Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:01, 15 June 2017

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
Incidents (archives, search)
1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161
1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479
480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:173.239.212.40 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Semi)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
IP:173.239.212.40 (previous IP:173.239.216.2) is persistently removing content from the article without a valid reason. Invitations to participate in the ongoing article talk page discussion have been ignored. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch this report—IP:173.239.212.40 is now blocked anyway. I was (mistakenly) told to bring the issue here, when it could've been sorted at AIV. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: You spoke too soon; the war is continuing from multiple IPs. Page semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping from a range. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:ReallyThinBread reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Grays Athletic F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ReallyThinBread (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as IP 188.29.165.161 (talk · contribs) – see signature here)

Repeated reverts over several days. Hasn't actually broken 3RR but was warned about edit warring by more than one admin,[8][9] yet has continued to revert.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
I also suspect the account is a meatpuppet recruited following the initial dispute between myself and another editor (note this comment on the talkpage – "Can you not speak to other editors outside of talk pages?"). Number 5 7 22:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ive accepted the ganged-up on views and making edits as per how you all prefer. Why hasnt NZ been reported, hes at the other side of this? Youre bullying and victimising me. RTB ReallyThinBread (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sport and politics reported by User:El cid, el campeador (Result: Full protection, recommendation to talk it out)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The article is ISIS related, and a 1RR has been instituted on the talk page, which the user is aware of. However, she has also been warned in every edit summary to stop reverting (by multiple users, never me), but she has continued to do so. She clearly knows what she is doing but is determined to get his view in regardless.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: She created a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with her, but she cites it as evidence that his edits are justified. There are multiple people (including myself) who told him to stop and saying his edits did not make sense. Obviously she doesn't care.

Comments:
For most of the month, this user has been taking out items from the list, knowingly without consensus. She has taken out 30,000 bytes repeatedly, and those four edits above have occurred in the past two days. The article has a 1RR. She is clearly too determined to get his edit through. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sport and politics: I'd like to hear what you have to say here - it's rather clear that although you created a discussion on the article's talk page relating to the changes you're wanting to make, you made the edits without waiting for people to reply. I note the discussion was added today, so it's not like it's been ignored for a couple of days either. I don't see any direct 1RR violations by the user, however this behaviour in such a sensitive subject area isn't the best idea -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content issue, and there is lengthy discussion on the talk page, which I would like to draw the above user to here on the discussion page of the article. To claim there are no discussions is a fallacy. If there is a wish to comment on this content issue, please do so.as discussions are there for a reason. if there is an issue with editing by myself I have a talk page which is easily usable, where a discussion can be had. A far more appropriate place would have been talking on my talk page first, before opening an issue on this page. Remember to always assume good faith.

Simply stating that a page has a 1RR and it not being made known clearly to editors prominently is akin to violation by stealth. As how on earth can one be expected to know about something which is not made clear. 1RR notices need to be prominent on the page such as it is with this page. Having blurb at the top of the talk page which falls squarely in to WP:TLDR, is simply not enough in making users aware of the issue. To assume a user is aware, is just that an assumption, if you wish to make a user aware of this fact let them know on their talk page.

This appears to be a hopeless report, which has no legs. this is far to premature. I have a talk page talk on there, this is a waste of time on here. I would also like to point out I am being thanked by other editors for my actions on this page, and was thanked by the editor who reverted the edit I made, for starting the discussion. I feel this should be closed as it is in the wrong place, this is a content issue and nothing more. Talk on my talk page or on the article talk page as appropriate. I see no reason for this to be here and no reason for me to comment any further on this issue. If there is anything which is wishing to be said to me please say so on my talk page. If there is an issue which is being had regarding editing I am doing, talk on my talk page first. This is daft and unnecessary.

The only constructive thing I can see that has arisen from this here is that there is a clear demonstration of the need for the page to have a page notice on it, as it currently does not have one. That way innocent editors, suc as myself will not be caught out by stealth and wildly unnecessarily be reported here in the future.

Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime:

Did you not realize that removing 30,000+ of sourced content again, and again, and again, and again, despite being reverted by different people each time, was improper? And as for notice conventions, that is not anything I have to do with, and the 1RR is effective even without notice. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned 1RR, which wasn't violated from what I can see (1 revert in a 24 hour period). @Sport and politics and El cid, el campeador: are you happy to continue this discussion here as suggested? I don't particularly want to block anyone, but I have fully protected the article so this can be discussed -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:@There'sNoTime: Thank you, I appreciate your attention to this. I don't want anyone to get blocked either, but sourced content was being blanked repeatedly, and this should give us a good opportunity to discuss. If @Sport and politics: wishes to, I would support starting an AfD or other method to discuss excluding certain events. El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@El cid, el campeador: I would recommend having a look through our dispute resolution methods (such as using these noticeboards) -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 15:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editing is not being reverted each time, that is not an accurate reflection of the editing history, please see that multiple users have removed content, in line with discussion on the talk page, which adds up to the 30,000 that is being alluding too. Also please read the discussions at hand, and please talk on a user page first. Read the whole discussions and see the whole of the editing history.

