Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 21:05, 11 March 2018 (→‎User:Kiyoweap reported by User:Jytdog (Result: ): add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:2600:1700:6370:3ae0:691a:46b6:9ef5:7eed reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Result: Semi)

    Page: Timeline of historic inventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2600:1700:6370:3ae0:691a:46b6:9ef5:7eed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff

    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: --- attempts to explain in edit summary: diff diff diff diff diff

    Comments:
    A (not very WP:CIVIL) IP editor has gone active again reverting in unsupported "inventions" on the page. Explanations for why they are not acceptable in a list form have been given in edit summarys (example) but reverted in a fairly un-CIVIL manner diff, (older comment diff). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Declined)

    Page
    Coco (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Do your worst! I believe a fair admin would not easily rule in favor of a party who resorts to underhand tactics such as content deletion without justification, refusing to get the point, lying about consensus and preferring to use 3RR to get his or her way instead of talking."
    2. 06:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ Reinstated content. I have given four guideline and policy-based reasons in the talk page, and the only thing people against have done so far has been deletion without explanation (WP:VANDTYPE says "vandalism"), lying about /doc page and consensus."
    3. 05:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Geraldo Perez (talk): You need more than a couple of votes to violate a guideline such as WP:CAPTION."
    4. 05:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ Reverted content deletion without justification. WP:VANDTYPES defines this as vandalism."
    5. 07:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ Re-added the caption. See talk page."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [1]

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Talk:Coco (2017 film)#Violation of WP:CAPTION

    Comments:

    Discussion on article talk page continuing. EW warning in edit history of page under dispute. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello
    Well, that's the quickest filling of an EW that I have seen. I bet Gerlado had it ready.
    Yes, I have been combating removal of contents from the article for several days now, far beyond the scope of the reported diffs here. It happened in three stages:
    • Stage #1: Initially, it was like outright vandalism: Per WP:VANDTYPES, content deletion without explanation is vandalism. But one must not accuse registered users of vandalism. One must give them a chance to clean up their act, i.e. to write a better a edit summary and make a genuine effort to prove thought about what they did. For the first time in my career here, the involved people did not do so.
    • Stage #2: Deleters claimed that they are doing it following the requirement of Template:Infobox film/doc. I used the talk page to reveal that:
      1. Template:Infobox film/doc actually sanctions it.
      2. Template:Infobox film/doc does not ban anything.
    • Stage #3: Harassment. Geraldo Perez reverts first, and when he does come to the talk page, he'd rather talk about anything except the disputed contribution. Clearly, this is a case of harassment, not dispute. He does on occasions throws links (like WP:DR) but it is clear he doesn't know what they are. Tell me: In what kind of genuine dispute, editors say "I am deleting X according to Y. Oh, wait! Y says actually include exactly that? Uh... alright! Screw Y. I am making an editorial decision!" I have given four reasons, all guideline and consensus-based. They were disregarded outright. What Geraldo Perez says is: "I just don't like it" and the resorts to no semblance of reason.
    Edit warring policy is a rule supposed to help people who are interested in discussion and dispute resolution (like me) against people who'd rather bully their way by excessive application of the revert button.
    Update: I am wondering whether Geraldo Perez himself just violated WP:3RR with this revision: [2]. Sure, it is an IP address with no prior editing history, but I am wondering: Since Geraldo Perez has so far done everything besides discussing the disputed content, didn't do yet another thing, like logging out and reverting?
    Best regards,
    Codename Lisa (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I assert that 2600:1003:b866:3efa:d185:1312:40ec:df7d (Verizon Wireless) is not me. I don't have any desire or need to edit logged out - that would be wrong for so many reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geraldo Perez: I am not saying I don't believe you. But do yourself a favor and at least say something about the content of the blue of box in the article talk page.
    Look, I have an excellent discussion record: Anyone who has ever discussed with me has left with a smile on his or her face, whether he won or lost. Resorting to such underhand tactics DOES NOT benefit Wikipedia. I am offering you an olive branch: Let's put aside all these political talks (withdraw, archive, hat or disregard them) and just discuss our dispute alone.
    — Codename Lisa (talk) 07:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgive my butting in, but, ahem: "Anyone who has ever discussed with me has left with a smile on his or her face"? I don't think that's quite true... Popcornduff (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not surprised; it is not uncommon to find Wikipedians who read "discussion" and take it to mean "argument" or "fight". Certainly, no has had a nasty argument with me and left with a smile on his or her face.
    Also it is not uncommon to find Wikipedians who take "consensus" to means "slightly lengthy votes that read: 'I think so and so; I don't care what you think'".
    —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit warring is there. WP:3RR violation. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:3928:4259:986C:BDA5 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are forum shopping. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:83.112.131.16 (Result: Warned user(s))

