Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.196.204.46 (talk) at 19:30, 5 October 2015 (→User:90.196.204.46 reported by User:Primefac (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:Kwamikagami reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: blocked)

    Page
    Swiss Standard German (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683274989 by J. 'mach' wust (talk) if we don't know the number of speakers, we should say we don't know. that's a primary reason people come to articles like this."
    2. 22:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC) "no, it's not "obvious". If you have an estimate, provide one. otherwise we have no estimate to provide."
    3. 17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 23:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "tag deleted info rather than fighting violation of BOLD"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Swiss Standard German. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 21:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Sources for the claim that there are no estimates about number of native speakers? */"
    Comments:
    • Remark The following comments list about wrestling are not my comments. They are references of a previous post. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remark What an escalation for a really tiny dispute. I suggest taking no punitive action towards anyone and instead recommend everyone take a step back immediately and ponder how tiny an issue the addition or removal of a '?' to indicate unknown number of speakers is. LjL (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, what a trivial issue to edit war over. Blocked for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And pointless, because we don't use "?" to indicate problems with data in articles, we state what the problem is, either inline or in a footnote. That said, a block for editwarring that already stopped is wrong, being entirely punitive not preventative.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:46.177.119.122 reported by User:Vasconia (Result: Both blocked)

    Page: Euroleague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 46.177.119.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1], [2], [3], [4]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]

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

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

    Comments:
    Please, block this articles for new users or block this user. This user vandalizing a lot of articles and one user and me are trying to stop the vandalism.

    • I've reverted the edit to the version that was settled upon by this discussion. However, I do believe that Jaco should be blocked for edit warring and possibly have a check user run against him to see if the IP is his.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:24.210.33.160 reported by User:Nymf (Result: Semi)

    Page: Jennifer Tilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 24.210.33.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
    6. [18]
    7. [19]
    8. [20]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

    Comments:

    For some unknown reason, this IP insists on blanking that Jennifer Tilly has starred in over 40 episodes of Family Guy from the lead. The IP refuses to discuss it and is instead slowly edit warring. Another user tried to reword it, in case it was the wording that the IP took issue with, but the IP just keeps removing it anyway. Nymf (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Semiprotected six months. There is a long-term edit war by a single, stable IP but there's also an existing problem of normal IP vandalism by a variety of people. So semi appears justified. It is simpler to do this than try to justify a long-term block of the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Afterwriting reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Afterwriting and Mark Marathon blocked)

    Page
    Waltzing Matilda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Afterwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary comma."
    2. 09:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Incorrect comma removed."
    3. 09:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683910952 by Mark Marathon (talk) Irrelevant argument. It's not a serial comma (which is non-Australian English anyway)."
    4. 09:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) ""Cited source" no longer exists. Corrected grammar."
    5. 09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683912750 by Mark Marathon (talk) There is NO source for this. Bizarre behaviour is not mine."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Waltzing Matilda. (TW)"
    2. 07:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 08:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC) "/* "Australian English style" */"
    Comments:

    General aggressive edit warring on this article. Diffs highlight a particular micro-disagreement over whether the lede sentence should contain a comma. User:Mark Marathon also somewhat at fault for repeatedly reverting it back, but the talk page discussion is rather one-sided has a lot of undropped stick from Afterwriting. McGeddon (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I dislike edit warring as much as any other editor. I have, however, attempted to make various straightforward style and phrasing improvements to the article (with only one mistake on my part). User:Mark Marathon, however, has chosen to mass revert my edits based on a questionable claim of "Australian English" (something I have professional knowledge of). In doing so he restored a number of previous style and phrasing problems and then bizarrely blamed me for adding them to the article. All of this can be checked in the article edit history. Even when I pointed this out to him on the article discussion page he just repeated his false accusation instead of checking his own editing. He has refused to admit to this or to apologise for doing so. He appears to have ownership problems and to delight in accusing others of edit warring when he is doing so himself. The accusations of edit warring by him and User:McGeddon are highly hypocritical in their one-sidedness. This whole unpleasant matter has been highly frustrating due to what I perceive as the ownership and battleground mentality of Mark Marathon. Afterwriting (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thewanderer reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thewanderer (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. [23]
    2. [24]
    3. [25]
    4. [26]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    This editor has broken the 3RR rule, engaged himself in a edit-war just and ignored the talk page. He has for last two days repeatedly edited the article and has disrupted the article. Adding his speculation, and without explanation, ignored the pleads to stop edit warring and has broken the 3RR rule. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.87.64.242 reported by User:CBM (Result: Semi)

