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:109.180.164.43 reported by User:TheDragonFire (Result: Semi)

Page

Wreck of the RMS Titanic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

• 109.180.164.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Reb1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783121410 by Reb1981 (talk) rv vandalism"
2. 07:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783119844 by Reb1981 (talk) rv vandalism"
3. 06:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "Undoing my edit without any explanation is not helpful."
4. 00:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783071304 by Prioryman (talk) hidden comments aid only editors, citations aid readers. who do you imagine the article is for? no evidence in history that "people keep deleting it""
5. 23:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783069096 by Prioryman (talk) you are just being silly."
6. 23:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "a shouty hidden comment is not an adequate substitute for citations, and lead sections are not exempt from the verifiability policy. see WP:LEADCITE"
7. 22:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "WP:BOLDAVOID"
8. 22:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783066036 by Prioryman (talk) i didn't ignore anything. why would you restore a misleading image and a hidden comment that serves no possible purpose?"
9. 22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "shouty hidden comment is not an adequate substitute for a citation to a reliable source"

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783066036&oldid=783065308 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783066766&oldid=783066377 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783069096&oldid=783068863 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783069440&oldid=783069096 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783071304&oldid=783070097 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783088649&oldid=783075177 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783119844&oldid=783115026 https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wreck_of_the_RMS_Titanic&diff=783121410&oldid=783120814

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User:109.180.164.43: 08:28, 31 May 2017‎ (UTC) "→‎Hidden shouty comments"
2. User:Reb1981: 07:42, 31 May 2017‎ (UTC) "→‎Hidden shouty comments: reply"
3. User:109.180.164.43: 07:34, 31 May 2017‎ (UTC) "→‎Hidden shouty comments: new section"

Comments:

Interesting how the two users removing citations for no reason are not reported, and nor is my talk page post linked to. Well if you want to ensure that the lead contains unverifiable information so much, probably you should just go ahead. And you should change the text of the verifiability policy so that people don't waste their time as I have done trying to make articles comply with it. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Please calm down. This report isn't only directed at you, but I can't report three users at once and you are the most clearly in breach of WP:3RR. I'm responding to User:Reb1981's report at WP:AIV and am WP:UNINVOLVED. I agree that User:Reb1981 certainly seems to have incorrectly reported to WP:AIV. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Telling someone to calm down when they are perfectly calm already is pretty obnoxious, you know. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyway forget it, the efforts of these three to undermine the verifiability policy so pointlessly has entirely disillusioned me. I am out of here and you can keep your article in whichever crappy state you like. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Both Reb1981 and the IP have been edit warring. They both haven't been warned. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I stopped at revert 3. I tried to get user to take to talk page via different ways. He finally did comply, but still insisted on revert. Reb1981 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, you can report multiple editors, so I've added Reb1981.

There is clear edit-warring going on here, also some unacceptable behaviour. Even Prioryman's edits are getting too near to repeat edit-warring (if it ain't working, just doing it again won't make it stick any better). I'm inclined to ignore the whole lot, as there's no point in blocking an IP. However Talk: needs a firm hand with the clueiron. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. At first glance the IP's concern about verifiability seems to be misunderstanding of WP:LEAD and the standards for placing citations. See WP:LEAD#Citations: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." There is also a dispute about the hidden comment. I'm not aware of any consensus on whether to use hidden HTML comments, so there is no substitute for having a discussion on that and waiting for a result. User:Andy Dingley has set up a well-organized format on the talk page for resolving this (See 'Issues' in this section} and I hope others will join in that effort. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the IP here is a banned LTA and I blocked ranges earlier including one this IP is in. Best Known for IP.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Per a request, and due to the LTA discussion about the IP I am reducing this to semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JJBers reported by User:StephenTS42 (Result: Pending)

Page: Norwalk, Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JJBers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwalk,_Connecticut&diff=783292497&oldid=783200443 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwalk,_Connecticut&diff=783416019&oldid=783415399
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwalk,_Connecticut&diff=783415399&oldid=783415346
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwalk,_Connecticut&diff=783406142&oldid=783400100
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwalk,_Connecticut&diff=783308788&oldid=783292497
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Norwalk,_Connecticut&diff=783192917&oldid=783191488

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANorwalk%2C_Connecticut&type=revision&diff=783193092&oldid=783184726

Comments:

Additional attempts to discuss reversions to Norwalk, Connecticut were placed in JJBers talk page which were also reverted. Thank you!––→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The top edit isn't even me reverting anything.
2. I didn't even revert the same thing more than twice.
3. I was never warned.
4. Two of the reverts was to fixed misused parameters in the infobox.
5. The talk page diff is unrelated.
— JJBers 13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

All I have to say is looking at the back and forth and talk page, JJBers and Ɱ are much more patient than I am. There is a lot of nitpicking and arguing over things that shouldn't be argued over. WP:TE... 129.9.75.193 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Administrator note An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. You can be sanctioned with 0RR for 72 hours, or a 24 hour block. Please choose, or I'll choose the latter for you. El_C 20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'll take 0RR... —JJBers 21:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is... this still a thing? Ping User:Mifter, who just protected, point out to casually to El_C that User:StephenTS42 has been blocked thrice since February over their ownership issues, and kindly suggest that in use template reverts should probably just not be counted at all in anything, since the inappropriate use of the template has been pointed out multiple times, and is still for some reason being used as a way to lock down the article while making about an edit every 20 minutes. TimothyJosephWood 16:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Dhitz666 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)

Page

Zskull Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dhitz666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 16:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 16:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "delete notice"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"
2. 16:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Zskull Studios. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent recreation of this page, removing CSD tags. GAB^gab 16:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Willard84 reported by User:Cpt.a.haddock (Result: No violation 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Willard84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "The request has been made on talk page. You're the one changing the entire page's focus to an ancient city when the page even before my edits was clearly in reference to the modern city (e.g.: section on economy, modern educational institutions etc)."
2. 20:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverted back to page as a reference to the modern city"
3. 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "No change in meeting has been made at all by removing bolded words. You must obtain consensus to revert back to a poorly written leadz"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Taxila. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Primary topic */ new section"

Comments:

Willard84 has steadily been changing Taxila, known as an ancient "city" and a UNESCO world heritage site to be about the minor modern town (which he calls a city) of the same name. The primary topic for this article is the ancient city as I've tried to outline on the talk page. I'd reverted the lead and the primary infobox on the page to how it was prior to his many edits (many of which, I must add, improve the page) and asked him to obtain consensus first as per WP:BRD. He has however reverted my revert and has now spun off the primary topic of the article into a separate article at Ruins at Taxila. I'm pretty sure that I've not handled this very well either and my understanding of these procedures is vague, but here we are. I would like the lead and infobox to primarily be about the ancient city (as it was originally) as he makes the case for the modern town to be the primary topic for this article before he relegates the ancient city to a separate article. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 20:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@El C: His previous revert was a few minutes before that. Should I open a new case? Please advise.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Because you've warned the user right at their last revert, I'll give them a chance to self-revert. El_C 21:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 21:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but why exactly would I be considered the disruptive user here? The user Cpt.a.haddock only began his drastic reversions and objections once I simply changed words that he had bolded in the lead paragraph back to italicized letters as I had originally written them as. Had he some deep seated objection to it, he would have reverted the page at that time rather than simply bolding the words. You can see his edit here:

1. 07:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "Bold in lead; Remove bold in body; trim unnecessary use of italics. "

Please keep in mind that he did not simply revert a single edit, but literally dozens of good faith edits. Dozens. This is after he tacitly approved of them by making the small tweak of bolding two words (incorrectly I believe) which I had originally italicized. He did not revert back to his own edit, he reverted back dozens and dozens of edits. Most of which were not even controversial.

1) If you'll also notice, the page that he asserts was solely in reference to some ancient city also had included sections on modern amenities like educational institutions, and the local economy. The page he is complaining about is not Ancient Taxila, it is Taxila. I created the Ancient Taxila page for disambiguation. I think this should have solved the problem.

2) Before I made any substantial edits to this page, you can see here that the very first sentence on the page said:

"Taxila... is a town and an important archaeological site in the Rawalpindi District of the Punjab, Pakistan, situated about 32 km (20 mi) north-west of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, just off the famous Grand Trunk Road. The town lies 549 metres (1,801 ft) above sea level. It is the headquarters of the Taxila Tehsil in the Rawalpindi district."

Cpt.a.haddock's assertion that this was a page in reference to only an ancient city is clearly wrong. You can see that it is referred to as "town" and as "headquarters" of the modern Taxila Tehsil. This means that the page is in reference also to the modern city of Taxila.