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff and link

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

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

    Comments:
    Despite 4 reverts in less than 24 hours User:TheOldJacobite appears to be a user in good standing and rather than block this person they should be given the option to self-revert given that they did intiate talk about this issue just prior to the 4th revert. I actually invited the user to self-revert prior to making this report but received a response in the negative. 83.112.131.16 (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The anon. violated BRD and I reverted to restore the stable version of the article, which has de facto consensus. He could have used the talk page immediately to explain his reasoning, but didn't. The only reason there is a talk page discussion is because I started it and asked for input at the FilmProject. The current version of the article has been stable for years, and if the anon. wants to change it, the onus is on him to make a case for those changes at the talk page, rather than repeatedly reverting. There are relevant issues at stake here, which are now being discussed. The idea, though, that one user should be able to impose his preference is untenable. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: The Old Jacobite is implementing consensus-by-mob by reverting edits with WP:OWN reasons ("not needed", "I feel this is unnecessary") and pushing the reverts to the 3RR, while acknowledging that the edits are backed by guidelines, and tries to enforce local consensus over Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Bright☀ 18:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:StewieGriffin1998 reported by User:DonQuixote (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Batman Begins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: StewieGriffin1998 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [8]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]
    5. [13]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:
    Well, at least both of you have been careful not to technically violate WP:3RR. @StewieGriffin1998: Why aren't you using the talk page? Edit summaries are not enough. --NeilN talk to me 21:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that, though he has not violated 3RR, StewieGriffin1998 has also been edit-warring at Wall Street. Again, he has not used the talk page, and has barely used edit summaries. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    His edit-warring at Wall Street continues. A report at AiV was rejected because of the current discussion here. For how long will we continue to tolerate his edit-warring? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-warring and a content dispute are not the same thing. I know the difference. As an admin, I assume you do, as well. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 17:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN did not say you conflated edit warring with a content dispute. He said you reported it to the vandalism board incorrectly. As an admin, NeilN is entirely correct that the use of the term "vandalism" should not be used to describe this behavior, nor should the vandalism noticeboard be used for things which are not vandalism. --Jayron32 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not being a smartass, honestly, but please explain to me how consistent edit-warring is not vandalism. Past a certain point, the difference seems academic, as the end result is the same: intentional disruption of the project. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheOldJacobite: You were edit warring on at least two articles. Are you a vandal? --NeilN talk to me 19:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pointless, as you are clearly being either intentionally obtuse or taking a dubious academic tone. An editor's intentions are clearly of important here, yes? One editor's intention to force unsourced and unsupported content cannot honestly be compared to another editor's intention to restore a stable version of an article that has achieved consensus. If you're truly arguing the two are the same, I really don't know what else to say. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an observation, but Stewie has been adding categories to a lot of comic related articles. This feels like a sock of CensoredScribe. Many of their edits don't have a summary, but the ones that do feel similar to what CS would say. Ravensfire (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheOldJacobite: Well, you're half right and still have the same misapprehension as you had last year. An editor's intentions are clearly of importance. An editor adding unsourced content is more than often trying to improve articles and not "deliberately intend[ing] to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." Failure to follow our policies and guidelines may be disruptive but it is not vandalism. As an example, look at this. Flagrant disregard for WP:V but no one called their edits vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 20:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vegetablemarket reported by User:Jytdog (Result: page protected)

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff 15:01, 6 March 2018, 1st edit by IP 82.132.219.126

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 16:00, 6 March 2018
    2. diff 17:09, 6 March 2018
    3. diff 16:53, 8 March 2018 now with named account
    4. diff 16:59, 8 March 2018
    5. diff 17:09, 8 March 2018
    6. diff 17:30, 8 March 2018
    7. diff 17:36, 8 March 2018

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (see also prior spam warning to IP and EW warning to IP and block of IP. See also spam warning to named user.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above.