    Page: Natural number (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 66.87.64.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: see comments

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29] 18:37
    2. [30] 20:15
    3. [31] 20:46
    4. [32] 20:52
    5. [33] 21:23


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] 20:55

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:


    An IP user has repeatedly edited the article to remove a claim (well sourced, actually) in the first line. I don't think this is vandalism, per se - we can AGF about the intentions. But the issue has been thoroughly discussed in the talk page, most recently last year [35] and [36]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Semiprotected one year. Long term warring about the definition of a 'whole number' by a variety of IPs, possibly all operated by the same person. The various IPs don't wait for agreement to be reached on the talk page. If you want 'whole number' to be defined differently, open an WP:RFC or use some other method of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:171.236.111.60 and User:14.164.134.159 reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: Both blocked; semi-protected)

    Page: Template:Han emperors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 171.236.111.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 14.164.134.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]
    4. [41]
    5. [42]
    6. [43]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

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

    Comments:

    User with multiple IPs (as named) keeps adding posthumous emperors to the navigational template despite them being only posthumous and not actual emperors, and also they are mostly red links and discouraged on navigational templates. Me and another editor Zanhe (talk · contribs) have reverted the additions but the IPs undid us with only "this is Chinese history" as their reason. When asked to clarify their reasoning[45], they responded that yes, they indeed thought they alone have the say on Chinese history. This is followed by a edit warring warning on their talk page, which is only met with another revert and a personal attack against me (last diff above). This is where my WP:AGF runs out. _dk (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:149.62.200.251, User:212.5.158.50, User:149.62.200.33, User:149.62.200.79 reported by User:Boruch Baum (Result: Semi)

    Page: History of the Jews in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    149.62.200.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
    149.62.200.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    149.62.200.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
    212.5.158.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),


    [46]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]
    3. [49]
    4. [50]
    5. [51]
    6. [52]
    7. [53]
    8. [54]
    9. [55]
    10. [56]
    11. [57]
    12. [58]
    13. [59]
    14. [60]
    15. [61]
    16. [62]
    17. [63]
    18. [64]


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

    [65] This is a link to the diff in which I requested others to reach a consensus on the talk page

    Comments:
    How do I communicate with unregistered users who don't respond to my comments or follow WP:BRD? how do I know whether the first three users are really a single user with a dynamic IP, or multiple IPs?

    There may be more than one dispute at issue here, regarding the ethic background of multiple people and the legitimacy of multiple sources. Some illegitimate sources will claim a notable person is Jewish as a matter of pride, while others will make the same claim as part of an attempt at character assassination. When I have translated a cited source web-page from Bulgarian, (shalompr.org) using Google translate, the source had no relation whatsoever to to what it was being used for.

    On top of the reverts of content, the reverters have been messing up citations and references, so on the current version of the page, the page generates two cite errors. I have fixed these in the past, but its getting old to repeat the same formatting fixing in the middle of an edit-war or edit-pre-war.

    I would also like to note another user in the midst of all this, User:Amusecuiop. He is the only other registered user taking part in this series of events. I have contacted him a number of times on his talk page, but as you can see, while he doesn't seem to be a bad actor, he's not responsive.

    I don't mind if the administrator dealing with this also contacts me on my own talk page, even if for only giving me general advice, or general discussion.

