Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Update this page

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:117.200.157.144 reported by User:Uncletomwood (Result: Protected)

Page

Indian Ordnance Factories Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

he/she is reverting my edits and then says he will warn me!think it is the same person accusing me of being a sock!

I don't understand why IOFS officers would be sent to National Academy of Direct Taxes. They have nothing to do with taxation. LBSNAA is a general public administration academy set up by the Govt of India to train officers from all India serives and the Central services. It's mentioned in the citaion I've provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.157.144 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed points. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:OrangesRyellow reported by Manofwar0 (Result: Manofwar0 Blocked)

Page

Anjem Choudary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

[1] reverted 5 times today in total Manofwar0 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Broke 3RR on Anjem Choudary alone Manofwar0 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:Prodego.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Archcaster reported by User:GSK (Result: 48 hours each for Archcaster and Beerest355)

Page

Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2013-06-06T15:52:39Z ""
2. 2013-06-06T14:32:44Z ""
3. 2013-06-05T18:53:26Z "Undid revision 558484557 by Beerest355 (talk) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Wikipedia is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 2013-06-05T21:08:22Z "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers (season 4). (TW)"
2. 2013-06-05T17:25:02Z "/* User page */"
3. 2013-06-05T17:24:50Z ""
4. 2013-06-05T17:05:15Z "/* User page */"
5. 2013-06-05T17:05:05Z ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• First of all, I am not doing edit warring, the User:Beerest355 is, I have nothing to do with this. He started the edit war, I didn't. Honestly, I don't know why the User:GSK was dumb enough to report me anyway over some reliable source that the user typed in as a blog and me undoing his edit is a problem. Also, what does the user page situation have to do with this, Nothing! --Archcaster (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• For someone who has been edit warring you have quite a mouth. Skip the uncivil comments. They only make matters worse for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• This doesn't concern you User:Bbb23 and yes I have a mouth because I was born with it, thank you very much. --Archcaster (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• As an admin, this case does in fact concern Bbb23. Archcaster, even if you feel you're right, continous reverts are always edit warring unless they remove outright vandalism. Archcaster and Beerest355 have been blocked for 48 hours. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Holothurion reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned)

Page: List of Rainbow Codes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Holothurion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Trivial crap, but 4RR is still a bright-line, last time I looked.

Original

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Wotan is one of the Norse gods, aka Odin. This name also appears as Wōden in some languages. In German though, at least mid-20th century German, it was "Wotan". This led to the military codename for the German WWII X-Gerät radarradio navigation device being "Wotan" (and not "Wōden"). The name is probably the best-known aspect of this radarradio navigation device, at least in the UK, owing to RV Jones' book and TV series The Secret War, where this injudicious choice of codename let slip a significant military secret. I have no idea of the linguistic / historical preference for Odin/Wotan/Wōden and I make no comment on which should be the canonical WP article name, but for WWII German radarelectronic warfare the name was clearly Wotan.

In the article List of Rainbow Codes, itself about military codenames, the piped link "the one-eyed [[Wotan (god)|god of the same name]]" was used, because Wotan already appeared earlier on the line.

‎Holothurion is now changing this piped link [[Wōden |god of the same name]], not from any claimed virtue or for any content reason, but seemingly because "redirects are bad". I'm unaware of this. Are redirects to be switched off shortly? Is our regular call "redirects are cheap" no longer accurate? This is a minor point (as is almost everything at ANEW), but

• This is a change, a change driven by one solitary editor, and in such cases it's our usual practice to want to see some improvement achieved, not merely editing for editing's sake.
• Wotan is correct in this context, Wōden is not correct. The link target is visible from the hover text and as the piped link isn't the most obvious link ever, readers are likely to look at that text.
• 4RR is 4RR

The only comment from Holothurion is on the lines that its redirects that are simply the problem, not text itself (with a side-order of gratuitous vandalism accusation), "Redirectioning must be avoided as much as possible. Stop changing it back, or you will be reported as vandalizing"

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's arguments would be correct and valid if the link pointed to an article named "Wotan" and I was changing it to the one pertaining to another deity, related or not (p.e. Jupiter and Zeus). But, since the link in the text in fact redirects to the Wōden article, I'm only changing it so it points to said article without any redirection involved which - being that there's not actual "Wotan" article nor is a case of it being renamed/moved - is in this event unnecessary and avoidable; I'm taking into full account the rules and guidelines described in Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. The content, purpose and meaning of the aforementioned text in List of Rainbow Codes remains completely intact.