    Comments:
    Started out spamming smartcontract.com, in 5th edit started to add [www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Smart%20Contracts%20-%2012%20Use%20Cases%20for%20Business%20and%20Beyond%20-%20Chamber%20of%20Digital%20Commerce.pdf this source] which is a white paper by an industry trade group promoting use of smart contracts.

    Like our cryptocurrency articles, blockchain/smart contract subjects are under high promotional pressure and hype - many groups/companies promoting them are very on-line, very aware of social media, and unfortunately think of WP as social media. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Next will be a block and blacklist. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    OK I've put on the talk page about why smart contract page needs a section on real-world use. A reader that comes to the smart contract page will think they are a technical concept or something to do with niche programming, it would be better if it had more information about how smart contracts are an emerging technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegetablemarket (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jackdaniels666589 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Baconian method (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jackdaniels666589 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18] and [19]
    2. [20] and [21]
    3. [22]
    4. [23]
    5. [24]
    6. [25]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] (2 warnings, plus various edit summary warnings.)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has refused to answer any talk page discussion.

    Comments: Note: new editor (or account), no other edits than these. Either playing a game or very incapable.
    --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I see reaching 3RR as a kind of barrier, so maybe that was not clear. But in any case indeed I was not seeing this as simple 3R edit warring. Not sure what is going on to be honest, because I could not get a line open. Kind of looks like someone having a bit of fun with Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blissnd reported by User:Celia Homeford (Result: Blissnd warned Blocked 48 hours)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Meghan Markle#Proposed additional section

    Comments:

    User:Celia Homeford reported by User:Blissnd (Result: No violation)

    Page: Meghan Markle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Celia Homeford (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. [diff]

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

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

    Comments: Attempted censorship that is against spirit of Wikipedia, despite citation of 3 solid, reliable sources

    The reporting user has not issued a warning or contributed to the talk page of the article or notified me of the report here. I admit that there are 3 reverts, which (while within the bright-line rule) is not ideal, but the article in question is a biography of a living person, one of the "solid, reliable sources" is the Daily Mail, some of the added material is not in the sources, and the consensus of the talk page discussion was not to add the material. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    IP editor reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Untermensch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]
    4. [41]
    5. [42]
    6. [43]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: All IPs (except the final one), were warned on their talk pages.

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

    Comments:

    Slow-moving edit war: An IP-hopping editor has removed sourced information multiple times, and has been reverted by TU-nor, Diannaa and myself. They refuse to accept that the information is sourced and correct. Only after their final reversion did they post something on the article talk page, despite being notified to do so on the talk pages of all the previous IPs. The article should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Joel B. Lewis reported by User:2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Frontiers Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&type=revision&diff=829578552&oldid=829562130

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&type=revision&diff=829586578&oldid=829585584
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&diff=next&oldid=829587527
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frontiers_Media&diff=next&oldid=829590296

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

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

    Comments:
    This user keep removing journals list all over again 3/4 times. Looks like edit warring is on. This user needs to be blocked or page protected. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP, like Headbomb, is apparently too dull to notice that I am not the editor who made the original (correct, sensible) edit. Per Serial Number 54129, there is actually nothing to discuss here until someone articulates a reason to keep this indiscriminate list, and the protection is unnecessary and ridiculous. --JBL (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fully aware you didn't make the original edit. I'd appreciate it if we left personal attacks out of it. And this list is not indiscriminate and fully in line with editing guidelines. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you're just a condescending ass then. Good to know. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, more WP:NPAs after being asked to remain civil. On ANI as well. Time for an NPA-block I guess. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Started a discussion to keep the list or not on Talk:Frontiers Media. Until then, then list will stay there until there are enough discussion to remove. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:65BB:5FBE:F4D6:1732 (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (multiple ecs) Protecting a page when an edit war is in progress is standard procedure and a seasoned editor like Joel B. Lewis should know this (and know better than to edit war). I've only protected for 24 hours, which should be enough to let these experienced editors cool off and start discussing. I have no strong opinion either way. I'm not a fan of such journal lists, but I don't think they are necessarily promotional and I note that such lists exist for many other publishers. Please take discussion of this issue to the article talk page, as should have been done per WP:BOLD after Headbomb expressed his opposition to the removal of this content. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and so should a seasoned editor like headbomb, who apparently thinks "because I say so" constitutes a reasoned argument. FFS. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:BOLD again. An editor (not you) made a BOLD edit. Headbomb reverted. The accepted ^procedure is then to take it to the talk page, not to revert the revert. I advice to let this rest and engage in a constructive discussion which has started on the article talk page. Personal attacks like the one above really are not helpful. --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.209.212.148 reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    173.209.212.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 89.248.140.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 173.209.212.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2600:1010:b01e:e931:dd4c:4995:ad15:20cd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC) "Please no edit warring. Use the talk page and follow wiki guidelines on reaching a consensus. Last warning or you will be reported to be blocked or banned."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Excessive Boosterism in Introduction and Overall */"
    Comments:

