourced it from an official government website and appropriately referenced it. What is the reason you reverted the edit in the first place? What are you disputing here?  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 12:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

ow dear , the person that reported me here has now made another revert - Govindaharihari (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why did you revert my edit Govindaharihari. It seems to me like you purposelessly undid my edit and are now disputing it with things that are completely against the written sources. The government source clearly states as is written in the article - what are you disputing?  ' Olowe2011 ^Talk 13:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

MusicAngels Edit Warring

User:MusicAngels is violating WC:FOC and WC:AGF in his reversions of what seems to be good, well sourced, and substantially valid edits on two minor African American poetry pages. Cordelia Ray and James. D. Corrothers. The editor with whom MusicAngels is feuding seems to be behaving well; he/she is adding sources and expanding the pages thoughtfully and with knowledge. 192.12.13.14 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: and @Drmies: Request your review of this personal attack and matter regarding previous investigation of IP-accounts. MusicAngels (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)