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

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:Ashur4ever reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

Page

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

User being reported

Ashur4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 04:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC) to 03:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
   2. 03:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 03:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 03:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 03:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 03:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   7. 03:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 03:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   9. 03:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 23:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC) to 23:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 23:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
   2. 23:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 23:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kirkuk. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

SPA POV edits on Kirkuk. Blanking, apparent vandalism, removal of sources. Will not stop. Dr. K. 04:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – by User:Coffee per WP:NOTHERE. Unfortunately this verdict seems correct. The account seems to have been created for the purpose of ethnic edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Apriestofgix (Result: Warned)

Page

Frederick Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

VanEman (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 00:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC) to 00:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 00:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 708143556 by Apriestofgix (talk) birth name usually mentioned in first line of early life."
   2. 00:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Correct punctuation"
2. 21:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Early life */ birth name Trumpf"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Frederick Trump */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Trumpf */"

Comments:

User continues to make edits that have been discussed on the Talk page and not adopted due to a lack of sources, or conflicting sources that have resulted in not adding that content to the main article. Apriestofgix (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:VanEman is warned for edit warring on Frederick Trump. This user made several reverts on March 3 and 4 and has never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Apriestofgix has deleted referenced information about Trump when there was no agreement at all on the talk page. He has deleted information from the "career" section that was referenced and had to do with Trump's career. VanEman (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Redheylin reported by User:Dan56 (Result: )

After being warned on their talk page not to revert again and engage in an edit war and that there was an RfC opened at the talk page to discuss the contentious material they continue to add to the article, Redheylin reintroduced their material, for a fourth time, knowing the warnings, policies, implications, etc. They did not engage the RfC or the talk page of the article in question AT ALL. Dan56 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of Redheylin edit warring:

• 02:58, 5 March 2016
• 03:40, 5 March 2016
• 04:09, 5 March 2016
• 04:48, 5 March 2016

Diffs of my attempt to discuss with Redheylin at their talk page:

• 03:11, 5 March 2016
• 03:50, 5 March 2016
• 03:59, 5 March 2016
• 04:12, 5 March 2016 (warning)

Diffs of my attempt to discuss at the article's talk page:

• 04:08, 5 March 2016 (opening an RfC)
• 05:08, 5 March 2016

Discussion

The subject of this page is a linguist and spare-time web-reviewer of music whose reviews are often quoted as Wikipedia sources. User:Dan56, whose main interest as an editor is also in pop music albums, watches this page and removes/reverts any mention of Starostin's reviews. He has done this many times, the history shows. He claims that (a) there is no source on the web that meets his standards of reliability that states that Starostin reviews albums, (b) that the title of Starostin's website, entitled "George Starostin's Album Reviews" does not constitute a statement from Starostin that he reviews records and (c) that it is in his opinion of no importance that he does so. He has therefore reverted inclusion of this statement three times today. He has issued an edit-warring notice on my page, but does not appear to have reported this, so I am doing so. He has been informed by a 3rd party that such a statement is acceptable. He refuses to accept any citation. This appears to me to be contentious, single-issue editing. I request arbitration on this. I shall inform User:Dan56 of this present submission. Thank you. Redheylin (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"He has been informed by a 3rd party"??? What does that even mean SMH. Redheylin clearly has a competency issue, since none of the policies I cited and connected to issues with their sourcing, nor my opening of an RfC in light of this editor's edit warring, has registered with them. I messaged them directly after their first revert, I explained the policies at length in relation to the content after their second revert, and then opened an RfC (notifying this editor both in my edit summary reverting them and in my last message to their talk page. Yet he deflects my efforts at reasoning with poorly thought out statements and ignorance of how WP works. Like wtf is their problem?? Dan56 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

("He has been informed by a 3rd party"??? What does that even mean) It means that User:Qwyrxian has stated, when commenting upon a previous instance of your many reversions at Talk:George Starostin, that