    Appears to be the same user unders several different IPs. Made an initial change that I reverted per WP:BRD, and asked to take it to the talk page, user refuses to engage in discussion, threatens me with a ban and continues to perform the same edit.

    User threatening to ban me: [49]

    My chat on the talk page: [50]

    My warning to user: [51] UCaetano (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172.251.100.84 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Mariluz Bermúdez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    172.251.100.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The user restores his edition several times, although I asked him to stop several times, not only he does it in this article, but he does it in multiple articles. Here i asked for help, but they never really helped me, so I do not know where else to turn. The user obviously does not respond to messages and does not pay attention when an issue is reversed. It is worth mentioning that he restores his editions from time to time, he does not do it every day, and as I said, it does not happen only in this article, but in several. The link above explains what happens. Philip J Fry / talk 19:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 48 hours. User won't ever communicate, and likes to do mass changes on TV shows to mark the roles as 'supporting role', 'protagonist' and so forth. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A02:214C:801D:2800:2503:4B60:EC70:E1EF reported by User:47.196.33.194 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Gulmurod Khalimov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 2A02:214C:801D:2800:2503:4B60:EC70:E1EF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [52]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [53]
    2. [54]
    3. [55]
    4. [56]
    5. [57]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

    Comments:

    User refuses to provide explanation for reverts despite being contacted. Has reverted edits at least three times within 24 hours with no edit summary and will do it again. My edit simply says the death of Gulmurod Khalimov hasn't been confirmed by the U.S. but like I said, the IP doesn't provide an explanation for his reverts. Can you please do something? Thanks.

    User:RangoLoudHouse1234 reported by User:RugratsFan2003 (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)

    Page: Nickelodeon Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: RangoLoudHouse1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [60]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [61]
    2. [62]
    3. [63]
    4. [64]
    5. [65]
    6. [66]
    7. [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Comments:

    User claims that the Nickelodeon Wiki is a good source, unlike Cartoon Buzz.

    User:62.7.176.198 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

    Page
    Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    62.7.176.198 (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 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) to 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
      1. 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829869914 by 36.69.84.212 (talk)"
      2. 12:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829870016 by 36.69.84.212 (talk)"
    2. 02:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829829333 by Equineducklings (talk)"
    3. 01:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829824355 by Equineducklings (talk)"
    4. 00:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829814995 by BangJan1999 (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 08:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:2017–18 Premier League table ‎. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    exceed WP:3RR, warning given and another user attempted to discuss on talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kiyoweap reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: diff 04:40, 7 March 2018

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 23:04, 7 March 2018
    2. diff 11:40, 9 March 2018
    3. diff 05:29, 10 March 2018
    4. diff 15:14, 10 March 2018
    5. diff 10:09, 11 March 2018

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; fwiw, diff of notice of DS for PSCI

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tatzelwurm#Cryptozoologists

    Comments:

    User is slow-motion edit-warring credulous pseudoscience and OR/editorializing into this article about a legendary creature. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And they are continuing to add back PSCI-violating content. Please do block. I may need to escalate to AE but this will hopefully not be necessary. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2A00:23C1:8B02:2800:61BA:241:DA98:3CFF reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    Template:2017–18 Premier League table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2A00:23C1:8B02:2800:61BA:241:DA98:3CFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829906481 by RafaelS1979 (talk)"
    2. 15:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829906224 by RafaelS1979 (talk)"
    3. 15:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829905683 by Spike 'em (talk)"
    4. 14:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 829904195 by Spike 'em (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 14:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */ r"
    2. 14:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */ quote from uefa"
    3. 15:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */ indent"
    4. 15:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Champions League qualification */"
    Comments:

    another ip address editor rapidly reverting edits to page reported earlier Spike 'em (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I second that because he keeps reverting on and on for no reasons.RafaelS1979 (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=829956547"