In the edit section of the Taxila page, he made a point that the modern settlement is "minor," which is baffling as it is actually quite a decent sized town (or 'city') that features an outpost of one of Pakistan's most prestigious educational institutions, and one of the Pakistani militaries most significant armament factories. Even a glance on Google Earth would show that the city is not some small minor town. But as noted above, the article was indeed in reference to the modern city as well.

3) After dozens of edits I made, he then decided that he would revert the page back to a poorly worded lead paragraph. Shouldnt the burden of consensus be on the one who wants to removed better worded, and better sourced information? It should once again be reiterated that Cpt.a.haddock himself began drastically opposing these changes after I removed the bolded font on words which he insisted on placing in the lead paragraph. It seems the underlying issue is that I did not believe an ancient name needs to be displayed so prominently on a page, which is why I pointed out that Tokyo, London, New York City dont all have Edo, Londinium, or New Amsterdam bolded so prominently in the lead paragraph before he decided to escalate this complaint.

Also, I already made an Ancient Taxila page as a disambiguation, so the problem should already be solved. I even used the search feature to find links in Wikipedia that are in reference to ancient Taxila, rather than the modern city, and linked them to the Ruins at Taxila page to avoid ambiguity. Though even after making this new page, use Cpt.a.haddock undid some of those edits. Willard84 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I am not interested in the content dispute—I am interested in the edit war crossing the 3RR line. El_C 02:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:X-ManRogueFan reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Pending)

Page

List of A que no me dejas episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

X-ManRogueFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 20:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) to 20:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2015–16) */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC) to 20:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 20:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 20:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 03:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC) to 03:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 03:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2015–16) */"
   2. 03:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on List of A que no me dejas episodes. (TW)"
2. 20:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on List of A que no me dejas episodes. (TW)"
3. 20:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on List of A que no me dejas episodes. (TW)"
4. 20:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "/* June 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I already explain to the user, but he does not pay attention to the messages. Philip J Fry^Talk 20:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note I only count three reverts. [1] [2] [3] You need to demonstrate what the other two edits are reverts of. El_C 21:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know if anyone will do anything about it?. The user is not only using their main account to generate dispute, also uses ips, as can be seen here and here.--Philip J Fry^Talk 04:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

First, answer the question, then we'll see. El_C 06:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Excuse me, but I do not understand your question exactly.--Philip J Fry^Talk 11:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalusi reported by User:OccultZone (Result: Not a 3RR violation, but discuss elsewhere)

Page: Acid throwing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:20, 16 March 2017 (not a revert, but beginning of concerning content removal)
2. 21:17, 29 May 2017‎
3. 14:41, 30 May 2017
4. 14:59, 2 June 2017‎
5. 21:18, 2 June 2017‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5][6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

• Regardless of huge consensus against his edits and at least 4 editors reverting his edits, he believes that everyone needs to agree with him in order to gain consensus, which is clear violation of WP:OWN. He has been making minimum efforts on talk page to describe his edits,[8][9] and sometimes resorting to personal attacks.[10][11] Though he received a few blocks for edit warring last year, he also got away from blocks for edit warring on Pamela Geller] on November, even after making 6 reverts.[12][13][14][15][16][17] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ping Nyttend who made the last block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• This is a 1RR violation. Two reverts on clearly I/P on 2 June. He was asked by me to self revert on his talk, per 1rr, to which he declined by deleting the request on his talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, you've made a decent case for this being long-term edit warring. I'm uncomfortable either blocking or saying "nothing wrong here" by myself, so I think it best if you move this report to WP:ANI for discussion. Be sure to take along the diffs, not just the comments. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Hariachi.Horishky reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: No violation)

Page

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

User being reported

Hariachi.Horishky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Golden Age of Kyiv */http://www.businessinsider.com/kiev-or-kyiv-2014-1?IR=T"
2. 07:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Cossack Hetmanate */http://www.businessinsider.com/kiev-or-kyiv-2014-1?IR=T"
3. 06:57, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Golden Age of Kyiv */http://www.businessinsider.com/kiev-or-kyiv-2014-1?IR=T"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ukraine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Perhaps we should just protect the page again */ new section"

Comments:

User only points to a Business Insider article in their edit summary. Refuses to discuss. and was warned. Just another nationalist crank. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