    —Boruch Baum (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tzowu reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Social Democratic Party of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tzowu (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. [66]
    2. [67]
    3. [68]
    4. [69]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

    Comments:

    The user shows no intention to stop edit warring. Also before he was engaged in edit wars for a multiple times, also ignoring Wikipedia rules. Now he is introducing not sourced material and ignores the talk page. What els should I have done but report him? He shows no will to end this "conflict". He has done the same thing also on this page Croatian People's Party – Liberal Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --Tuvixer (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User Tuvixer is a disruptive editor that is involved in yet another edit war (he's been reported many times), in which he provides no reasonable explanations for his continuous reverts. Every attempt of a discussion with him ends in the same way, he does not accept what others say and keeps acting like he owns an article. Yesterday for example he was involved in one on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015: Tzowu (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    1. [72]
    2. [73]
    3. [74]
    4. [75]

    He also has a long history of personal attacks on others, like this one about my parents, for which he got no block.[76] Tzowu (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    I was not reported many times. Also by framing me you will not hide your own behavior. You have made no explanations for your continuous reverts on both pages that are liked here. All yo have said about me, actually you have said about yourself. And there is a perfect example, anyone that looks at the article about Social Democratic Party of Croatia can see that you have engaged in a edit war, and have ignored the talk page, like you always do. I have asked a administrator what to do with users like you who behave like they own an article, and I have been instructed, if they do not stop reverting, to report them, as I did with you and that other user. I have not broken the 3RR, and I have been told if it goes to that extent, that I have to break it, then it is better to report a user who obviously will break that rule, rather then to break the 3RR myself. I have always begged users to stop edit-warring and to discuss the matter on the talk page, but I was always ignored. That is very frustrating, and that is Tzowus modus operandi. He always does that, probably hoping that the other user will back up and go away. He is a bully and he needs to be sanctioned. He has used the fact that I am, or was, a new user to the Wikipedia, and exploited that fact. Please stop him. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You were involved in edit wars and was reported way more times than I was, and those in which I was involved are almost all because of your behaviour. Right now you are involved in two of them, and just because your revert was done a few hours after the deadline of 3RR doesn't mean it is fine. Read WP:3RR. I always went to the talk page when you started your unreasonable reverts just because they were done by me and they all ended in the same way, you act like some sort of protector of a page and block any edits to it. This is what those discussions look like, you insult my parents [77], call me a liar [78] [79]... In the last few days you reverted changing of official coalition names (Croatian parliamentary election, 2015) and adding of County prefects numbers to party infoboxes (while for example the Conservative Party (UK) and Labour Party (UK) even have the London Assembly in their infoboxes), you are just deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported. You should have been topic banned long ago, at least when the incident with Timbouctou happened and you for some reason got out of that without any block. Tzowu (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone who looks at the history of that page can see that I am not the only user who edits that page, so your argument is invalid. But when you come to a page and edit something, you immediately begin to edit war just because you think that you OWN the article, or maybe have the right to edit whatever you like. Still anything you said does not explain your behavior, and will not exonerate you in any way. I am not forcing anyone to start a edit-war, but I will never back up to bullies like you. You think that you can edit whatever you want and when someone reverts your disruptive edits, you always start a edit war. Well attack is the best defense, and all you are left is with personal attacks on me. I never wanted to report you, but what choice have you left me? Have you shown any good faith and reverted yourself ant tried to resolve the issue on the talk page of the article? You have not. This is about your edits on two articles mentioned in the report. You have not explained your behavior. It would be great if you could explain how I am "deliberately disrupting other users edits to get them reported", wow that is really something. Anyone can see what you are doing. You are all hat and no cattle. Now when you are reported, now you are trying to explain your edits. Well sir, the talk page is for that very reason there, to explain, and not to edit-war, you have ignored that. If you have gone to the talk page, and shown any good faith and reverted yourself, this all could have been avoided. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm not the one going on reverting in a rampage style everything someone adds that I don't like. How many edit wars you had just in the last few months? You started reverting Thewanderer because he added the correct names of party coalitions and me because I added the County prefects/Župans in the infobox of other parties. If you took a look at other parties, like the ones from UK I already mentioned, or the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, you could have seen that others have even more information and more numbers in the infobox, just like I said in the edit summary. But no, you just had to do what you always do, revert and annoy. Just as a note, on every issue we had you were the one that started reverting and edit warring first. On the Economy of Croatia, LGBT Rights in Croatia, Franjo Tuđman, SDP and HNS parties, in all of them you started the rampage for nothing. I had more reasonable discussions even with single purpose IP's on articles that are by itself very controversial. As for this issue, I have nothing more to say. I broke the 3RR rule, but you broke like a dozen of them. And talking about personal attacks... [80] [81] [82] Tzowu (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is not the place for you to explain your edits, you should have done that long before on the talk page of the article in question. You have broken the rule. There is nothing more to say. --Tuvixer (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Both warned. It looks like both sides reached three reverts. If either party continues this dispute without making a serious effort to get support from others on Talk, they may be blocked. There is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia and there is WP:DRN. It can't be hard to find names of people who edit Croatian politics. You could find a neutral way to invite them to join the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.208.249.52 reported by User:Mandruss (Result: Blocked 6 months)

