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:Edwtie reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

Page: Cochlear implant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edwtie (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: diff; see also OR warning here and notably their response here (I am expert of Cochlear implant. Don't use editing war. It's NO research but it's facts of cochleair implants.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cochlear_implant#History

Comments:
This article of cochlear implants is NPOV because deaf comunnity were very anrgy to Jytdog. I will try rewritten this article but Jytdoy do attrack to this. Edwtie (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

For info, the text being added by Edwtie appears to be WP:COPYVIO from Infogalactic !! Roxy the dog. bark 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And, in addition, he is a COI editor. I revision-deleted copyvio; the next revert by Edwtie will result in a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not COI editor. Cochlear implant is NPOV article. I have many sources. it has in another sources from science. It will added soon in this articles. I have read this articles Edwtie (talk) I have checked a article from infogalactic but they have copied this article from wikipedia. They have created this text from wikipedia. See: (cur | prev) 04:28, 4 February 2016‎ MediaWiki default (talk)‎ . . (592 bytes) (+592)‎. And This article has been created already in 2012.

See now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&diff=prev&oldid=526254369 Edwtie (talk) e 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice catch, User:Roxy the dog and thanks Ymblanter. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It looks however that you indeed removed this content earlie from the article. Whereas still a copyright violation (we are not allowed to copy text without attribution) it is not as bad as just copypasting a non-free text.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found this: https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&action=history . This user have created this article in janaury 2016. Edwtie (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:Edwtie is warned that further reverting, or addition of copyrighted content, may lead to a block of their account. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

EdJonston, you will not understand. I have founded sources but content was from old versions of Cochlear implant from wikipedia. but it has no sources. it will be rewritten from old versions. It will be rebuild from old versions and it will added sources into content. This content is almost good but it will added more courses to clear. Edwtie (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Edwtie, with a limited grasp of English I'd advise you to stay away from controversies. ("it will added more courses to clear"?). It is hard to perceive your point. Anyway, you were edit warring on 3 January and could have been blocked then. The next time you make a large content change at Cochlear implant without previous consensus you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

word courses is wrong. I means sources (from research or other) I have putted now in sandbox of Cochlear implant to rebuild. I know about cochlear implants. It must balance between two communieties. but nobody have asked to rewritten or added more sources. sandbox is a good solution for rewritten content. And I have found archive from consesus. nobody have added commented to proposal of Jytog. [1] I think that nobody have rewritten. I added sandbox of cochlear implant to rewritten Edwtie (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Bigbaby23 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)

Page: Influenza vaccine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts, picking up from the last EWN notice I filed here, which had a last diff dated Dec 26:

1. diff 06:23, 30 December 2016
2. diff 02:34, 31 December 2016
3. diff 08:32, 31 December 2016 (tagging article)
4. diff 03:17, 1 January 2017 again tagging
5. diff 01:06, 2 January 2017 back to trying EW content in
6. diff 03:18, 3 January 2017
7. diff 22:54, 3 January 2017
8. diff 03:45, 4 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: several

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Influenza_vaccine#Lead_recommendation_summary and subsequent sections.

Comments:

Prior report here. BigBaby23 actually complained that I filed that here but they moderated their behavior a bit (note no edit warring diffs from Dec 26 (end of last report) an Dec 30, but when it was allowed to drift off the page with no action, they just picked up where they left off, trying to force content into the article that is not accepted by any other editor at the page.

here they accuse User:Doc James of advocacy, for pete's sake. And most recently here they "threatened" to start a criticism section.

Again, their last block for edit warring fringe-y content on a health article led to a 2 week block. More is needed. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes would be useful to have a brief block IMO. They need to wait for consensus and have been at about 3 reverts a day for the last week. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• So after I filed the first EWN case linked above, they stopped edit warring and tried to seek consensus on the Talk page with a series of drafts for the content. I filed this one, and they again actually used DR. This editor understands exactly what they are doing, and they are gaming the system, edit warring to try to force their content in and only resorting to DR when a block is imminent. Bad news. Jytdog (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I left a note for User:Bigbaby23 and hope to get a response before an admin closes this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: In lieu of a block, User:Bigbaby23 is warned for edit warring. He may be blocked if he makes any further reverts at Influenza vaccine that don't have a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Ibadibam (Result: No violation)