"Dan56 asked for my input as an experienced Wikipedian, and I have to say that Dan56 is completely correct. If no independent source has ever discussed his blog, then it shouldn't be covered here. Well, maybe we could have a single sentence (and I do stress maybe)"

However, I have added such an independent, non-self-published source. I have noticed your last statement to me that; "You're really annoying", and I consider it uncivil, likewise your allegation of incompetence above. I also object to your issuing an edit-war notice without reporting any edit-war. I have also noted that you have modified this page so that it appears that you have reported me here, whereas the edit-history will show that the opposite is the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=708365014

As I have stated, I consider your statement that Starostin has not claimed to review music to be mistaken and contentious, and I do not accept, in the light of his many Wikipedia citations and mentions in published works, that you ought to revert without notice on the grounds that "it is not important". Redheylin (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you added a citation that doesn't say anything about him being a reviewer of pop music albums. Second of all, like I explained to you when I first messaged you, biographies of living persons require high-quality sources, and what is determined as a notable subject is based on significant coverage by multiple third-party sources. Thirdly, there are no Wikipedia citations to his blog, as it was considered unreliable in a discussion by WP:ALBUMS members a long time ago (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_44#Georgiy_Starostin) I gave you a warning for edit warring so you wouldn't do it again and I wouldn't have to report you. That's the point of a warning. Like duuuuuhhhh. But then again, you didn't really read any of my messages or warnings carefully, or go to the WP policies I referenced and linked, didya?? You just gave it a quick glance, and said "I'm right anyway" @Redheylin: Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I note that, in addition to having altered this page, you have reverted a 4th time, claiming that the citation given, a book on Pink Floyd at;

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cAiL9oTFz78C&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22george+starostin%22+reviews&source=bl&ots=Otpqosp3Ec&sig=ccYecSPtiSsgLIqf1NYXJfHVRf8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilxeW73qjLAhUlD5oKHYnkBPoQ6AEIlwEwFQ#v=onepage&q=%22george%20starostin%22%20reviews&f=false