• No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 07:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Sussexpeople reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Britain's Got Talent (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk) to last revision by Sussexpeople. (TW)"
2. 16:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 783780679 by Sussexpeople (talk). (TW)"
3. 16:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 783759730 by Sussexpeople (talk). (TW)"
4. 13:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Final (3 June) */ lower case"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Britain's Got Talent (series 11). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit warring and although they've come to my talkpage[18] they've made no effort to discuss on the talkpage despite being told 4 times to do so, I'd given them 10 minutes to self rv and they chose not too so here we are, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

•  Request withdrawn - User has since self reverted so for now I'll withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:110.81.201.183/User:Jojocc reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 24 hrs)

User being reported: 110.81.201.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Jojocc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: List of highest paid American television stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]
7. [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Page: List of highest paid film actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hrs for disruptive editing including edit warring despite multiple warnings. This has been an ongoing issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hrs Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:JetChained reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Sock blocked)

Page: Wonder Woman (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JetChained (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36] Revision as of 16:10, 4 June 2017
2. [37] Revision as of 16:30, 4 June 2017
3. [38] Revision as of 17:08, 4 June 2017, with uncivil edit summary "already opened in international markets and made $122.5m DUH!!! read the news"
4. [39] Revision as of 17:20, 4 June 2017
5. [40] Revision as of 17:28, 4 June 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]. I also requested discussion here, on the user's own talk page.

Comments:
Despite two editors reverting him, myself and User:TropicAces, the user is edit-warring by making similar edits that are WP:SYNTH analysis written in a magazine-y, non-encyclopedic WP:TONE with POV and WP:PUFFERY. He also appears to be behaving defiantly, judging from his edit summaries and his disinclination to discuss. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• JetChained indeffed as a  Confirmed sock of Joseph Fanai (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User:NastradamusNas reported by User:Koodbuur (Result: )

Page

Las Anod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NastradamusNas (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 19:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC) to 19:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 19:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland doesn't control the city. The Dhulbahante clan are the majority of the city and are not a secessionist. The city as well as the rest of Khatumo State just celebrated Sanitation Day on May 18. Stop dividing"
   2. 19:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "It is not part of the self declared region of Somaliland. And Somaliland is not its own entity anyway, so the location of the city is incorrect."
   3. 19:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Forgot {]} one closing parenthesis."
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC) to 17:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 17:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC) ""
   3. 17:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Changed the location of the city."
   4. 17:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Khaatumo declared they wanted to be an independent region within Somalia."
   5. 17:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC) ""
   6. 17:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
3. 16:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Changex the location of the city. Las Anod even though is a disputed city and its surrounding area between Somaliland and Puntland it has it's own administration under Khatumo State."
4. Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC) to 12:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
   1. 12:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not a country."
   2. 12:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "The city is a disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland. Even though the people that inhabit the city and its surround area have their own self determination to form a administrative state that best interest them. The people are from the Dulbu..."
5. 06:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "The city is not in Somaliland. Somaliland is relatively not a country. It is a disputed region."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Reverting and edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Las Anod */ new section"

Comments:

Editor continues to make disruptive edits despite warning and my attempt to engage discussion in the talk page. Koodbuur (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor is also vandalizing the talk page for Las Anod as shown here Koodbuur (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Editor continues to make disruptive edits despite warning and my attempt to engage discussion in the talk page. NastradamusNas (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

User: Koodbuur reported by User:NastradamusNas (Result: )

;Page: Las Anod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ;User being reported: Koodbuur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[43]]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Persistant disruptive editing made:

18:41, 4 June 2017‎ Koodbuur (talk | contribs)‎ . (Reverted to revision 783784365 by Koodbuur (talk): Please cease your disruptive edits. As mentioned previously, Las Anod has been under the control of Somaliland for over 10 years.

16:53, 4 June 2017‎ Koodbuur (talk | contribs)‎ . (Reverted to revision 783753283 by Koodbuur: Look at the Sool page, In the summary it says: The city has been under full control of Somaliland for over 10 years, there is no other administration in Las Anod. Also the population figures you have changed...)

12:23, 4 June 2017‎ Koodbuur (talk | contribs)‎ . (Reverted to revision 783602919 by Koodbuur: In the summary say: The city has been under full control of Somaliland for over 10 years. Please discuss any issues

Comments:

The editor keeps making persistent disruptive edits with are not fact-based. The editor keeps inserting his/her own political ideology, we have the duty of fairness to give.

Editor continues to make disruptive edits despite warning and my attempt to engage discussion in the talk page. There's no room for myside bias. Please stop making troublesome editing on the page. Koodbuur [[44]] NastradamusNas (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)