Regarding the report warning (which I recognize was overdid on my part), it was given to Andy Dingley with the best of interests in mind pertaining both of us and the three-revert rule, and also in the grounds that the user was about to start/started an edit war that could be avoided and resolved through discussion instead of continually resort to changing/reverting the List of Rainbow Codes article. With all that said, I should point out that neither of us violated the 3RR. — Holothurion (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Why (per WP:NOTBROKEN) is this redirect "broken", so that you are having to repeatedly "fix" it?

If it is not "broken", so that there is nothing to "fix", then why are you repeatedly changing it?

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I have left a message on Holothurion's talk page informing him that he has in fact breached 3RR and explaining what he must do to avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Message answered on my talk page. - Holothurion (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on Holothurion's self-revert, acknowledgment, and promise, I'm closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unrelated issue, but I've now had yet another abusive and trolling email from "Reisio" (who I'm sure isn't Reisio (talk · contribs)) claiming that because Wotan wasn't a radar then my point is invalid and I should be indef blocked for edit-warring and stupidity. I am getting just a little fed up with these (Four now). I know that WP can't/won't do anything about checkusering, but I have notified your ISP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:46.239.60.21 reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Blocked)

Page: Yazdânism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.239.60.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

UPDATE: 5th revert: [11]

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

This article is only a sample of this IP's massive edit warring all over the place. The IP based in Bosnia (which apparently changes every 24 hours) is contentiously 3RR edit warring (with bias) against all users on multiple articles all over the place. Previously edit warred all the same articles as User:46.239.14.76 yesterday, User:109.165.188.100 the day before... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started disscusion of Template talk:Yazdânism and i've informed three admins about the issue. Til Eulenspiegel and his fellow IP-POV-pushers didn't leave any constructive comments, just forcing their POV as in other cases. This editor is falsely accusing me of being sock also. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note this IP is also the subject of an SPI now, for being the sock of User:Shaushka. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by another admin. This is playing out in other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ystino19827 and User:0987nervewracker reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: London School of Business and Finance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Ystino19827 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 0987nervewracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]
7. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

The edit warring is happening over a period of several days, with at least four registered users, as well as an IP involved in the reversions. Several users, including Special:Contributions/80.42.234.237 Special:Contributions/80.42.230.238 and Special:Contributions/139.222.18.162 have been trying to un-revert these users' changes. I am not involved in the edit warring; I have simply reverted it back to the pre-edit war version. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. The registered accounts are not auto-confirmed. However, the material is too inflammatory to leave in, and I've removed it as unreliably sourced (blogs and other similar websites, plus a YouTube video).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Obiwankenobi reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Warned)

Page: Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is not a 3RR report, but a report for edit warring over two days about terms used for, or comparable with, female genital mutilation (FGM). This is a contentious issue and the editor has been made aware of that here. He is adding terms that are not equivalent to FGM, or are already discussed or linked in the article, and has reverted in whole or in part against three editors who have removed them.

• His 1st edit to the article: 01:24, 6 June, added two terms to See also

• 1st revert: 01:34, 6 June, restored one of the terms (partial revert)

• 2nd edit: 03:22, 6 June, added a hatnote linking to three terms

• 2nd revert: 03:45, 6 June, restored hatnote (wholesale revert)

• 3rd edit: 04:44, 6 June, added alternative terms to infobox

• 3rd revert: 21:11, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
• 4th revert: 22:03, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
• 5th revert: 22:39, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I'm reporting this because Obiwankenobi has been involved in other serial reverting recently, and seems to feel that he can revert up to 3RR. See his comment in this edit summary when removing a warning: "3 reverts is not 4".

The other reason I'm reporting it is that I believe he followed me to female genital mutilation after I opened an RfC to change the title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). He is strongly opposed to the Sarah Brown RfC, and shortly after I first commented on that talk page at 19:18, 5 June, he appeared at 20:21, 5 June on the FGM talk page to add links to page moves, his first-ever edit to the talk page or article. It's possible that it's a coincidence but it's unlikely; I had made FGM-related edits just before my first comment on the Sarah Brown page, so they were obvious in my contribs.