which refers at length to Starostin's reviews of this band, also does not constitute a confirmation that Mr Starostin reviews records - a contention that I consider mistaken and vexatious. It gives the URL of the said reviews and, as I have said, quotes them at length. I consider that your reversion, again without notice or negotiation, is inappropriate and that you have exceeded the 3-revert limit. I request that you refrain from posting on my page, the talk page and here, until arbitration is obtained. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't a revert since I didn't undo any part of your edit, whereas you readded the same content four times. I tagged your source for not supporting the statement you used it to support, because it didn't. If you had read any of the guidelines on WP:RS and WP:NOR that I cited, you would know better, but you don't because you clearly don't care at all about this being an encyclopedia, only about what you think is notable. "Without notice or negotiation"?? You're ridiculous lmao @Redheylin: Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it will be obvious that I have added a selection of citations in attempts to meet your requirements and that you have reverted four times on different and spurious grounds without constructive comment. I think it will also be clear that, though you have tried to obtain a consensus, at the place you cite above, that these reviews are unreliable, you have failed to have done so. And I think that your continued false statements and your allegations that I am "annoying" and ridiculous" and "incompetent" are unacceptable. Once again I request that you forbear and await arbitration. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"Allegations"? "spurious grounds"?? Who are you, Atticus Finch? I didn't revert you for a fourth time. The statement you're so hell bent on adding is still in the article, is it not? Dan56 (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Having arrived here straight from the RfC at Talk:Georgiy Starostin, I'd just like to state my hope that if any action is taken here, it's not against Redheylin. At the RfC, I've referred to two third-party sources that I only know about because someone in the past has either attempted to use them as a source in the article, or they've been offered as a source in a previous discussion dedicated to this issue. The nominator here removed the first of these (a PopMatters piece) from the article, and seems to have forgotten about the second, which was raised at a discussion that he was most certainly part of in 2012. So, to read at the current RfC that "There are NO reliable, third-party sources that discuss his hobby as a music blogger/reviewer" is somewhat surprising. There are, but the impression I get is that the nominator keeps ignoring or removing them (the Pink Floyd book cited above was mentioned in that same 2012 discussion, after all). What this means is that any editor wanting to add that Starostin is also an online music critic/reviewer effectively starts at zero each time when in fact, even though any mention of the previous examples has been omitted both here and at the RfC, it seems that we have a growing number of sources who at least recognise Starostin as an album reviewer. I've got no personal opinion on Starostin, and I appreciate that this forum is focused on an episode of edit warring, not on article content. But I see other editors' attempts regarding this issue constantly thwarted by the same editor, to the point that it reeks of control. And it's constantly accompanied by an element of hostility or, as is the case above, downright insults. JG66 (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the RfC JG66, even your sources were questionable and made up of original research. I offered a compromise, considering how obscure the coverage is on this linguist's music blogger hobby, that it be mentioned in the article body, not in the lead. There are NO reliable third-party sources that discuss his hobby as a music blogger. There are obscure references to his site by sources with no relation to this article's topic (WP:NOR), along with brief off-hand mentions of his name on a few music websites. BLPs require better than that. And how could you even say that smfh? That if any action be taken, it's not against Redheylin. What hostility? I engaged the talk page and his talk page, and he just kept reverting/restoring the statement "Starostin is a prolific music reviewer", four effing times, just continuing to respond with some really misinformed info on what's relevant or verifiable information, and not once engaging the talk page when I kept urging them too. Like wtf lmaoo... @JG66:. Look at the diffs and make a judgment that's independent of your opinion on the content/sources in question, cause the research you offered at the RfC is just as questionable to introducing into the lead of a BLP. The other editor did not bother taking any of the policies I cited seriously (whether it was on sources, verifiability, notability and BLPs, or just on how to conduct themselves and not start an edit war, BRD, or anything). I opened a discussion at the talk page. They did nothing but deflect any reasoning I offered at their talk page and just reverted four times within a 24-hour period, hint hint. Like what hostility?? Maybe a little frustration since the editor's been editing articles since 2008 and everything I was saying seemed foreign to them. Dan56 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about – there's nothing OR about those three third-party sources. And I'm sorry but hostility is something I see you bringing to many discussions on Wikipedia: your whole tone towards editors who disagree with you is hostile – "hounding" those who oppose you, as Nortonius said in this recent RfC; Drmies also commented there on your aggressive tone. And I recall past episodes on this noticeboard when you've been warned about this. As mentioned above, I've got no comment on the edit warring; I came here to provide some context on this issue. JG66 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, why is this case unactioned? Dan56 has continued his edit war on this trivial matter, although the RfC that he opened has gone against him, he refuses to accept it. Plus, he has has modified this, my request for oversight, to make it appear that HE has made the complaint against ME - which surely deserves sanction. And his lack of civility to me and other editors is disgraceful. I am requesting that, as he has made the same edit countless times against countless editors, he be proscribed from editing this page, or any other which cites Starostin. Redheylin (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Quit misrepresenting things bro. This does not look like you were reporting me but the article. I reported you because you kept restoring your bold edit in spite of me informing you of the relevant policies and guidelines. You continued to do things your way. "countless times" is bs, and more importantly I offered a compromise at the RfC and with this edit to Georgiy Starostin; one of the two editors who weighed in at the RfC agreed adding it to the article body rather than the lead. STOP MISREPRESENTING SHTT. Dan56 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:71.174.132.60 reported by User:81.88.60.72 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Jewish Bolshevism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.174.132.60 (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. Editing talk pages. 81.88.60.72 (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
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:

• Blocked – 3 days. I've also semiprotected Jewish Bolshevism and its talk page. Since this editor is hopping IPs in the range 71.174.0.0/16, a rangeblock may be needed. See discussion of a rangeblock at ANI. Some people have referred to this IP as an antisemitic troll, so whenever he reappears my guess is that most admins would consider his edits revertable on sight. (He has used the website of the holocaust-denier David Irving as a source for references). Besides the IP address reported here, he has also used 71.174.130.100 and 71.174.127.111. Let me know if you think the problem is continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dongough reported by User:Oshwah (Result: )