Hidden 1RR notices buried in a WP:TLDR block which is not read, as few in anyone reads the top of a discussion page, they simply start a new discussion or go to the relevant discussion on the page. Stating 1RR is enforce is no matter, indicates that WP:Bureaucracy needs pointing out, and that stating 1RR is enforce no matter is not in the spirit of an open wikipedia community with WP:Bold editing as a key principle. Again remember to always assume good faith. This is though the wrong place for this discussion. Please continue this on my talk page which is where I shall be continuing this discussion should it be wished to be continued. Sport and politics (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please find this discussion on my talk page here, as it is a more appropriate location. Sport and politics (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a final point I would like to make clear that El cid, el campeador (talk) has contributed to the discussion they are claiming is non-existant here, and claims of no support are also untrue see this here and here. This is a matter of the pillars of wikipedia relating to verifiability of the information being relied upon as a source, backing up the claims being made. This is a very poor report to here, and more research on the claims being made should have done before they were wildly bandied about. Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its a relief that sense has prevailed here. I think the overriding thing to take away from this is to go to a talk page first rather than running to administrators. Talkinfg to other users is far more constructive than this confrontational method. Sport and politics (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Gregcollins11 (Result: Reporter blocked)

I have tried resolving the edit war problems on Gatestone's page (see here:[15]), but Snooganssnoogans has failed to respond. Please block him or ask him to engage in dialogue with me. Gregcollins11

Comments:

WP:BOOMERANG. The OP has resumed an edit war after completion of a one week block for the same behavior. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously question whether this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. Registered in 2015 and have made literally no edits outside this organization and its founder. TimothyJosephWood 16:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of two weeks by Bish. TimothyJosephWood 21:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:134.157.13.126 reported by User:8.40.151.110 (Result: Blocked)

Continous edit warrning.

Blocked by another administrator for 60 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courage12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) another likely sock. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 04:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreenManXY reported by User:8.40.151.110 (Result: Blocked)

NPOV - this has caused an edit war.

8.40.151.110 (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours. Some patience may be needed to ensure that the Controversy section is neutral. But that doesn't justify the 3RR violation by GreenManXY. That editor has no contributions outside this article, and no participation on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:As you wish reported by User:Guanaco (Result: Two socks blocked)

Page: COVFEFE Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: As you wish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Covfefe Crusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. Indef blocked user using sockpuppets to violate 3RR. Please block. —Guan aco 22:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False. It is not edit-warring to revert page-blanking of an active deletion discussion. Moreover, the other editor involved stated that he would accept the COVFEFE Act article (on a notable proposed law to include Social Media in the Presidential archive) if I changed my name to one without Covfefe in it. I merely did as I was asked when it was complained my original choice of name was not policy-compliant, and now I am being attacked, savagely, for seeking to allow the Community to give its consensus as to whether this act has notability, before it is permanently disappeared. The Act goes beyond the scope of Donald Trump's use of Social Media, the proposed redirect, since if passed, it would apply to all future presidents, and perhaps to Obama as well. No arguments were given as to why the page should be merged, or why a discussion would be harmful. Thank you. As you wish (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's against the rules to immediately nominate a page you created for deletion. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What rule is it against? And if it is indeed against the rules, why would that be the case? If another editor unilaterally deletes a page, and the article creator would like others to engage in a discussion as to whether the topic is worthy of its own page, what is the possible objection to having a discussion? As you wish (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor stated as follows: "I'm happy for this article to be created by a user WITHOUT "Covfefe" in their username." As such, I took this as a request to change my username, and did so. I made absolutely plain I was the same User, and had chosen a new name at his explicit request, so that the much-needed article could be created. What is the problem?As you wish (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit-warring with other editors, not me. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only "edit-warring" to allow a discussion of the merits of having an article on this proposed law. These editors are free to contribute their views as to why the proposed Law is not notable. As you wish (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you were edit warring. Stop. AYW: please stick to one account. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped editing that page after 3 reverts. I can't speak for the behavior of other editors. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, per WP:3RRNO, reverting blocked/banned users in violation of their block is not considered edit warring. SkyWarrior 22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both users reported have been blocked as sockpuppets of Kingshowman, so this can be closed. SkyWarrior 22:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:As you wish and User:Covfefe Crusader are both indef blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saronsacl reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

at Ancient Mesopotamian religion

dif 13 June 2017
diff 13 June 2017
diff 13 June 2017
diff just now

at Sumer

diff 13 June 2017
diff 13 June
diff 14 June
diff 14 June
diff 14 June
diff 14 June

at Sumerian religion

diff 13 June 2017
diff 13 June
diff 13 June

at Abrahamic religions

diff 14 June 2017
diff just now

at Mesopotamia (basically same content as just above)

diff 14 June
[diff just now

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ancient_Mesopotamian_religion#Abrahamic_religion_and_mesopotamian_sexuality_morality

