Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Tigerboy1966 reported by User:Dr John Peterson (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)

Page: Golden Horn (horse) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tigerboy1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tigerboy1966 has gone way beyond the 3RR (about 6 or 7 times) and ignores the Talk page.--Dr John Peterson (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

please view the edit history of the page. It's pretty obvious what's happening. Tigerboy1966  15:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have filed a relevant SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr John Peterson. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Dr John Peterson indefinitely as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This IP User talk:2.123.6.113 has also be antagonistic [1] and is probably also a sock. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also User:2.120.186.252 today - showing a similar pattern --Bcp67 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The 2.120 IP is now blocked as well. The most recent SPI is now under the name WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Snackbag. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This one popped up today User:2.125.172.76. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 17:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And this one User:2.122.170.80. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 00:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Axxxion reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Warned)

Page: Cold War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Axxxion (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. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6] (note the completely false edit summary)

One of these is a little bit out of the 24 hr range, but that's still 5 reverts in just over 24 hrs, with 4 of these within 24 hrs. Against two different editors.

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

User has been blocked for edit (and move) warring twice before. They know what's up.

The dispute is straight forward and I thought the edit summaries were clear. The fact that Axxion reverted any changes to the article within seconds - before it was even possible to comment on the talk page - also made this difficult. Discussion was started here.

Comments:
Could someone please check on this? Axxxion is still edit warring. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Axxxion is warned that this article is covered by the WP:ARBEE discretionary sanctions. Neither party has reverted again since 24 June so no block seems necessary. Though Axxxion's good faith is not quite evident, his talk page response on 25 June contains the type of analysis that is usually taken seriously. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Tariq Fadel reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 24 hours )

Page

Israel Defense Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tariq Fadel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668581117 by Poliocretes (talk)"
2. 06:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668575527 by Amaury (talk)"
3. 05:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668564542 by SantiLak (talk)"
4. 01:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "added relevant links"
5. 01:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668431127 by Poliocretes (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[8]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tariq Fadel is a new SPA who has been repeatedly adding undue content over the past several days, in spite of both repeated messages on their talk page and being reverted by several different users, and obviously has no intention to stop. Thomas.W ^talk 09:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 10:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Tiptoety: 149.200.129.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has now (at 2100 UTC) repeated the exact same edit over which Tariq Fadel was edit warring and has been blocked for 24h. I suspect the IP is being used for block evasion. Would you consider also blocking the IP? General Ization ^Talk 21:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Tiptoety ^talk 21:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:VictoriaGrayson (Result: Protected)

Page: Caste system in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Twobells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk discussion

Comments:
This user indicated he won't stop. So expect more edit warring and junk editing. And he removed the link to this Noticeboard from his talk page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected one week. Admins are unlikely to put up with an ongoing war on this article, so please be careful. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Request Review: I would like to protest this decision. The user who edit-warred and breached 3RR has been let off without any sanction and the users who have been defending Wikipedia have been punished by barring from edits for a week (essentially a block as far as this page is concerned). This seems quite backward to me. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. There is now a ridiculously long list of edit requests from me, and many more that should be sorted out that I have not listed. And all the contributors with experience are singing from the same hymn-sheet. The real problem has been missed completely here, sorry. I've got a lot of respect for EdJ, who does wonders here, but I think they've missed the point on this occasion. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The alternative to full protection would have been a block for both User:Twobells and User:Sitush for 3RR violation. If you can show that agreement has been reached on the talk page the protection can be lifted, but I don't yet see that. Because the role of the British in the caste system is complex, it's likely that an RfC may be needed as a basis for the future. You might even need WP:RSN to get rid of low-quality sources. When edit-warring reports come here, they don't get deep analysis, they get a count of the reverts. If you want to accuse one party or the other of reverting against consensus you need good evidence of the consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Where did I breach 3RR, please? And did you not notice the consensus that Twobells was doing the wrong thing? I said it, VG said it, Kautilya said it and Twobells was removing sourced material without discussing first. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can see, VictoriaGrayson had done two reverts (probably reasonably because Twobells was removing sourced content), and Sitush did two reverts, because Twobells was overwriting his edits. Twobells was making a show of participating in the talk page discussion, but it wasn't genuine. My question about whether he has read the cited sources [9] hasn't been answered. At a minimum, Twobells should have been given a stern warning. I believe EdJohnston is making it difficult for us to maintain this page due to his leniency towards edit warriors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is pretty much my reading of the situation, Kautilya, although EdJ isn't usually prone to be anything but fair. FWIW, my edits at that time were entirely uncontroversial maintenance/cleaning stuff. In hindsight, I do wonder whether, despite being here since 2006, Twobells doesn't understand how to deal with edit conflicts. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJ perhaps wasn't aware that Twobells had already been notified of the sanctions. That's the only reason I can think of for this edit. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Taoni reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "for marriages Britannica is using some + for dislike of marriage the author is using many, plz avoid POV pushing and original research you did for mewar point"
2. 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "please have a look upon Britannica update"
3. 16:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "Britannica update, eastern Punjab + some Rajputs"
4. 07:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Rajput kingdoms */ Britannica update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rajput. (TW)"
2. 18:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Rajput. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The Talk page is full of such discussions.