Page

Lee Kernaghan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 708388693 by 5.226.137.71 (talk)"
2. 08:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 708388399 by Oshwah (talk)"
3. 08:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Do not reinstate this section. Contact me privately to discuss if you wish (don@leekernaghan.com.au) , or at lease identify yourself"
4. 08:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 708387995 by 5.226.137.71 (talk)"
5. 08:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ one sided view, does not accurately reflect Lee Kernaghan's point of view."
6. 08:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"
7. 01:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Inaccurate interpretation of the actual facts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lee Kernaghan. (TW)"
2. 08:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Adding message"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "‎Reversion of content by Dongough"

Comments:

Dongough has ignored my warnings and repeated attempts to get him to discuss his concerns on the article's talk page. I think that this is the only next option, as dispute resolution does not appear to be occurring at all. This appears to be a WP:COI issue as well with Dongough. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: It looks like I've been able to start a conversation dialogue with Dongough on the article's talk page, as well as provide the user with appropriate assistance. So long as the user ceases with edit warring on the article (as of this edit), then it may be okay to drop this report. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Arcenter, 71.179.21.197 reported by User:Oshwah (Result: )

Page: Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcenter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 71.179.21.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]
6. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [9]
2. [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]

Comments:

Another IP range (104.244.53.61, 104.244.53.62), as well as another user (Xmaster8621), have also begun adding content to the article Timothy Parker (puzzle designer). Temporary pending changes protection may also be necessary. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

More IPs have been involving themselves in this article and the dispute (as you'll see on the history page). I'm not going to continue listing them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for three days. Offhand I have no true problem with the content the IPs and possible COI editor have removed, although I do think that the claims need more sourcing in the article itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• I've left Arcenter a warning about COI editing and I've expanded the allegations very slightly. The thing to remember is that these are just allegations at this point and need to be worded as such. The coverage is heavy enough to warrant some mention, but I don't think that it needs to be much more than it is right now. I do want to say that I'm not really comfortable with sections like this since it can be construed as an attack against Parker. It seems likely that Parker is editing his own page, but we do need to be careful about how we go about uncovering this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• He's continued editing. He isn't reverting, but he is making some mildly selective edits that are of some concern. I've given him a 24 hour block because he was reverting and he has made no attempt at communicating with anyone. I've posted several messages to his talk page so there's no way that he could be missing these questions. I did make a note of this on the talk page along with a request that we allow him to collaborate on the talk page. My main concern is that I want it to be clear that we at least gave him a chance. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Driplivia reported by User:Uncle Milty (Result: )

Page

Aubrey McClendon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 17:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 17:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 16:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 708438620 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. 16:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Revert vandalism"
6. 16:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 708438159 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aubrey McClendon. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:152.208.64.38 reported by User:FA9295 (Result: )

Page

Untitled Unmastered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
2. 19:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 19:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 19:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 19:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Music and recording */"
6. 19:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 19:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
8. Consecutive edits made from 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
   2. 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
9. Consecutive edits made from 19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 19:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
10. 19:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
11. Consecutive edits made from 18:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 19:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 18:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
    2. 18:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
    3. 19:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
12. Consecutive edits made from 18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 18:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 18:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
    2. 18:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
13. Consecutive edits made from 18:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 18:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 18:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
    4. 18:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
14. Consecutive edits made from 17:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC) to 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 17:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Long list of edit warring/edit reverting that is currently sparking an edit war at Untitled Unmastered. Persistent addition of poorly sourced or unsourced content. Please note that the editor (IP) has been notified, but the warnings are not selected because they were warned by another user (so I can't select them). FA9295 (talk) (contributions) 19:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: as the other editor involved, I've also reported the IP editor at WP:AIV. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 19:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bangla1234 reported by User:Barek (Result: )