Comments:

post filing continuation
- diff at Ancient Mesopotamian religion
- diff at Mesopotamia
- diff at Abrahamic religions

etc. Jytdog (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are forcing stuff back in after an admin has removed it for copyvio. e.g -diff. oy. I am going to bed. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 2 weeks. Edit warring at multiple articles as well as copyright violations. For previous edits by the same person, see Special:Contributions/112.211.214.39. EdJohnston (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Namarly reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

Previous version reverted to: Eh... any diff without that particular paragraph

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]... Apparently they also had themselves a nice little edit war on June 2017 London attack per this prior EW warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Meh. I'm not really involved.

Comments:

Admittedly, one diff is them originally adding the information, and three diffs are them disruptively adding exactly the same in formation three consecutive times (without being reverted) in a bit of a temper tantrum. But... you know. They did add the same content duplicated thrice because they were throwing a temper tantrum. TimothyJosephWood 16:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have an edit warring habit which is a cause for concern, user continues to blank warnings given to them on their talk page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Interesting how this person Knowledgekid87 likes to poison the well with irrelevant remarks about "habit". To bias any busy hasty Admin who happens upon this unfair reporting (the people who have been violating WP policy against "NO OWN" and "I DON'T LIKE" are the real violators and edit-warriors here. The problem in THIS case is that The people here have it backwards. Provably so.

If someone is lying saying something is "duplicated" elsewhere in the article when there's literally NO mention anywhere else in the article the name "Terminate the Republicans" it's hard to "assume goo faith" when it's obvious that that's NOT what's really going on here. But more like suppression of sourced facts, per lefty agendas maybe (??) against WP policy. This is ALL OVER THE NEWS, on TV and on the Net. What's valid argument to remove it?? And no, the only ones truly "edit-warring" and violating WP policy are the suppressors that I'm undoing, and what's to "assume good faith" when they're flat-out LYING when they say "duplicate" when that's simply not true. This is a wiki. No one person owns any article, and no "opinion" is needed to include the sources fact that this perp was part of that FB club.

Anyway, I'm not edit-warring, I'm restoring sourced referenced facts THAT EDIT-WARRIORS AND SUPPRESSORS KEEP WRONGLY AND UNREASONABLY REMOVING, with literally zero sound argument or rationale for it. There's no mention of this sourced fact anywhere in the article. What is going on now is just SUPPRESSION OF FACTS that you don't like to be revealed. He was part of a FB club called "Terminate the Republicans". Nowhere is that mentioned. Restored. Namarly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...yeah... TimothyJosephWood 16:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content isn't as big of an issue as your behavior is. If you continue to blow up and insist that your edits be included then it is going to lead to trouble, please take issues to the talk page of articles and keep a cool head. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're assuming bad faith here, TimothyJosephWood and assuming incorrectly. No temper tantrum, that was unintentional problem with my laptop that froze. You call that civil on your part though, to barf up that rude insult of "temper tantrum"? Instead of "assuming good faith" that maybe there was a weird problem with my computer? It's old, and it froze. I'm on my desktop computer now. See what happens here though? Poison the water is a logical fallacy. The real violators are all of you who ignore the actual specific issue and want to suppress valid sourced information that you don't like. That other thing was a problem with my laptop, and not intentional. And irrelevant to this particular matter. The point is nowhere in the article was it mentioned already the FB club of "Terminate the Republicans". So where was the "duplicate" exactly? Namarly (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This seriously did not need to blow up like this, all you had to do was this: [23]. The bit "It's revealed that he was a Bernie supporter, and said that Trump was a traitor" was duplicated. Instead you argued with editors via edit summaries, and engaged in disruptive editing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Knowledgekid87, it didn't have to blow up like this, if you guys only left the sourced and valid edit alone, and respected it, instead of removing and suppressing information with bogus provably false excuses of "duplicate" (the phrase "Terminate the Republicans" was nowhere in the article), and constantly deleting and disrespecting. Yeah, if you none of you did any of that nonsense, that this rude violator Timothy with his bad-faith assumptions and insults and unfair reporting of this matter etc would not happen. The onus is on the suppressors, not on the editor placing and restoring sourced and absent valid information. Regards. Namarly (talk) 17:15, 14 June 107 (UTC)

Namarly I even pointed out what to do here. [24] I will let an admin decide what to do next as I feel that the evidence speaks for itself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noting [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32] for the record Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week for multiple issues, chief among them edit warring (with a previous EW block), while simultaneously telling multiple other editors to "Stop edit warring". That's really obnoxious. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:LordMintyBadger reported by User:Tony Fan123 (Result: Malformed report)