Comments:

Quoting the single source and ignoring all other sources and views of other editors, the user is determined to let only the promotional contents be published. Opposing all the facts the user is consistently disrupting the page. A serious look, review and attention of the Admins is needed to resolve the issue because the user is invoking the Edit war with almost all the editors who so ever edits the page with NPOV MahenSingha (Talk) 18:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Taoni also had the generic sanctions warning and continued on their merry way. The account is fairly new. I'm not so sure about the experience but guess I'll have to AGF for now. Sitush (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

see me on Rajput talk page. You people had discussed nothing with me. Taoni (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours as a clear violation of WP:3RR. Additionally, a clear message was left for the editor in question advising that this is a sensitive topic area and further sanctions will be imposed on any additional disruption. —Darkwind (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2601:404:8000:8166:FD38:3633:756E:CFF1 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Shrek Forever After (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:404:8000:8166:FD38:3633:756E:CFF1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[10]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
2. 16:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
3. 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Please stop edit-warring. Discuss at Talk page."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP editor edit-warring at multiple film articles DonIago (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User:MaverickLittle reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: No violation)

Page

Ivy Taylor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MaverickLittle (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 22:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) to 23:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 San Antonio mayor's race */"
   4. 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 San Antonio mayor's race */"
   5. 23:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* 2015 San Antonio mayor's race */"
   6. 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* College */"
   7. 23:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) to 23:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   2. 23:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* College */"
   3. 23:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ board wk"
   4. 23:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Tenure */ award"
   5. 23:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Not using edit summary on Ivy Taylor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Wild, blind revert by SanAnMan (talk) borders on vandalism */"
2. 03:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Wild, blind revert by SanAnMan (talk) borders on vandalism */"

Comments:

User continues to make multiple revisions and edits to article without edit summaries and constantly blanks out any warnings issued to him by multiple parties. SanAnMan (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment Your characterization of the three-revert rule on the article's talk page is not correct; any sequence of consecutive edits counts together as one revert. Further, it only counts as a revert if it undoes, in whole or in part, the work of other editors. Pure additions do not count as a revert (at least, not the first time). —Darkwind (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. The behavior on this page does not appear to be edit warring per se. If you believe that MaverickLittle (t c) is editing disruptively, you'll need to file a report at a different noticeboard such as WP:ANI. The only editing behavior analyzed here is reversion/edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 02:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

The talkpage discussion is: Talk:David_Cameron#Kinship_issues. The short of it is that another editor double-checked the originally cited source, a Burke's Peerage biography, and found it has nothing to do with the Mabelina's claim: that David Cameron is descendant of the chiefs of Clan Cameron and an 8th cousin of the current chief. The discussion shows that there's no consensus to add such a statement into the article in the first place, and that there's no verifiable source to even support it. That hasn't stopped Mabelina.

• 00:10, 25 June 2015 [11], I removed the claim which failed verification, and left a note on the talkpage.
• 00:39, 25 June 2015 [12], Mebelina reverts.
• 00:41, 25 June 2015 [13], Rjensen reverts Mabelina.
• 00:46, 25 June 2015‎ [14], Mabelina revert Rjensen.
• 02:15, 25 June 2015 [15], I revert Mabelina.
• 03:18, 25 June 2015 [16], Mabelina re-adds the claim though reworded without any source.
• 22:30, 25 June 2015 [17], I revert.
• 23:56, 25 June 2015 [18], Mebelina reverts.
• 00:25, 26 June 2015 [19], I revert.
• 00:58, 26 June 2015‎ [20], Mebelina reverts.

