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:Josepolivares reported by User:ChocolateRabbit (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Marc-André ter Stegen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811748156 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"
2. 17:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811747973 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"
3. 17:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811731455 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"
4. 12:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811639115 by ChocolateRabbit (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I make an edit to several articles and the user has simply reverted my edits without any discussion or explanation. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 18:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The piping-out of the "FC" in club names is common in WP:FOOTY-related articles. I'm not sure why ChocolateRabbit did not explain that or why Josepolivares didn't explain either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi there @Walter Görlitz: it was explained to me by Struway2 that it is common to pipe out the FC as you said, and I am being reverted by Josepolivares with no explanation as to why, that is why I reverted his edits as he did not give any reason as to why he changed mine. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 18:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the false EW report here and on your page, but it was an easy way to get this list of diffs of your reverts:

1. 17:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Josepolivares (talk) to last version by ChocolateRabbit"
2. 17:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Josepolivares (talk) to last version by ChocolateRabbit"
3. 15:39, 23 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Josepolivares (talk) to last version by Alexf"
4. 22:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC) ""
5. 17:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC) ""

You'll notice that you did not explain any of your edits either. I'll let an admin decide if a two-way block is appropriate here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would I be blocked, I haven't done anything wrong. Kind regards ChocolateRabbit 18:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

As I have learned, WP:3RR is a two-way street with only seven exceptions to edit warring: WP:3RRNO I don't see unexplained reverts an exception. That's why. Even if you think you're right (or in this case, you are right) you should not edit war. WP:BRD. And as I showed, you didn't discuss even to the level of not adding edit summaries. I saw all of the edits and I was always too late to revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. This is a minor edit war but there's recent edit warring history for both parties here. The nominator claims they "didn't do anything wrong", when in fact they violated 3RR. However, earlier this month, they were blocked for edit warring, and unblocked because they claimed, "I understand that I should not have engaged in edit warring and I will refrain from making such actions in the future, and I will seek discussion to prevent conflicts with editors." They have breached the assurances that got them out of their previous block, and based on their comments here, it appears they didn't even make a minimal effort to understand our edit warring policy. For that reason they are receiving a block in spite of their continued assurances of good faith. Meanwhile, the reported user has a serious behavioral issue and they apparently refuse to communicate entirely. They will be receiving a significantly lengthier block. Swarm ♠ 19:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: Wasn't ChocolateRabbit also making clear misuse of rollback to edit war?--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Iggy the Swan (talk · contribs) has correctly updated the article. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to User:Iggy the Swan who told me my name had been mentioned. I'd like to offer some context, for when this happens again: Football team names are generally piped, because that's what the English language does. Both editors know that, and both have been told often enough not to edit war. Personally, I don't think this incident is as one-sided as did User:Swarm.

Josepolivares is a non-native speaker and his English isn't great. He genuinely believes that FC Barcelona should not be piped to Barcelona. He usually restricts himself to lead sections – as indicated here, where he did try to join a discussion: if I received the notification of my name being mentioned there, I didn't see it, which was unfortunate – and I think people have turned a blind eye to one mildly non-standard usage in preference to disruption by edit-war.

Several edit wars ago, ChocolateRabbit did indeed ask me if it should be piped: I looked at their recent contributions and offered both an answer to their question and a reminder that being right isn't enough. They took that as encouragement to continue up to a 6th revert, at which time they were warned by an admin. Apart from reverting people, their editing largely consists of small changes to lead sections of pages, sometimes correct, often not: AmEng to BritEng spelling, removal of serial commas, the time-sink that was should we write someone plays for the Germany national team or for the German national team, and now this piping thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Struway2: Unfortunately, this is a collaborative English language project, intense discussion and dispute resolution is expected of editors who want to contribute, because, as we can see here, disputes arise over the most trivial issues imaginable. A professional level of English is obviously not required of non-native speakers, but asking for a basic level of communication, even if it's in poor or broken English, is not unreasonable. If one can not meet the threshold of basic communication, whatever the reason, then they should not be contributing to this project. However, when I reviewed Jose's edits, I didn't get the impression that "his English isn't great" or that he was having trouble communicating. It appeared that he was making no effort whatsoever to communicate in order to resolve the dispute. Just edit warring. Not even using edit summaries. Whether unable or unwilling to communicate, it's not acceptable, and those aggravating factors, combined with their history, is what led to the month long block. The behavioral concerns regarding ChocolateRabbit are noted. I agree that their conduct is suspect and I will certainly keep an eye on them for any sign of disruption. But it really just looks to be immaturity. Nothing that would warrant more than a standard 3RR block. @Jasper Deng: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You're absolutely right, and their rollback privileges should be revoked. Swarm ♠ 19:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Swarm: Thank you for your explanation, it's appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:95.147.54.130 reported by User:Martinevans123 (Result: Semi)