    Page: Howard Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 72.208.249.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [83]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [84]
    2. [85]
    3. [86]
    4. [87]
    5. [88]
    6. [89]
    7. [90]
    8. [91]
    9. [92]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has ignored numerous user talk warnings, all directing them to the article talk page. I feel opening a thread in article talk would be a waste of time. Apparently, the other three or four experienced editors who have been involved with this issue agree.

    Comments:
    This is a slow-burn edit war. Beginning in July, this user has tried nine (9) times to change Hughes's birthplace without sourcing. They have been reverted by multiple experienced editors, and they have ignored numerous user talk warnings about behavior not only in this article but others as well. I see no end in sight until the user dies, and it would make no sense to continue this edit war indefinitely. Therefore it's either semi-protection or a fairly long-term block, and I think the latter is the more sensible choice as the user is not otherwise a significant contributor to the project. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jugdev reported by User:Jbhunley (Result: )

    Page
    Programmatic media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Jugdev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Please refer to my earlier comments on the talk page... Key distinction has been overlooked."
    2. 00:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684162930 by JohnInDC (talk) no explanation."
    3. 21:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684128172 by RichardOSmith (talk) no response on the items listed on talk page. all edits appear redundant"
    4. 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "See talk page"
    5. Still at it today [94]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Programmatic media. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 15:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ support/objections to stubbing?"
    2. 19:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Tightening up wording */ r"
    3. 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
    4. 21:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ request"
    5. 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ cmt"
    6. 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ r"
    7. 23:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
    8. 23:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Insufficient context, copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone */ Simple is better. Technical readers have other sources of information that Wikipedia (I hope!)"
    9. 23:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ cmt"
    10. 23:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ ce and sp"
    11. 23:59, 4 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Spelling/grammar correction"
    12. 00:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
    13. 00:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ Question on revert to lead"
    14. 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ PS -"
    15. 00:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
    16. 01:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Revised intro */ r"
    Comments:

    Continuing to edit war immediately after previous EW block expired. [95] JbhTalk 01:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that despite ongoing discussion this user seems incapable of understanding he does not own the article and have content approval. I fear short blocks are not getting through to them - I know discussion and explanation has not. JbhTalk 19:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Boonchong_chua reported by Asheshong (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    Agoda.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Boonchong_chua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    # 11:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [96]
    2. [97]
    3. [98]
    4. [99]
    5. [100]
    6. [101]
    7. [102]
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [103]
    2. [104]
    3. [105]
    4. [106]
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page
    1. [107]
    2. [108]
    3. [109]
    Comments
    • The article has been subjected to ongoing disruptive edits and edit warring by user boonchong_chua, whose history of Wikipedia contributions have focused solely on this article [[110]].
    • Edits were inappropriate and unfit for an encyclopedia. Attempts to engage have been made on the article talk page as well as the user's talk page.
    • Disruptive editing and edit warring with this particular user has been going on since 2014 [[111]]. History clearly shows edit warring between boonchong_chua and several other users.
    • The user also appears to be biased with no intention of improving the Wikipedia article. This diff [[112]] includes what appears to be an exchange between boonchong_chua and Agoda.com customer service. A user bearing the same username - boonchong chua - has been leaving negative reviews on the Agoda.com app page on the Google Play Store claiming that it is a scam.
    • The above suggests suggest that boonchong_chua is not contributing to Wikipedia objectively, while violating Wikipedia's content policies, namely neutral point of view and no original research, as well as Wikipedia conduct policies such as consensus.
    • Full disclosure: I am the creator of the article. I am also an employee of Agoda Malaysia International (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. I would like to be transparent and abide by Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest and paid contributions. Any contributions made on matters related to Agoda.com will remain factual and reliably sourced. My aim is to work with impartial editors on any issues that may arise. As the article creator, I have complied with Wikipedia's paid contribution disclosure guidelines. Disclosures have been made on my talk page and edit summaries.