Comments:

User:Mabelina - hello: I have no wish to engage in Edit War, especially since I have detailed my sources and explained not only the kinship but also the reasons for its mention numerous times; I have simply been blanked without good reason as to why this info should not be included save various dubious, somewhat hostile and slanderous retorts.

The whole justification provided by Rjensen and Brianann MacAmhlaidh for removing the simple and well-known fact that David Cameron and the present Chief of Clan Cameron (known as The Lochiel) is founded on the "consensus" basis that Burke's does not detail David Cameron's ancestry. This is totally inaccurate: qv. either www.burkespeerage.com and/or BPB 2003 and/or BLG 1952.

Furthermore the David Cameron article highlights at length descriptions of his "posh" matrilineal descents, yet fails to make any mention of how he descends from the senior Cameron family. The logic for this non-inclusion / reversions have been variously stated along the lines of "how would 8th cousins know each other?" (answer: Michael Ancram is married to the present Lochiel's sister).

I have no wish to engage in Edit War but naturally would like to see balanced and accurate articles appear on Wiki. And, needless to say, whatever view you reach (ie. inclusion or non-inclusion of Cameron's patrilineal ancestry) shall be followed by me. Many thanks.

Best M Mabelina (talk) 01:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours due to the clear violation of 3RR. Block duration based on previous block history. @Mabelina:, it doesn't matter whether you genuinely think you're improving the article, or whether your information is "right" or "wrong" or any other reason you may have. Edit warring is never acceptable, and you already know this because you've been blocked for it in the past. —Darkwind (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Funkatastic reported by User:OldSkool01 (Result: malformed report, page prot.)

Page: The Beast in the East (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Funkatastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Funkatastic has broken the 3RR and is deleting all messages off of their Talk page without reading them. I've tried several times to reason with this user and they've refused. -- OldSkool01 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Users are allowed to blank messages from their talk page (with a few exceptions stated at WP:BLANKING). --TL22 (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I read all your posts on my talk page besides the last one because I could tell by the very first sentence that it was a personal message and had nothing to do with the page we interacted on. Also, I have every right to remove posts from my talk page as I please. It's my user page. Funkatastic (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

As for your edit warring allegations, it was on an unprotected professional wrestling page, which are constant targets for vandalism and "internet trolling". You removed verifiable references with citation requests on multiple occasions and your only reason for doing so was that the reference wasn't worded the exact way you wanted it. That is a personal edit and is in no way productive or community friendly. In order to end YOUR edit warring, I was forced to overlook your complete refusal of compromise and spent nearly an hour searching for a reference that was word-for-word exactly the way you wanted it. How is that at all fair on my part? Funkatastic (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• It would have taken you no time to see that I am not a troll nor have I ever vandalized any pages. Also this is not an edit warring allegation. You broke a strict Wiki rule. The 3 Revert Rule. This is not the space to have this conversation. I am not the one that was rude and disrespectful. If you want to continue this conversation then let's use my talk page. If not then so be it. OldSkool01 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not the place to discuss? I'm defending myself. Maybe it's obvious that you're not a troll, but I'm trying to stop the page from being vandalized until it gets locked like all wrestling event pages are. I can't research every single person that makes an edit on the page. If anything this should be chalked up as a misunderstanding, but that's not for me to say. Funkatastic (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment OldSkool01, you are obligated to notify any users you report here by leaving a {{subst:an3-notice}} template message on their talk page, but you did not. There is a big, red, bold notice at the top of this noticeboard indicating this. Please remember to notify users you report in the future. --Chris (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. @Funkatastic: You are misusing the "minor edit" checkbox. Please read WP:MINOR and follow it going forward. —Darkwind (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:39.47.184.157 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Protected)