Page: Brahmanbaria District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bangla1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:59, 5 March 2016‎ - Undid revision 708486195 by JJMC89
2. 21:52, 5 March 2016‎ - Undid revision 708484240 by Barek
3. 21:41, 5 March 2016‎ - ..
4. 08:37, 5 March 2016‎ - Undid revision 708385473 by Oshwah
5. 03:03, 5 March 2016‎ - Undid revision 708350942 by Yamaguchi先生

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 21:56, 5 March 2016 (→‎Warning re: edit warring on Brahmanbaria District: new section)

Comments:

User engaged in edit warring over poorly sourced content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hoyalawya reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: )

Page: Center of Concern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hoyalawya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

Adding promo material repeatedly to the page after repeated warnings against promotion and edit-warring. I am an uninvolved editor and only came across this via my usual patrolling. GAB^Hello! 02:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ThecentreCZ reported by User:SVK2016 (Result: )

Page: Template:People's Party – Our Slovakia/meta/color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ThecentreCZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The whole edit war: [21] [22] [23]

See: Kotleba – Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko

  Also:
    Facebook - Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko
    Ľudová strana Naše Slovensko  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVK2016 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 

User:SVK2016 counter-reported by User:ThecentreCZ (Result: )

User being reported: SVK2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Facebook post is not a graphical manual of the political party, for even not a trademarked logo created by the automatic vectorization.
And, are you blind please? You must notify any user you report.. He really started the edit war by reverting my legitimate editions. Really silly behavior to report seasoned user by new user to the Wikipedia. Top of this absolute crazyness to even not notifying me. Best wishes, wish good judgement, I think semi-protection is reasonable. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Firebrace reported by User:Edwardx (Result: )

Page: Lily font (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Firebrace (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. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments: Ignored my reasonable suggestion that WP:AFD is the best approach here.

The first edit wasn't a revert, but nice try... Firebrace (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:123Steller reported by User:Borsoka (Result: )

Page: Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 123Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:
1. I reverted to the status quo, that existed until December 2015: [37]. User:Rgvis also rejects the addition at the moment: [38]

2. Borsoka, who reported me, is also involved in the edit war: [39]

3. There is a difference of 2 days and 1/2 between my 1st and my 4th revert.

4. The recent discussion on the talk page was initiated by myself [40] and I am an active participant in it. I want to get a consensus with all involved editors. 123Steller (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Just two remarks. (1) No, I did not participate in an edit war. (2) No, you are not an active participant in the discussion. You are making declarations without referring to a single reliable source ([41]; [42]. Borsoka (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bleckter reported by User:Chueco23456 (Result: Both blocked 24h)

Page

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

User being reported

Bleckter (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. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]
5. [47]
6. [48]
7. [49]
8. [50]
9. [51]
10. [52]
11. [53]
12. [54]
13. [55]
14. [56]
15. [57]
16. [58]
17. [59]
18. [60]
19. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

[64]

Comments: the user is not only changing this but everything remotly related to white people in latin america

I did edit more than three times but because this guy is doing whatever he want, if i was wrong please ban me too

Comment: The diffs are from 2015 and the user was a sockpuppet. I put two warnings in his talk page and he ignored the first one. --Bleckter (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: whatever you wanna say. you didnt aswer any of my concerns in the talk section or your talk section, but you still have time to warn me, anyhow the fists diffs are from 2015 those are the first ones you did, the last one are from this day, you change every article, " white argentine, white colombian, white mexican, argentine of european descent,..." remotly related to a white person living in latin america and you do not explain anything in the talk section, and the 3 reference that you use are from the same study, that is doubtfully serious because it say:"56% amerindian or european and amerindian, 44% completely european, where are the blacks? where are the asians?. and he or she deletes every other reference that prove him/her wrong --Chueco23456 (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer me in the talk page. --Bleckter (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I see no evidence that either user is a sock puppet. All I see is an edit war. Although some of the listed diffs are from 2015, there are many from now. The Talk page comments by both users were unhelpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Jrotismyhero reported by User:忍者ポップ (Result: )

Page: The 100 (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jrotismyhero (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. [diff]
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:
Vandalism edits. --忍者ポップ (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Jrotismyhero has been indefinitely blocked for vandalism. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: )

Page: 2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FreeatlastChitchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He has been blocked and reported for similar behavior multiple times, so he's expected to be aware of what edit warring is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've opened a section for this regard on the article TP.