Page: Tanita Tikaram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.147.54.130 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5], [6]

Comments:
User talk page now blanked, removing 3RR warnings template. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. It is agreed that this singer was born in Germany and that her parents are Indo-Fijian and Malaysian. The IP has been reverting the article to claim she is now English German. While that seems possible, it is not sourced, and the statement can't be included in a BLP article if it is not. Her own website is not helpful on that question and her Allmusic biography doesn't mention her nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for protecting. Just to clarify, the IP has repeatedly changed "German-born English" to just "German". It's clear that Tikaram was born in Germany, but not that her nationality is German. There is currently no source. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I fixed my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:130.105.194.23 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Semi)

Page: List of action films of the 2010s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.105.194.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
All edits are just removing cited material. Does not respond in edit box, or either use talk page or article talk page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. IPs from the range 130.105.* have been steadily removing content from this article over the last two months. There might be good reasons for this but we'll never know since there is no communication whatever. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Modernist reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

Page

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]

Comments:

I already warned to stop reverting this. Still Modernist thought it was necessary. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This editor was warned and then blocked for edit warring yesterday; and resumed today as soon as his block ended. In my opinion this editor should not be participating on this project; this is an angry editor with a vendetta...Modernist (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely explained here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123 reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

Page

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Martinevans123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]

Comments:

Same goes for this user. I already warned them to stop reverting this. Still Martinevans123 thought she was the only one contributing to Wikipedia. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely explained here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Modernist reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

Page

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Comments:

I already warned to stop reverting this. Still Modernist thought it was necessary. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned this editor was warned and then blocked for edit warring yesterday; and resumed today as soon as his block ended. In my opinion this editor should not be participating on this project; this is an angry editor with a vendetta. He also has been warned about edit warring on other articles as well...Modernist (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely explained here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Coldcreation reported by User:Wim Kostrowicki (Result: Filer blocked)

Page

Salvator Mundi (Leonardo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

Comments:

And last but not least this guy. Also engaging in an edit war. Disgusting behavior and something needs to be done about his WP:POV as well. Wim Kostrowicki (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wim Kostrowicki is blocked indefinitely. Everyone is edit warring except Wim Kostrowicki? Sorry, Wim, you are the common factor here. You edit warred before and were blocked for it. It seems very likely that these sock accounts are you and the same behaviour is present there also. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Shetkin and User:37.146.44.203 reported by User:Omega cyber turnip (Result: Semiprotection)

Page: Electric Six discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shetkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Electric_Six_discography&oldid=811651638 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]
6. [26]
7. [27]

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

1. [28] Message sent directly to user's talk page. Ignored.
2. [29] - Repeated use of message "Please engage with the discussion on the talk page if you insist on removing this content without explanation" in edit information box. All ignored.

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

1. [30] - discussion under "Studio Album Canon"

Comments:
Essentially, this seems to be a dispute regarding whether or not several of Electric Six's studio albums count towards their official discography. This is likely because they are unusual albums. One, Mimicry and Memories, is a double album with disc 1 containing a studio album and disc 2 containing a compilation album of demos and b-sides. Disc 1 is officially regarded as "Mimicry", whereas disc 2 is officially regarded as "Memories". Another, You're Welcome!, is a double album with disc 1 containing a studio album and disc 2 containing a live album. Disc 1 is officially regarded as "You're Welcome (Covers Album), whereas disc 2 is officially regarded as "You're Welcome (Live in Oxford). Lastly, Roulette Stars of Metro Detroit is a film soundtrack.

As you can see on the talk page, I researched WikiPedia precedent for this issue. Every other example of a double album containing a studio album on one disc and something else on another disc, treats the albums as "canon" studio albums and includes them on the discography page under both relevant categories (be it studio and live or something else), with the relevant notes to clarify the situation (e.g. "Disc 1 only").

I also researched WikiPedia precedent for film soundtrack inclusion in a band's discography and found that Queen's soundtrack for Flash Gordon is listed as one of their albums. This is the same situation.

I (and another user) have attempted to contact Shetkin repeatedly using various methods to no avail, as I'm not even aware why they feel the albums shouldn't be present. Honestly, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt by assuming that it's to do with them being double albums; but it might just be straight-up vandalism or even a user who simply dislikes the band's recent use of Kickstarter campaigns to self-fund albums. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this on some of the band's fanpages, lately, and it wouldn't surprise me if it is just a fan refusing to acknowledge these self-funded albums because they dislike Kickstarter for one reason or another.

They have transitioned into editing whilst not signed in, but it's a consistent set of IP addresses (one, the most frequent, seems to be a home address).