Page

South Beach Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758371021 by Ibadibam (talk) again,. I look forward to your comments on the dispute on Talk."
2. 01:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758370336 by Ibadibam (talk) if you have something to say, say it on talk. this is lame."
3. 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758365813 by Ibadibam (talk) there is no valid dispute of this passage."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Removing maintenance templates */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is removing maintenance template related to a dispute in which that user is involved. Ibadibam (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ay the OP parachuted from ANI where they made a clueless !vote, and into a behavior issue (not a content dispute), and is blindly tagging the article, which is WP:DISRUPTIVE. There is no content dispute - there is only disruptive editing by an editor about be topic banned at ANI. Why Ibadidam has chosen to actually pretend that there is a valid content dispute, I have no idea; no one who has looked at this sees a content dispute, except Amnccaff who as I said is on the edge of a TBAN. I have asked the OP three times to state their position on the "content dispute" - diff, diff, diff at the article Talk page. no response. Again there is no valid content dispute. Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I see 3 reverts, so it is not a 3RR violation. I just took a quick look at the page and the ANI, and I think that Jytdog's description is accurate. That said, Jytdog, it would be no big deal to have just left that small inline under discussion tag there. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

in the big picture that is true indeed. things will work themselves out. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: No violation Neutrality^talk 02:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B41F:AAC4:6530:A482:4E74:A987 reported by User:JFG (Result: Semi)

Page

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:1017:B41F:AAC4:6530:A482:4E74:A987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "These are well-established facts beyond rational dispute, as shown in the reliable sources. The fact that you dispute them merely indicates your own bias and manifest inadequacy as a thinker."
2. 06:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Revert edit warring vandal who keeps deleting references sans edit summary. Undid revision 758406917 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
3. 06:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Restore unexplained deletion of well-sourced, much-needed content. Undid revision 758406697 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
4. 06:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "tweak"
5. 06:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Restore well-referenced, highly relevant background to the international reaction; namely, the Russian interference in the 2016 election with the aim of electing Donald Trump as U.S. president so as to promote their interests, via international espionage."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring by IP to insert POV material which is unrelated to the article subject, reverted by multiple users — JFG ^talk 08:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JonSonberg reported by User:Sabbatino (Result: Protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:42, 4 January 2017
2. 19:44, 4 January 2017
3. 19:45, 4 January 2017
4. 19:46, 4 January 2017
5. 19:52, 4 January 2017
6. 23:00, 4 January 2017
7. 09:15, 5 January 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This warning was given after this revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some other user tried dealing with this situation, but JonSonberg just showed hostility (1 and 2).

Comments:

• He was blocked not long ago for the same behavior on other articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Jon:

Read your own links. "Some other user" was the person deleting the content. And another person supported me on the talk page. JonSonberg (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

1) This was reverting content deletion not edit warring. 2) Why are you not reporting the other user who deleted large amounts of content that had been on the page for over half a year? 3) You gave a warning after all the reverts had already happened. But you are displaying it here like you have given a warning and then I proceeded to revert the other user's edits. This is immoral. 4) The other user was deleting massive amounts of content from the page, which I reverted. I was not adding content. 5) It's immoral that you are reporting me not the other user. 6) There are other users who have supported my reverts in this case on the talk page. JonSonberg (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

article, as a single article for a single sentence not in plural. Which I accept and have not done anymore. This has nothing to do with it. And you were the one reporting me. JonSonberg (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I added this on the Talk page: The time in history from 540 to 1050 AD is defined as "The Estonian Viking Age" in Estonia by the University of Tartu and it's also included in the school curriculum. Referenced here. Specific details on what to write and display there can be debated. But users are not to delete this section from history. It covers 500 years of AD history of Estonia. JonSonberg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Discuss the changes there and not here. Just let the admins decide what to do, because you are not helping yourself by posting information, which does not belong here. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Uninvolved ed here; the first five diffs in the report are an uninterrupted series, which usually is counted as a single revert. Note to anyone verifying what I just said - the time stamps in the report are two hours off what appears in the version history. So the list of Diffs shows 3 reverts, just shy of 3RR. That said, re-reverts without meaningful discussion are edit warring except in clear cut examples of policy violations and this looks like a content dispute dressed up as anti vandalism. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Footnote to initial closing

A. WP:ARBEE is explicitly about Russia-Estonia conflict (see motions section defining scope). There is another ARB ruling about Eastern Europe generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes

B. @EdJohnston: I don't understand why JonSonberg's prior history merits alerting him and no one else. Please recall that when we revamped DS in 2013-2014 a H-U-G-E amount of discussion went into termination of "cause" factors for these alerts. The idea was to reduce their perception as badges of shame and use by one side against another. I know you don't mean them like that, but this is besides the point.As I understand the new DS alert policy, anyone including involved eds are welcome to give these no-fault/no-shame FYI alerts about DS to anyone working in that area, so long as they haven't already been alerted in the last 12 months. When I enter one of these areas I usually alert myself, just to help people I subsequently alert can relax about it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 weeks. This seems to be a complex dispute about article quality. Consider opening up an WP:RFC on the talk page to resolve the content issue. JonSonberg states "you cannot DELETE content that other users have created and is historically correct." That is NOT part of Wikipedia policy. If material is considered excessive or if someone wants to locate it on a different page (such as History of Estonia), it can be removed. But these removals depend on editor consensus. Since JonSonberg was previously blocked for Baltic-related edits I am alerting him to WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I support the decision. But Estonia is in Northern Europe, not Eastern Europe as your WP:ARBEE tag links to. Enjoy january. JonSonberg (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Nice try. Search the WP:ARBEE case for the word 'Estonia'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Which shows that someone has previously included Estonia as an eastern european country, nothing else JonSonberg (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - involved editor here, so take it with all the necessary grain of salt, but frankly to me it seems that User:JonSonberg has some basic competency issues. I have hard time seeing other reason for repeated insertion of unsourced trivia despite objections, especially then he is sometimes duplicating facts that are already in the article.--Staberinde (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I might not be as eloquent in wording as you are, but I love my country and care about the historical accuracy of the page. You, on the other hand, seem to have an agenda that is equal to that of russian propaganda trolls JonSonberg (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:202.67.39.21 reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: Semi)

Page

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC))"wrong edit by that user again"
2. 03:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "revert wrong edit by another user"
3. 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 03:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
6. 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""
7. 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [2]
2. [3]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is edit warring over the word "International" in the lede. Adam in MO Talk 03:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the edit war as 202.67.39.28 (talk). Range block may be required. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected six months. This article has had socking problems in the past. There is endless dispute about the correct name of the airport. See the article talk page for more. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:CWJakarta reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: Warned)

Page

Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "A little edit"
2. 03:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
3. 02:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
4. 02:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
5. 02:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 202.67.39.21 (talk) to last revision by CWJakarta. (TW)"
6. 02:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
7. 02:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last version by CWJakarta"
8. 02:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 202.67.39.29 (talk) to last revision by AirEnthusiast. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Please stop edit warring */ new section"
2. 03:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
3. 03:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has engaged in massive edit warring and continued to do so after having been warned twice and acknowledged those warning. A block is in order here. Adam in MO Talk 03:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "

Look here. I acknowledge that I have done edit warring. But after you warned me. I just did something to the article just what Zupotachyon said to me in the article talk page. I did not revert the article again. CWJakarta (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Here you reinserted the word "international" and then gave a misleading edit summary.--Adam in MO Talk 03:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But I was doing what Zupotachyon said. This is what he said: "'I would recommend including the official name and the common name (where it does not have "International") afterward. An example could be "Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman International Airport, known as Sultan Aji Muhammad Sulaiman Airport," then referring to the airport later in the article without the "International'". That's all what I did. I do not have the intention of starting another edit war. As for the previous edit warring, I just want to say that I deeply apologise for what I have done. CWJakarta (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As for the edit summary, I agree that it was misleading. If it is possible, I really hope that it could be changed. CWJakarta (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator noteI granted rollback to this user on the 4th, and due to the fac that they almost immediately abused it in an edit war I have now  Revoked it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Result: User:CWJakarta is warned for edit warring, and another admin has suspended their rollback. I'm also semprotecting the article to stop the IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sleyece reported by User:Sunshineisles2 (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version: 14:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 758368538 by Sunshineisles2"
2. 01:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "Recognized as De-Facto President (Official edit, DO NOT REVERT)"
3. 15:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC) "This is an OFFICIAL edit (See talk page)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Proof of notification: [6]