Comments:

There are some disputed points regarding the article which are being discussed on the article talk page. Some agreements and disagreements are being exchanged there, as it's seen. BlueMoonset correctly tagged the article writing " issues discussed at length on talk page and still unresolved". Suddenly, a user who has shown tendency to commit edit war on several occasions, jumped in and removed some disputed material without participating the discussion. It was weird, as the issues were not resolved so I restored them and kept on discussing my points on the TP. The reported user once again did his job of reverting without participating the discussion. After almost 2 Mins, he put a note on the article TP and accused me of POV editing (which it self should be proved). As I said He was not even involved in that discussion! Here my point is not that I was right regarding those issues as here's not the place for that, rather I want to say that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right," (as Drmies said) and I think that single diff of FC's revert is clearly enough to prove his edit warring where almost nothing is resolved. Note: Among other occasions, the reported user was verified to be guilty of edit warring some days ago. Mhhossein (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring: There is consensus on TP that article should be given a NPOV makeover. Mhhossein does not WP:OWN the article and anyone can edit the article to reduce POV edits. Everyone including BlueMoonset and User:Dr.K., except Mhhossein agrees with my edits, to be frank this is a simple case of one disgruntled user with a case of WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI. If Mhhossein reverts me with the reason that TP discussion is ongoing, however, the issue about POV has already been decided and the article tagged, hence it is proven that restoring NPOV is not against policy. reverting any edits that restore NPOV is total BS. Enough is enough this time I want a damn boomerang for this guy who keeps posting shitty reports about me, simple as that. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

As It's seen FreeatlastChitchat pretends to ignore that "edit warring is edit warring even if you're right". I think because he simply survived his previous case although he was guilty of violating WP:3RR, as it was proved. Anyway, How do you know they agreed with your edit warring? could not they do it? BlueMoonset clearly asserted that the issues were not resolved! You should've participated the discussion instead of being such a disruptive user. Moreover, I'm asking the admins to take care of "Only someone tripping on acid will think of this as edit warring", because FC has been blocked and warned for being uncivil multiple times. He was also asked multiple times to practice diplomacy, the suggestion he ignores usually. Mhhossein (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What I said was that POV problems persisted, which is why I finally tagged the article. Neutrality issues have plagued this article for well over a month and were what sank its DYK nomination, which I closed over a week ago because none of the issues raised had been addressed. At some point someone was going to come along and attempt a rewrite to take care of the neutrality problems. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Look BlueMoonset! There are some disputes over some points and this naturally happens. Who is right and who is wrong is something and dealing with those issues is something else. I had my points, as you did and they are all respected. For example, at first it was said that Firouzabadi's comment had to be removed, while I had my point that He's notable enough to have such a comment and we have to keep that. Here it's not important who was right and who was wrong rather the very important problem here is that edit warring retards reaching a consensus and is prohibited. You can see other sections such as "Just two SIM cards", "returned to the United States" and "Some points" where disputes were simply resolved via discussion. The very spirit of being able to discuss the issues with other editors leads us toward consensus, the point which is apparently hard to understand for some users. FreeatlastChitchat's persistent edit warring trend has to stop somewhere. Mhhossein (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyone calling one revert "edit warring" belongs in a place where he should be taken care of on hourly basis. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:edit war, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," the case is even more clear if the parties don't try to solve the issue via discussion. You made zero effort to resolve the issue! Moreover, any one who violates the limits of civility by calling others "...someone tripping on acid..." and "...should be taken care of on hourly basis" and had been repeating this behaviour over and over (I can simply present multiple diffs) probably needs to be addressed by admins. Mhhossein (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)