    Asheshong (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Asheshong, an inexperienced editor needs to be warned about edit warring and keep on edit warring before being reported here. This was not done. However I have blocked boonchong_chua for disruptive editing. He is clearly editing in a non-neutral way despite several warnings to desist. NeilN talk to me 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Francis Schonken reported by User:LlywelynII (Result: No action)

    Page: Johann Sebastian Bach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Initial RFC

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Comments out my RFC to avoid outside comments
    2. Restores his removal of my RFC
    3. Restores his removal of my RFC, despite links to WP:TPO & WP:3RR; removes RFCid number added by bot
    4. Nowiki's the RFC
    5. Restores Nowiki, despite notice of having passed 3RR and a my previously requested 3rd opinion editor coming by to point out that the RFC itself has no obvious issue & editor has no explained any

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, notice re: this page

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See links and discussion given above.

    Comments:
    I would say his initial protectionism over the page could fall under good stewardship. It's very hard for me to view repeated attempts to shut down discussion—let alone editing my talk page comments in violation of linked policy well past 3rr—as a positive thing. Also, since we're going to have eyeballs on the page now, kindly add some thoughts on the original issue regarding the formatting of the page's References section. — LlywelynII 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC should be worded neutrally before the RfC is launched. Why it is not neutral is explained by another editor who replied to a 3O request, and confirmed by me as the what for me was the reason to consider it lacking in neutrality.
    Please LlywelynII consider rewording the RfC more neutrally, then we're all set to launch it properly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, at this point, "over-protective" is a profoundly neutral phrasing of your behavior. I did follow the 3O's advice and removed even that minimal venting from the discussion below the RFC. All the same, your behavior at this point has been such that someone other than me should explain why you should never act like this again. (And then probably yell at me, too.) — LlywelynII 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the rewording. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I can strike that last comment, the RfC has been reworded neutrally it is launched, and I'm fully OK with that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to strike my comment as someone had posted something in between so that my comment could have been misconstrued.
    Anyway, I'm fully OK with the reworded RfC and it being launched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RedBoyLI reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: )

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


    3RR warning: [113]

    Comments: I realize I've provided no diffs above, but it's fairly easy to see just by looking at the history of the article. RedBoyLI and BlueboyLI, both SPAs (RedBoy more so), have been having their own little private edit war on this article (this is not a report of a 3RR breach) since about September 28, which is when RedBoy created an account (the BlueBoy account is much older), clearly in an effort to mock the other account. Whether the red and blue in the usernames signify the two main American political parties, I'm not sure, but my guess is they do. I've been watching this little battle for some time in frustration because, unfortunately, due to a few past edits, I am WP:INVOLVED. So, finally on October 2, I warned both users about edit-warring. For a few days it was quiet, whether in response to my warning or not, don't know. I'm bringing this report because RedBoy reverted again. As you can see from his response to my warning, he thinks he's right and the other party is wrong. He also mysteriously thinks he's not reverting ("I have rarely ever reverted of edited any of BlueBoyLI's edits. He has edited every single one of my edits without fail. I understand this is an edit war however I am not the one at fault in this matter, BlueBoyLI has never allowed me to make an edit to this page."). There's nothing new under the sun.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you suggest what uninvolved admins should do? Except for occasional copyvio (text may be taken verbatim from press releases) I don't see any flagrantly bad edits. But both parties are risking sanction for long-term edit warring. Since 28 September they continue to revert one another without any use of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although there may be more, two possibilities come to mind. The first is to extract an agreement that they won't edit the article. The problem with that is the duration. In their case, one week simply wouldn't be long enough. If you make it too long, which seems to be warranted, you are effectively topic banning them. The other is to block them and to escalate the blocks if they resume the battle after block expiration. BTW, although I officially reported only RedBoy, I knew that one of the possible results would be blocking them both. For that reason, I notified BlueBoy of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:JzG reported by User:DrChrissy