Whilst the bulk of the edits are on the discography page, they also repeatedly edit the band's main page, Electric Six, to remove the albums from their list of studio albums, and they repeatedly edit the individual album pages so that the "next album", "previous album" sections skip the albums in question and so that the portion at the start of each page "____ is the nth studio album by Electric Six" omits these albums when counting.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: Sheitkin has responded by making the following edit directly to the page in question (as opposed to its talk page): https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Electric_Six_discography&type=revision&diff=811921186&oldid=811767187

Obviously, what the band considers to be "canon" is irrelevant. They released these other albums under the band name, so as far as WikiPedia is concerned, they count. Still, at least they're trying to communicate now. Is it possible to rescind this ban request?

And could anyone point me in the direction of a precedent for band releases that the band doesn't consider canon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega cyber turnip (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Two pages semiprotected: Electric Six and Electric Six discography. The other editor, using two different IPs, has been continuing to revert without participating in any discussions. The filer of this report, User:Omega cyber turnip, is reminded to sign all their comments on talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gravuritas reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

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

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

Comments:
The editor's edit warring appears to be motivated by his dislike of academic economics. His talk page participation has consisted of WP:SOAPBOXing about that which amounts to the user claiming that they personally don't like economics as a discipline that gives them the right to remove any scholarly sources from the article. Some examples of talk page rants, combined with personal attacks on other editors include [38], [39], [40]. The user has a recent block for exactly the same behavior by User:Boing! said Zebedee.

Note also that the user has been warned, and then given a chance to self revert. Their response is not encouraging [41] - it pretty much indicates that the user has no intention of observing Wikipedia policies. Volunteer Marek  23:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The above is an unfair characterisation of what's happened. And the last edit listed above was not a revert. Gravuritas has expressed views on economic forecasting, but that is not relevant here. He has provided edit summary reasons and asked questions on the talk page that others have not attempted to address. He has not claimed "the right to remove any scholarly sources from the article" and has always justified removing or altering what is presented. Personal attacks... "phone a friend" and "naive belief" is the extent of it in the first example; "fetishistic worship" is the worst of the second example; and the third contains no personal attack at all. I've started a new "Pause and discuss" section on the talk page here, which is where this should be continued. No one has responded yet... EddieHugh (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

the last edit listed above was not a revert - this was most certainly a revert. Indeed this is one of the big issues under contention [42]. The very next edit was also a revert (though because these two are consecutive I'm only counting them as one - there are still three others). People HAVE addressed his questions, he's just engaging in a whole lotta WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with soapboxing and personal attacks: " SnSn’s fetishistic worship of academia ", "if he wishes to worship at the feet of some economist", etc. I should also mentioned that you yourself tiptoe'd right up to the 3RR line yourself. Volunteer Marek  02:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In particular this was a revert of this. And yes, this is a non-minor change as the discussion on talk page evidences. Volunteer Marek  05:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Two editors are making a series of edits which amount to POV pushing: basically that Brexit will be an economic disaster. That may or may not be the way things eventuate, but meantime they are trying to monopolise the page. To take an easy example, they want to present long-term economic prospects before short-term ones, (which is an unnatural order)- why? They are repeatedly smearing my views as a dislike of academic economists, when all I have said is that some extremely capable economists do not work in academia, and that academic economists, along with nearly all other economists, are rubbish at forecasting so they cannot be taken as experts in that specific subfield- economic forecasting. I am giving reasons and justifications for my edits, while with the exception of EddieHugh above, the other editors of this page are issue blanket dismissals or gnomic references to WP policies that they believe I am transgressing. Let’s take another example: whether ‘overwhelming’ can be used to describe the size of the majority of economists who believe Brexit will damage the UK economy. I opened a discussion about it on talk, and what I got was rhubarb in reply. If editors are not prepared to justify their edits, then I don’t see why they should complain if deleted or reverted.

Gravuritas (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of your position (and these are scant), they do not constitute a valid excuse for edit warring. Volunteer Marek  03:00, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, I have not broken the 3RR rule, and I have only edited or reverted more than once if the editor has not engaged with the substantive argument that I have posted, in either the edit explanation or the talk page. I’ll let others be the judge of whether I have been edit warring. You, on the other hand, have accused me of breaking a whole alphabet of WP policies. Your assertions in the first two sentences in this section are a misrepresentation of my views, and your repetition of that misrepresentation can only be a wilful smear. Apologise.

Meantime, another editor has requested that I refrain from abuse, and the example chosen was an economically illiterate article, that someone wished to quote in the Brexit article. I accept that my disbelief in him/ her wishing to use that article should not have been phrased as ‘swallow[ing] this garbage’. I apologise for the use of the epithet and I will try hard to avoid such terms in future.