Page

Kashmir conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "I have already used the talk page as well as dispute resolution mechanism. Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute."
2. 16:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"
3. 16:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "I have already explained . read again. Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"
4. 16:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "THis para is bone of dispute so is removed till Dispute resolution decides. Do no intimidate on my talk page. Face the Dispute resolution discussion. Do not try to play admin"
5. 16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "Disputed para removed until Dispute resolution committee decides the dispute"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kashmir conflict."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP repeatedly removing properly sourced content and demanding that it not be readded until a dispute resolution discussion that was started two weeks ago, and has seen no progress, is over. The article has been protected to end similar previous disruption by IPs, but the protection ended yesterday, and the disruption started again today. And the IP obviously has no intention to stop. Thomas.W ^talk 17:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir, there is generally accepted practice in the world that once a matter is disputed between two parties then legally and ethically neither party try to impose his version and get page protection by using his greater WP knowledge or alliances again and again to keep it for ages. I used talk page for disscussion 20 days ago see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict then by mutual agreement we all went to dispute resolution noticeboard here https://en.w days ago ikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . Please stop clever childish and unethical practices; 39.47.184.157 (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are a true nuetral admin then I request you to also initiate sock puppet investigation user Human3015 and Rsrikanth see here https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Kashmir_conflict&action=history they edit togather to avoid three edit rule. they have done two times on kashmir confict and i am sure they must have done at other pages too. Similarly see offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring. I want justice for all including me 39.47.184.157 (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: CosmicEmperor is indefinitely blocked. Dustin (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:Philg88, though the IP would otherwise deserve a block for 3RR violation. The issue of how to describe the 2014 elections is also being discussed at WP:DRN#Kashmir conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston I will try to comply with WP rules. What about sock puppetry investigation of Human3015 and Rsrikanth065 and SPI should also include Kautilya3 CosmicEmperor including investigation for offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise keeping in view https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Human3015#Those_users ; after reading that plus all indo pak & kashmir relevant Wiki articles edit history; Apparently Kautilya3 Human3015 and CosmicEmperor are doing so and are providing each other back up to avoid 3 revert rule of edit warring and trapping users like us who have lesser WP knowledge. 39.47.184.157 (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Rojava, 1R rule (Result: Withdrawn)

User being reported

Multi-gesture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Rojava is under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. User Multi-gesture reverted and deleted sourced materials keeping sentences that fit his agenda well by focusing on Syrian violation of Human rights and trying to hide Kurdish ones.

• He reverted here [21] claiming to restore deleted sourced material
• When I reintroduced the info he deleted and kept the info that he claimed to restore, he reverted again [22]
• He also reverted here [23] and here [24]

4 reverts in two hours.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• • It should be noted that after I told him that I reported him, Multi-gesture showed a sign of good well and restored the sourced material he deleted to Rojava. I would like to withdraw the report.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Note: Withdrawn. —Darkwind (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Salar80s reported by User:Samak (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Salar80s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Add a fake map in Kurdistan article & manipulating entries

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Samək^Talk 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC) -->

Blocked – 24 hours. Salar80s has been edit warring to try to force a map created by himself into the lead of the article. The map is unreferenced. It proposes a much larger area for Kurdistan than the one given in the CIA map. User:Salar80s is missing the need to explain why his map is better, and where he got the data. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Rojava, Tell Abyad, 1R rule (Result: Malformed report)

User being reported

عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user removes sourced contents or changes it with his prefered one ([25], [26]).--Multi-gesture (talk)

• Comment : considering that Multi Gesture has already reverted five times in less than ten hours, then I dont think he is in a good position to complain [[27][28][29][30][31].--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. You have also broke the three revert rule so there is no actual reason to complain really. --TL22 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Multi-gesture reported by User:عمرو بن كلثوم (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Multi-gesture (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

This new user is only for edit-warring. This is the second time they are reported within a few hours. I have left a message to them (that they have also reverted), and we were with user Aram trying to reach a consensus with the user, but they always revert and stick to their point of view. The user has removed substantial amounts of sourced material, simply because it did not fit with their editing direction/agenda. They also did the same thing in Tell Abyad article here, here and here They are trying to fill the article with propaganda glorifying their side of the conflict. This is a third article where they are edit-warring. I urge the Admin to go through all their contributions. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Multi-gesture isnt just edit-warring, but he is a kind of Ethnic fighter. He went so far as to claim that ISIS, the multi-Ethnic terrorist group is an Arab group [39]. He also tried to delete the accusation against Kurdish Militias while keeping only the accusation against the Arab ones [40]. He restored them [41] but only after I told him that I reported him here [42].--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are not allowed to describe me as an Ethnic fighter. Your contributions in wikipedia (you and عمرو بن كلثوم) shows that your only goal is to prove the racial superiority of the Arab race and it isn't fitted into Wikipedia Policies. I only opposed this idea by accredited references.--Multi-gesture (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