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [114]
    2. [115]
    3. [116]
    4. [117]
    5. [118]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and through edit summaries

    1. [120]

    Also see

    1. [121] see edit summary
    2. [122] see edit summary

    Comments: I believe the user is an admin.
    DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd suggest a boomerang here if this wasn't already part of an ongoing GMO ArbCom case. JzG only had three reverts when you look at continuous edits. DrChrissy however tried to keep edit warring their content back in while not using the talk page at all:

    • 11:13, October 5 Added content based on a primary source [123]
    • 12:20, October 5 Re-added after it was removed asking for secondary sources. [124]
    • 12:29, October 5 Re-added again. [125]
    • 12:55, October 5 Later added a separate piece of content based on another primary source after being asked already not to do this. [126]

    One can debate whether the last one counts as a "revert" or not, but it seems to indicate a mentality of running up editors to 3RR with one piece of content, then moving to another very similar piece. I had two reverts in the process trying to get DrChrissy to stop and come to the talk page with still no comment there at this time from DrChrissy.[127][128]

    I think it would be best to put this page under full page protection until the ArbCom case is over. I'm not sure if AN3 or admins here can do anything with the case open (not sure on when the prelim discretionary sanctions can kick in), so I'll ask Guerillero and L235 what the protocol should be here since they've been active at the case recently. Maybe this has a better place at the case itself, so it's probably best to see what they or other clerks/arbitrators say rather than continue this further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingofaces43 is anxious to deflect from his own edit warring on the same page here,[129] here[130] and here.[131] It is quite clear that he and JzG are tandem-edit warring to push a mutual POV. I would have brought this to the attention of the admins here, but I was not sure of the procedure and although Kingofaces43 is definitely edit warring, he has technically not broken 3RR. I strongly urge admins to consider this as an isolated, but extremely disruptive, incident by JzG/Guy that should not be pushed over to ArbCom - they are already busy enough. I am confident that admins and the community can deal with this "in-house".DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that [132] and [133] are part of an uninterrupted series of edits in succession on my part. Removing a newly proposed piece of content followed by another revert asking the editor again to stop edit warring and come to the talk page is something I have no problem being open about, contrary to the aspersion that I'm "deflecting". Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:90.196.204.46 reported by User:Primefac (Result: )

    Page
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    90.196.204.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts

    Edits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn (demo):

    1. 18:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684288581 by Primefac (talk) No edit wars please. Leave in my note about why not to delete."
    3. 18:54, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684289098 by Primefac (talk) Further to IRC convo, I cannot forge your signature to add your comment, Please just re-reg your vote."
    4. 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684289636 by Primefac (talk) Seriously, lets not play rabbit season, duck season."


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    Reverts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalu (demo):

    1. Special:Diff/684282046
    2. Special:Diff/684286609

    Reverts at Orb-3D

    1. Special:diff/684282699
    2. Special:Diff/684286508
    3. Special:Diff/684287661
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    Done on IRC, can provide logs upon request. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User has been on IRC talking to me and Huon regarding some issues they have with this page, but refuse to simply type their response instead of deleting my comments. They have also done similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalu (demo) and Orb-3D Primefac (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comments from accused: please check my contributions log, there are other pages. PrimeFac for removes examples from pages to make redirect pages "make sense" - the rabbit season/duck season - we're discussing on IRC and no harm no fowl, I do not like the over-writing of my not close vote. (I did this, to prove a point, user is now doing it - you'll note that the user is not versed in the issues of the page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additional info:
    [20:22] <AnIPAddress> primefac: I hope there's symmetry in the edit war reports.
[unrelated]
[20:23] <primefac> AnIPAddress, I am not at all concerned with this coming back on me
    this was sparked by me coming to his attention, the "war" should be considered symmetrically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.204.46 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further info
     [20:27] <primefac> while the statement is still true, I did not give them permission to use the comment
    I post this to be accurate, PrimeFac is upset I posted a log snippet here, but he said "can provide logs upon request." have I broken some sort of policy by posting a snippet, how would it be okay for him to in that case?
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=684295386"