Gravuritas (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

This "economically illiterate article" happens to be written by four economists from top ranked institutions [43](LSE, U Warwick, U Nottingham, CEPR). You sort of can't get more "economically literate" than that. It sounds like you have no intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies. Volunteer Marek  05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a bright-line 3RR violation by Gravuritas, but he is clearly edit warring to some degree. There's a bunch of talk-page discussions open, ideally they will resolve the issue in a civil manner and without any further edit warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There's four diffs of reverts provided right up above. How can that NOT be a "bright-line 3RR violation". Note also that the edits immediately following or preceding the provided diffs were also reverts. Volunteer Marek  05:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours for personal attacks and POV-pushing. Thanks to Gravuritas for apologizing for 'swallowing garbage' but now we have 'wilful smear' so there is not much overall progress. The incensed tone of their comments suggests they will have trouble editing neutrally about Brexit. They were previously blocked for personal attacks in June. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I see two obvious reverts around 2200, and a muddle of edits earlier which may only count as one revert. Regardless, his comments here are more than enough to justify the block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as discussions start on the talk page.... There have been worse personal attacks & POV-pushing on the article and in its edit summaries by others. This sort of outcome makes me inclined to give up. EddieHugh (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Kamalyesh reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811991420 by Ammarpad (talk)"
2. 07:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811991047 by WikiPedant (talk)"
3. 07:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811990522 by WikiPedant (talk)"
4. 07:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811990226 by WikiPedant (talk) first use of s-a-n-s-k-r-i-t, tell me, when it was, why was it spelled so?"
5. 06:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811987584 by WikiPedant (talk) "Who first spelled s-a-n-s-k-r-i-t?""
6. 06:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "a spelling"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sanskrit. (TW)"
2. 07:20, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sanskrit. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He is adamant, he don't want hear anything, except his inaccurate content –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Swarm ♠ 08:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:72.38.23.66 reported by User:331dot (Result: )

Page

Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

72.38.23.66 (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 09:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) to 09:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 09:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 09:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased language"
4. 09:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased language"
5. 09:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Removed biased language"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Intelligent design. (TW)"
2. 09:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Intelligent design. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 09:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "/* 72.38.23.66 */ new section"

Comments:

User seems to object to the language of the article, likely due to their views on the subject itself. Has not responded to messages. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Simply-the-truth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

Page

Elgin Marbles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Simply-the-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "please dont remove sourced facts"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 19:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 19:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "please stop removing sourced facts, reported"
   2. 19:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "reported for removing sourced facts"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 19:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
   1. 19:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "they were the legal rulers at the time, so cant see the problem?"
   2. 19:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "sourced and relevant point, please dont remove items such as this for no reason?"
   3. 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "need source for this claim? Even if one exists I can dd 2 that say it wasnt and what happened was legal"
   4. 19:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "properly sourced and reported, doesnt matter what country it was published in as you must know?"
   5. 19:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "again sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Elgin Marbles ‎. (TW★TW)"
2. 19:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Using inaccurate or inappropriate edit summaries on Elgin Marbles . (TW★TW)"
3. 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elgin Marbles. (TW★TW)"
4. 19:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Elgin Marbles. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ new section"
2. 20:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ By the way this sentence is a direct copyvio from the source."
3. 20:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, POV-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */ ce"
4. 21:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Blanking, copyvio, POV/SYNTH-pushing, edit-warring, and using false edit summaries */"

Comments:

Repeatedly blanking well-sourced section, repeatedly adding copyvio from </nowiki>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/</nowiki>, repeatedly adding SYNTH and POV to article. Rapid-fire edit-warring. Marking all edits minor and using deceptive edit-summaries. Will not stop despite warnings and talkpage discussion where all these things have been pointed out to him/her. Dr. K. 11:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added sourced facts to the page, you keep trying to add unsourced ones? Why is that? You also remove my sourced edits, again why is this? Your points on the talk page are answered here for you as well: 1 - it was an offer years ago with no legal basis, should be in the article, not the lead. 2 - The source does NOT say looting anywhere, please find the one you think that does state this and then we can add it back.BUT, then for balance I will add ones that say the opposite point of view to be fair. 3 - It was a statement from the Greece source as you can see, it doesnt matter what country the paper was printed in, the statement is the statement, it is relevant, important and sourced, so please don't remove to push your own npov. 4 - They were the legal rulers, so cant see the problem with this? If you have sources that say they werent then please post them here and we can discuss? Simply-the-truth (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K you keep saying discuss the different points and use talk, yet you never respond to any of my many posts and points on talk either? You simply thought by reporting me you could force your own opinion on the article? Please use talk to discuss and let's stop this silly disagreement, please? Simply-the-truth (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)