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted edits on this and other pages of similar nature (see Dick Cheney), has not justified decisions, regularly removes relevant discussion from user pages, and offers no comments other than claiming his edits are "Official." Discussion is fairly hard to impossible to initiate. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: Sleyece has just attempted to delete this report in order to prevent a discussion from taking place: 12:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC) --Sunshineisles2 (talk)17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have counter reported this user. This user is constantly harassing me. This user is VERY abusive. -- Sleyece (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Besides edit warring Sleyece has been doing all sorts of other goofy-but-obnoxious stuff such as thanking me for an edit which he deleted, erasing messages to others [7], and saying in edit summaries that his are OFFICIAL EDITS which must not be reverted. Weird. Motsebboh (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This warm and welcome "Testimonial" has been displayed @ Sleyece -- Sleyece (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Motsebboh: -- Sleyece (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for long-term edit warring on this article, trying to make Edith Wilson be the 'de-facto' President of the United States. Five times since 13 December. Nobody else on the talk page supports this. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sunshineisles2 reported by User:Sleyece (Result: )

User has consistently harassed me. User follows me from page to page constantly threatening me. User abuses the report system. --Sleyece (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:209.2.60.96 (Result: Nominator blocked 1 week)

Page: List of Power Rangers Ninja Steel episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sro23 (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. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

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

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

Comments:

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 1 week Widr (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Scurrilous Knave reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: )

Page

First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Scurrilous Knave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Stop your edit warring. This is quite due. Whatever the Russians are paying you, I'll double it. Just st are your Undid revision 758804859 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
2. 17:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Clearly neutral.Undid revision 758803215 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
3. 17:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "More neutrl Undid revision 758791023 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
4. 16:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Passrs NPOV. Exisitng version fails. Undid revision 758758996 by IgnorantArmies (talk)pas"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is political POV-pushing extending to more than this article: [12]. I've never been called a Russian stooge before; this is new. GAB^gab 18:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Samsara 19:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Motsebboh reported by User:Sleyece (Result: )

Page: (talk) User being reported: {{User:Motsebboh}}

User is harassing me. This user has established a conspiracy to get me blocked because I made an info box edit they do not like. (talk) shows a clear abusive collaboration against myself as a user. This user clearly states that it may be possible to use resolved conduct issues as a weapon to make me suffer. There has been no attempt by these two to resolve conflict with me. The user follows me from page to page. Please, block me if you have to, but at least warn them against this toxic and distressing abuse. --Sleyece (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:173.169.42.82 reported by User:Favonian (Result: )

Page: Malinois dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.169.42.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]

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

Favonian (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:PeopleEater143 (Result: )

Page: I See You (The xx album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Comments:

User seems to be unreasonable; I attempted to talk about the issue with them on their talk page, but they refused to communicate that way. They have instead continued to revert mine and another user's edits on this page and multiple other pages. PeopleEater143 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I am absolutely reverting those edits. I've also made 100 other edits in the past 24 hours. And I have opened up an SPI into the above user and two IP users that are involved on this and other pages.Kellymoat (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It is actually 3 IP users. I missed that last one. Kellymoat (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting these edits? None of the edits, form what I could see, were unconstuctive. In fact, most of them were constructive, and at the very least true information. So I'm really not sure why you're doing this. you kept saying on the page for "I See You" that it said "Say Something Loving" was a single on their discography page, but it doesn't, I checked. So your reason is invalid. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess the problem I have is that you have yet to give one valid reason for reverting mine and the other user's edits. You simply keep reverting them without giving any reason other than that you think I'm a sock of them. But the edit-warring on the page "I See You" was going on before I got involved, so it must be more than that. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reasons. You just ignore them.

Oddly enough, why are you only questioning those few edits? The ones made by the ip user. But none of the others that I have made. I mean, I have 500 edits in the past 76 hours. Surely, you could be finding more questionable edits than just the ones belonging to you-- err, I meant the IP User. You are just digging a hole for yourself in the SPI. Kellymoat (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

So you admit that you make edits that are wrong? Wow. If you must know, I simply found your edits to be unreasonable and incorrect. And the fact that you were so intent on reverting that users edits seemed troubling to me. It seemed like you were doing this to get revenge on them for something. PeopleEater143 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Gekhoor reported by User:Wolbo (Result: )

Page

Michael van Gerwen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gekhoor (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 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC) to 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Performance timeline */"
   2. 20:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"
2. 19:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "/* PDC major finals: 29 (21 titles, 8 runner-up) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michael van Gerwen. (TW)"
2. 20:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Michael van Gerwen. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuous edit warring. Editor has been reverted at least 15 times by several editors and asked to take discussion to talk page. Editor does not proved explanation of edits via edit summary, does not discuss changes on article talk page and does not respond to numerous user talk page notifications/warnings. Wolbo (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)