My contributions revolve around Historic sites and ancient kings, bringing them to GA statues [43][44][45][46]. PS. Im not an Arab and I edited the Arab article perhaps twice. But trying to stick ISIS to Arabs and make it their shame is kind of Ethnic fighting aiming at deforming an ethnicity. Remember, ISIS leader who destroyed Kobane was a Kurd. Other signs of your mission is adding the word claims next to every violation ascribed to Kurds, while presenting the violations ascribed to Arabs as facts not just claims.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You are honest when you say you are not a Sunni Arab But I must mention that the Cristian Arabs (Aramians) are more nationalist than the regular arabs. Your edits in Kurdish related articles are mostly in the area of proving that Semetic christians are the original inhabitants of Middle East and Kurds are not aborigine to their area. It's the manner you have choosen toward these subjects.--Multi-gesture (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont need to prove it, its proven by archaeology and written on the stones, artifacts and historical records of the region. Yet, again you are wrong, Im not a Christian :) By the way, this argument should have happened on Rojava talk page or your own talk page. But you chose to edit-war and revert our attempts to communicate with you [47][48] But since you opened the topic, it is true that for most of its history Syrian Jazira was Semitic, but that doesnt change the fact that today, Jazira have Kurdish majority (in some areas) and that Kurds should have their full Human, Political and Cultural rights.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gesture, could you give me one example where my contributions show the "racial superiority of the Arab race"? Still, your claim is irrelevant here. You simply can't reach a common ground with other users. Your only aim is to spread PYD propaganda like the stories (e.g., HERISH ALI story) and quotes you add. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave some of the examples in my complaint section.--Multi-gesture (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked, Multi-gesture (t c) for 24 hours, عمرو بن كلثوم (t c) for 48 hours per previous block history. This article, and especially the subject being warred over, is subject to community sanctions and a one-revert rule, which both users violated. —Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2A03:2880:3010:6FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1/User:Rmkop/User:2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Rangeblocked 72 hours)

Page: Mahmud of Ghazni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Faisalabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Kalinjar Fort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rmkop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/2A03:2880:3010:6FF1:FACE:B00C:0:1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/2A03:2880:3010:6FF5:FACE:B00C:0:1 (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. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]
7. [55]
8. [56]
9. [57]
10. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59][60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61][62][63][64][65]