Obiwankenobi's edits to FGM were accompanied by going to several redirects to FGM, or related articles, and changing them, apparently to match the edits he was making to FGM. Examples: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] It's not that's there necessarily a problem with all these edits, it's just that there was a sudden interest in edits about female genitalia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I do not appreciate the attempt by SV to link these two sets of edits - they are quite different. One set of edits was around linking to existing wikipedia articles for Clitoridectomy and Clitoridotomy, while the other set of edits was around adding terms widely used in the literature "Sunna circumcision" and "Pharaonic circumcision" to the infobox ; both of these terms are already mentioned in the body of the article - my change was to simply add it to the info box. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are not equivalent terms for FGM. This is the problem with editing the article to make a point, and not being familiar what is a complex and sensitive issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the forum to discuss the substantive issues, but the notion that you know and I don't, as well as the assertion that I'm trying to make a point (what point might that be?) is a bit misguided here. I'm emphatically *not* trying to make a point, by any edits, full stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin / Boomerang

Slim Virgin has 4 reverts in the same exact time period.

• Revision as of 21:30, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 21:47, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 23:43, 5 June 2013
• Revision as of 17:02, 7 June 2013

So WP:BOOMERANG should be considered here. But I'd rather not impose sanctions against anyone here, if possible. But if you look carefully, every single line of text I've tried to add to the article has been reverted by SV, so there is also an issue of WP:OWN here.

I admit to being frustrated and doing 3 reverts above, which I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that - it's just the edit summaries said the names weren't backed up by sources, but the actual source linked backed up almost every single name, and other sources in the article back up the other names - so I was frustrated that people were reverting without reading any sources while claiming that the edits were not sourced. I was wrong to revert though.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the reverts above, and it won't happen again, I will take it to talk earlier. As to SV's other allegations, I've added "old moves" to a number of articles, and FGM is one I'd been meaning to do for a while; seeing it mentioned on SVs and other people's talk pages reminded me to do so. That's it. I'd also rather SV not insinuate I'm up to something nefarious, when in fact I corrected some long-standing mistaken redirects per the edits above. I'm a gnome, so when I come across an article, I fix what I feel needs fixing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Most of Obiwankenobi's comments are misguided. However, based on their apology, I have left a message on their talk page that they may avoid a block if they agree not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Obiwankenobi has agreed not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz reported by User:Taroaldo (Result: Blocked)

Page

Michael Omolewa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AfricaTanz (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 Jun 7 2013 9:43 PM to Jun 7 2013 9:50 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 9:50 PM ""
   2. Jun 7 2013 9:43 PM "Undid revision 558849262 by Lord777 (talk) Until this article is fixed, the tags must remain per Wikipedia policy. Removing them is disruptive and can easily get you indefinitely blocked."
2. Jun 7 2013 10:57 PM "restore some well sourced information that impacts the article's notability"
3. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 11:01 PM to Jun 7 2013 11:02 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 11:02 PM "adding resume tag"
   2. Jun 7 2013 11:01 PM "Undid revision 558857432 by Taroaldo (talk) the clean-up is not complete, so tag should remain"
4. Consecutive edits made from Jun 7 2013 11:20 PM to Jun 7 2013 11:21 PM
   1. Jun 7 2013 11:21 PM ""
   2. Jun 7 2013 11:20 PM "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 7 2013 11:34 PM "Second Warning Re: Uncivil Behaviour"
2. Jun 7 2013 10:01 PM "Warning: civility"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 7 2013 10:48 PM "/* Puff */ c."
2. Jun 7 2013 10:10 PM "That's a lot of puff!"

Comments:

• Through 'recent changes' I noticed an uncivil edit summary given by AfricaTanz to Lord777 regarding edits he was making to this page. AfricaTanz feels strongly that the page is written like a fan page, and I agree. I attempted to begin making some dramatic changes to bring the article more into line with Wikipedia standards. I achieved a result sufficient enough to remove the "fansite" tag, but AfricaTanz again responded with hostility, this time toward me. So far in this encounter, AfricaTanz has not behaved civilly at all -- to any of the involved parties, and has shown no inclination to assume good faith, despite my attempts to make some of the changes to the article that he seemed to want. Lord777 had also expressed some of his feelings about the encounter on my talk page, if you wish to review it. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Note. A short time after I filed this report, this popped up on my talk page. Taroaldo (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• A previous 3RR report for same user may be relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199#User:70.253.75.84 reported by User:Jenova20 (Result: 1 week) —Psychonaut (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked AfricaTanz for violating WP:3RR. In response to other allegations, @Taroaldo, if you are going to accuse an editor of being uncivil, please include diffs. @Psychonaut, it would take me a fair amount of time to analyze your sock puppet allegations. If you feel the evidence is strong enough, you should file a report at WP:SPI. If no other named accounts are involved, you will have to rely on non-technical evidence as it would be unusual for a CU to be performed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not alleging that AfricaTanz has violated the policy on multiple accounts, nor do I think I ever have. The previous report demonstrates that before creating an account he was active as an anonymous editor with a dynamic IP, though there's nothing wrong with that. The IP range was already blocked for disruptive editing, and that block (combined with semiprotection of some of the affected articles) led him to create an account. (This was more or less the intended effect—we wanted him to register so that we could engage in discussion with him. We had no guarantee that he noticed any of the messages editors were leaving the IP talk pages.) I don't have any reason to believe the he has been editing from anything other than the User:AfricaTanz account since its creation, so there's no reason to take the matter to WP:SPI. I linked to the previous 3RR report here only to provide some further context to the present dispute. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That's fine, and I appreciate the clarification. However, in my view if a person is blocked for disruptive editing and then registers an account without disclosing their history, that is problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mhazard9 reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: 48h)

Page: Pathetic fallacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mhazard9 (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]
5. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

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

Comments:

Mhazard9 is edit warring to add nonstandard capitalization of common nouns, as well as repeatedly re-adding other disputed content. His edits have been undone by four separate editors. Mhazard9 has responded to neither my query on the article's talk page nor my non-template warning on his or her user talk, instead reappearing at the article to reinsert the disputed edits for the fifth time. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Some action needs to be taken regarding Mhazard9. The editor simply refuses to accept policy and consensus on a broad swath of issues from non-free content use requirements to NPOV to matters of style, and continuously reinserts their preferred text and content, usually with opaque and generic, if not outright deceptive edit summaries. All efforts at discuss prove futile. Blocked just six weeks ago for repeatedly removing copyright issue tags. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User has been blocked before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Faizan (Result: Declined)

Page

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 5:56 PM "Undid revision 558908618 by Darkness Shines (talk) the sources only says that women were raped, not men, also the info should be only about the rapes as per the title"
2. Jun 8 2013 6:01 PM "Undid revision 558909546 by Faizan (talk) unexplained revert"
3. Jun 8 2013 6:29 PM "re-added disputed tags, see talk page first before reverting"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 6:37 PM "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 8 2013 6:42 PM "/* Rape against Biharis */ re"

Comments:

Constant disruptive editing. Reverting users, adding tags without context. Multiple reverts, not sticking to the guidelines. Last option was a report here, and I was compelled to make it. Faizan 14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Kmzayeem has only 3 reverts that I counted, he has also started a section on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I had made only 3 reverts. Adding tags is not nonconstructive, I had added the tags after posting in the article talk page. In addition, User:Faizan had also reverted my edits without any explanation [38], [39], [40]. As it is related to the context, I would also like to bring the issue of this article where User:Faizan is continuously removing the POV tags without reaching a consensus ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]).--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus has been reached. I tried my best for it, you did not elucidate your concerns in talk. I provided you the diffs of the improvements of the article is talk, but you don't cooperate. The tags are redundant without explanation. Secondly, you have reverted me several times there. I instead, tolerated it and even self-reverted my self many times. Faizan 15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Secondly for the POV tags, an RfC is also under progress. Faizan 15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb23. Faizan 15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's only you who is assuming to have reached the consensus. You have also reverted many edits of mine and some other users. You are just putting the  Done mark without actually addressing the issues. I've already stated my concerns. The issues are still not addressed and you went on to remove the tags.--Zayeem ^(talk) 15:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Did not I expand the sections you cited? I even provided you with the diffs of my improvements, now let the people decide in the RfC. Faizan 15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Consensus has been reached. — Please provide the link! --Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. I see no 3RR violations, although both the reporter and the reported are at 3 reverts. I see no consensus. I see no RfC, at least not on the article talk page. I do see a lock coming if you folks can't stop battling in the article. Keep it on the talk page until there actually is a consensus. At this point, no action other than my advice is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Maccabipage reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

Page

San Remo conference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 5:35 PM "/* Resolutions */"
2. Jun 8 2013 4:48 PM ""
3. Jun 8 2013 3:32 PM "/* Resolutions */"
4. Jun 8 2013 2:17 PM "/* Resolutions */"
5. Jun 8 2013 1:57 PM "/* Resolutions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 4:09 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on San Remo conference. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Warning by Zero0000[49]

Warning by Nableezy[50]

Warning by EdJohnston[51]

Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR.