Comments:
This is a rather complex issue, with user:Rmkop, logging out which shows up as two(or more) alpha-numerical accounts[2A03:2880:3010:6FF4:FACE:B00C:0:1][66], to edit war their POV/OR ridden nonsense into three articles. I have posted multiple sources on Talk:Kalinjar Fort and have been summarily ignored. This appears to be some sort of personal dislike of what transpired. Attempts at discussion have been fruitless. I could have listed more diffs of Rmkop's logged out diffs, but I see no reason to overload the page. The edits of Rmkop(8 edits) and their logged out identities speak for themselves. At this point there may be even more alpha-numeric identities being used by Rmkop. If Rmkop is blocked for edit warring, page protection for the articles in question will be necessary. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rmkop continues to edit war whilst logged out, this time reverting Edward321, this being the 4th revert on the Kalinjar Fort article in 24 hours for Rmkop. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• The IP range 2A03:2880:3010:6FF0:0:0:0:0/60 has been Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I am reluctant to assume Rmkop (t c) is the same as the IP editor, though it will quickly become apparent if he logs back in to continue editing (in which case, ping me or repost here). —Darkwind (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:Multi-gesture (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Rojava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Tel Abyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: عمرو بن كلثوم (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. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] --Multi-gesture (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• I don't think I need to defend myself here given the links provided of the "alleged reverts" :) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked, Multi-gesture (t c) for 24 hours, عمرو بن كلثوم (t c) for 48 hours per previous block history. This article, and especially the subject being warred over, is subject to community sanctions and a one-revert rule, which both users violated. —Darkwind (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:R2d2 ka baap reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R2d2 ka baap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]
5. [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments: User has been warned quite politely not to edit war and the implications of continuing to revert. They instead chose to ignore it telling every one involved not to revert them while they appear to revert any one who has reverted to status quo (2 users have reverted R2D2 at the moment and a third has told them at the talk page that their edit is useless and to drop the issue). Furthermore, after reverting to his preferred version for the 5th time, the user has unilaterally claimed that the issue is now closed [81]. I have no confidence that he will stop this slow edit war due to the WP:Wall of text he is throwing and being self righteous in reverts not giving a zich of value to what consensus means. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The last edit which has caused User:TopGun to refer the matter here was not a revert. A well referenced note was added whilst leaving the original disputed number as is. This was explicitly stated in the edit summary that the previous version's information has been left intact, whilst adding a referenced note to explain the term's well-known ambiguity for WP:NPOV. The reason I said the issue is closed, is because the last edit is not a revert, and after having a thorough conversation with User:Human3015 whereby the well referenced version was left on the page pending addition of sources for original number, User:TopGun reverted without disputing the validity of sources but rather claiming, off-tangent, an 'interchangeability of terms' between South Asia and Indian Subcontinent, which had no relevance to issues of extent being discussed up to that point. My request would be to compare the original version before this string of edit-reverts, with the version before TopGun's last revert, and adjudge whether my last edit was a reasonable compromise that helped improve WP:NPOV through a referenced note, or a "revert" worthy of referral that deleted or altered any information whatsoever of the original version. Thanks, and awaiting your verdict. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I have already referred to the possibility of a compromise version but you unilaterally readded a slightly changed version of the claim which was reverted. This is actually a revert. Changing the article whether with the same content or different still counts as a revert. The fact that you added "new" content which was inherently the same claim using the same word explicitly and claiming it's not a revert would be gaming the system. Also, you're the only one who said it was a compromise. That's not the definition of compromise - you have failed to achieve consensus but continued to revert inspite of being made aware of what edit war was and clearly showing that you had gone through warnings (and then re adding the claim). --lTopGunl (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I could not find where you proposed compromise, other than demanding 'extraordinary proof' and ignoring the two sources provided. The change in question is simply not a revert because the original and disputed number has been left entirely intact. I had called it a compromise because nothing had in fact been changed in the article other than an addendum/note below the unchanged number, which explained both points of view at the heart of this conflict. My aim is simply to improve this and other articles with references where they are lacking. It is not to pick fights with anyone. I am more than willing to resolve this amicably, even if by chance you incorrectly assumed my edit was an altering/deleterious revert and referred the issue here on that basis. Lets be clear, however, that you have referred the matter here after this change, which is not a revert of the nature you had been doing, in that it left all prior information unchanged whilst adding a referenced note explaining the number and alternate definition which the article admits do exist. R2d2 ka baap (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While 3RR was not violated, R2d2 ka baap (t c)'s last four edits to this article were pure reverts against multiple different users over a period of three days. A slow edit war is still an edit war. —Darkwind (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

2015 Copa América (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anaxagoras13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668865627 by The Almightey Drill (talk) because it's wrong"
2. 08:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668878065 by The Almightey Drill (talk) no, it is not certain, so stop that"
3. 08:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668878235 by The Almightey Drill (talk) only include teams, if their position is certain!!!"
4. 13:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668902582 by ToonLucas22 (talk)"
5. 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 668902844 by ToonLucas22 (talk) final pos. of Colombia is not known yet!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 13:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Copa América. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continues to edit war even after being warned. TL22 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, reverting vandalism is edit-warring. LOL. Putting Colombia in the list is against WP:CRYSTALL and so is nothing but vandalism.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You were not reverting vandalism, you were reverting normal edits. An edit against WP:CRYSTALBALL is not vandalism but rather another type of disruptive editing. The edits you were reverting are not disruptive, vandalism or a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL (since its the final score of Colombia after being eliminated). Please also see what is not vandalism. Since you weren't reverting vandalism, your edits do not qualify under WP:3RRNO and as such it is edit warring. --TL22 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Violations of WP:CRYSTAL are not vandalism and do not qualify for a 3RR exception. —Darkwind (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• For the record, since the editor in question apparently disputes my ability to count, there were six reverts during a 24 hour period: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Again, these reverts did not qualify for an exemption to the three-revert rule, because they are not obvious vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Curse of Fenric reported by User:GaryColemanFan (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

Page: Buddy Murphy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Curse of Fenric (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. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]
5. [86]
6. [87]
7. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

This user refuses to accept the source given, citing his personal knowledge to disprove it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

You may have seen a big, bold and red notice at the top of this page, which tells you to notify any user you report. I have done so for you, but please remember to do this yourself in the future. --TL22 (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am acting in good faith removing a contentious source under WP:BLP. The claim being cited is controversial and requires independent back up. Under BLP, contentious claims through poor sourcing can be removed without question and that is what I have been doing. Continual re-additions without a consensus is disruptive. This action of mine is not about my personal knowledge of the subject - ie it's absolutely not true. This is about it being at best questionable. Heck I know who originally trained Emma, but I'm not about to add that to her article! Curse of Fenric (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. In this case, I suggest taking the discussion to WP:BLPN. There's clearly an edit war going on here, but as all participants appear to be acting in good faith and not with an intent to disrupt, I don't see the need for any blocks at this time. —Darkwind (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Христо Зарев Игнатов reported by User:TodorBozhinov (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Kardam of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Христо Зарев Игнатов (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 213.91.244.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff (switches to IP, but clearly same person)
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, link

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

Comments:
Nearly identical edit warring on Tervel of Bulgaria. Same User / IP combination that is clearly the same person. — Toдor Boжinov — 17:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, both the IP and the account. (I took care of this several hours ago but apparently forgot to close this report.) —Darkwind (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:62.44.134.3 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Liberland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.44.134.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Comments: Obvious edit war.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours as obvious blanking vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Page: Burlington, Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments:
I have run into problems with Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) before. S/he seems to have serious article ownership issues involving extremely idiosyncratic image sizing and placement. These idiosyncrasies diverge from WP:IUP and other image placement guidelines. Several of these idiosyncrasies significantly degrade the Wikipedia experience on mobile devices and for blind and visually-disabled users. The editor refuses to engage in meaningful discussion on the talk page about reasons for these divergences on the talk page, basically resting on personal stylistic preference as their only reason. They attempt to get their way by edit warring and provoking edit warring in other editors. They do this on every article they watch on which I try to correct the image usage, citing "status quo" but refusing to engage in meaningful discussion. Therefore I believe that despite having made only three reverts, this behavior should be examined to determine whether it is a regular WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. Skyerise (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected Beyond My Ken and Skyerise, you're both experienced editors. Stop edit warring and use the bloody talk page. That's what it's there for. If it doesn't work, go seek dispute resolution. Don't revert again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rockybiggs reported by User:Averysoda (Result: )

Page: King David Hotel bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rockybiggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [104]
2. [105]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [106], [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments: This article is part of WP:ARBPIA, therefore it's under the WP:1RR restriction. User continues to ignore WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST, and keeps adding the word "terrorist" in the opening sentence despite there was no consensus on the talk page to do so. He was repeatedly asked to stop, but he refuses to give up on his behavior.

User:129.127.13.227 reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: )

Page: Die Hard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.127.13.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

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

Comments:
This IP user has been disruptive and has engaged in edit war. Doniago & I have been reverting his edits in Die Hard and tried to be reasonable, but he refuses to talk about on the talk page and continues to edit war on that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not much to say here given that the IP is blatantly edit-warring and refusing to discuss their edits despite several warnings. DonIago (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, you two have been unreasonable and have refused to even start a discussion on the Talk page. You two have ignored my comments and will not allow others to introduce more suitable wording and are thus, indirectly misleading the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.13.227 (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

These are your talk page contributions. None of them are at Talk:Die Hard. If they are to blame for ignoring one user's comments, you are twice as much to blame for ignoring two users' warnings. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

If I am twice to blame for 'ignoring' them, then you are four times to blame for 'ignoring' everything else and for not getting your eyes checked