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Although Ed generously left the user an opportunity a few hours ago to possibly avoid a block, the user has not responded. In addition, the user has never edited an article talk page, and the last time they edited a user talk page was in 2011. Finally, they were warned more than once about their continuing violation but just kept ignoring the warnings and reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Could someone undo this editor's latest reversion on the article? I have already reverted once, as have several others, and the article is covered by 1RR. RolandR (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Orhan-27 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

Page

Near East University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Orhan-27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 12:33 PM "menu added"
2. Jun 8 2013 11:55 AM "faculre"
3. Jun 8 2013 9:37 AM "about change"
4. Jun 8 2013 9:14 AM ""
5. Jun 8 2013 7:56 AM "about change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 12:12 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Near East University. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

(I'm using Twinkle to report this for the first time. I guess I'll see how it works after I've submitted it.) This article has a history of contentious editing by SPAs. Some, like this user, are affiliated with the university (they acknowledge that). I tried to explain to them on their talk page what they should and shouldn't do and why, but it apparently didn't penetrate. I blocked one of the SPAs a few days ago for breaching WP:3RR, but having challenged the content itself with this new editor, I am now WP:INVOLVED. Some of the problem may be incompetence stemming from language difficulties, but these continued edits by partisans cause a lot of disruption to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Digifan23 reported by User:AzaToth (Result: )

Page

List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Digifan23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 9 2013 1:38 AM "Reverted 7 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by 98.200.40.18. (TW)"
2. Jun 9 2013 2:00 AM "Reverted 3 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"
3. Jun 9 2013 2:08 AM "Reverted 1 edit by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"
4. Jun 9 2013 2:14 AM "Reverted 2 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 9 2013 2:24 AM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Related to FanforClark14 (talk · contribs) reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV _→AzaToth 00:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:FanforClark14 reported by User:Digifan23 (Result: )

Page

List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FanforClark14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=19#

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 8 2013 6:14 PM to Jun 8 2013 7:38 PM
   1. Jun 8 2013 6:14 PM ""
   2. Jun 8 2013 6:21 PM "/* Current programming (As of June 2013) */"
   3. Jun 8 2013 6:40 PM ""
   4. Jun 8 2013 7:19 PM "/* Live-action */"
   5. Jun 8 2013 7:26 PM ""
   6. Jun 8 2013 7:29 PM "/* Animated */"
   7. Jun 8 2013 7:38 PM ""
2. Consecutive edits made from Jun 8 2013 7:45 PM to Jun 8 2013 7:55 PM
   1. Jun 8 2013 7:45 PM ""
   2. Jun 8 2013 7:50 PM ""
   3. Jun 8 2013 7:55 PM ""
3. Jun 8 2013 8:07 PM ""
4. Jun 8 2013 8:12 PM ""
5. Jun 8 2013 8:25 PM ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FanforClark14&diff=558981010&oldid=558980026

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:FanforClark14 (talk · contribs) reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV

User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: )

Page: Raspberry Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.72.118.83 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] / [59]

Comments:
POV pushing/unreliable sources

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kmzayeem (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. [60] Initial edit
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]
6. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

This user has competency issues along with the edit warring, he seems to think you can have a WP:SYNTH from just one source. He also accuses me of misrepresenting the source, yet he has not even checked it, and I quoted from the source on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kulturdenkmal reported by User:Pc-world (Result: )

Page: PRISM (surveillance program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Kulturdenkmal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558970577
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558973204
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559064920
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559075747

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
Many people removing and readding the "Known Counter Measures" (later renamed to "Discussed counter measures") section without participating in the discussion on the talk page. --pcworld (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I participated in the discussion and I didn't change the site four times today as you pretend ... @admins just read the talk page to see for yourself. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)