Comments:
Hi, Tim Farron will not be resigning until the next parliamentary recess. See video here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tim-farron-resigns-liberal-democrats-leader-election-statement-announcement-a7790396.html Thanks, sorry if ive gone about this the wrong way, this page is really difficult to understand! T.Fan 18:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Changed 'reigning' to 'resigning' above because that seemed to be the user's intention. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Malformed report. Please see the instructions at top of page for how to submit a 3RR report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:103.18.40.14 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of wars by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 103.18.40.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

19:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of wars by death toll. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User engages in no discussion, uses no edit summaries, and is reverting multiple editors. Edits contradict the article sources. Scr★pIron^IV 20:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few obligatory templates, tried three time to talk on article talk [33], editor won't use summaries, won't explain. I personally researched the citation in the fact he is adding (Amazon has the book and page available) and it says 300k, just like our full article on the war. They just won't discuss and won't stop reverting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are continuing their edit warring.[34]. Cassianto just reverted them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.47.136.111 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts: Article in question:

User:Theamazing123 and User:JJMC89 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Sockpuppet blocked )

Page: Time Warner Cable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theamazing123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
I wasn't sure if this was the appropriate place to report this edit warring, but these two editors (who I assume are the same person) have been flooding my watchlist with their edit warring. If you take a look at their contributions (see Special:Contributions/JJMC89 & Special:Contributions/Theamazing123), they've been constantly reverting each other for the last hour on a large number of different articles. Note that I did not send any warnings to the individuals since this does not seem to be a legitimate edit war; it seems to be just a person wasting Wikipedia server resources. Note also that if you take a look at the user's page logs, it looks like there are a considerable number of sockpuppets that have been made. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theamazing123 blocked as a sockpuppet, JJMC89 no violation WP:3RRNO#3. ~ GB fan 01:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Judist (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:
The content I reverted was not my addition, but I reverted it two times per the general rule of neutrality advising not to blank. The user is very active, reputable and probably widely respected here but today demonstrates edit-warring, insulting and ignoring behavior, violation of the 3RR. So I am (almost) sure that the request would be declined for this reason due to the insistance of other users but it wouldn't be fair if the rules here don't apply for everybody so I had to submit the request. In addition there were personal attacks on several occasions referring to me as a disruptive editor([53]) although I behaved completely civil without provoking it. When I cited[54][55] the general rule stating that any user should normally not blank and edit-war, but use editing process, tags and talk pages, the user continued to revert to a breaking point, didn't answer but showed an emotional response in the talk page instead citing WP:TLDR(too long didn't read) and WP:DNFTT(alleging me as a troll) combined edit-warring with the explanation - an insult calling me a "chronic disruptor".[56] [57] All this I regard as unacceptable behaviour both abusing editing privileges and personal attacks. Maybe I provoked with something in the distant past, I don't remember to have made personal attacks against this user, but right now I didn't abuse my privileges. The user alleged me of harrassing, but you can check the edit summaries and talk pages to see whether I state any personal attacks. Unwilling to discus the user also alleges me of stalking for which also there is no evidence. The edits of the user were also tendentious and aimed at using Wikipedia for propagandizing of one of multiple views and deleting all different views other than regarding Bartholomew as the prime patriarch of 300 million people. This was a violation of neutrality.Judist (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what you did here is you stalked another user (because you had never edited the article before), reverted them just to spite them (because it was a dispute you were not involved in), and then ran here as soon as you thought you "had" them on 3RR. Unfortunately for you, you seem to be unaware that removing poorly sourced material to the biography of a living person is exempt from 3RR, and that adding such material (not to mention edit-warring over it) is a violation of WP:BLP. So not only are you guilty of WP:HOUND and WP:STALK, you are also guilty of WP:BLP and WP:GAME. I think this time you will find out about WP:BOOMERANG. Khirurg (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Khirurg. This account has a long history of anti-Greek edits and large-scale edit-warring, as well as a block log including a week-long block for edit-warring. His battleground mentality has reached a new plateau by the addition of wikihounding. He also had recently filed a vindictive 3RR report in which SilentResident was involved in arguing against him, and so Judist decided to get SilentResident now by going at the patriarch Bartholomew article to argue against SR. At that 3RR report EdJohnston had commented that Judist may deserve a topic ban due to his longterm disruptive editing. He just arrived at the Patriarch Bartholomew talkpage, in an article he has never edited before, agitating for the addition of original research using specious arguments. His very first addition was gratuitous SYNTH, clearly not supported by the multiple cited sources and was meant as a provocation since he stalked my edits and those of SilentResident to the article and then started adding the very SYNTH I was arguing against on the talkpage. When I added many other sources supporting the statement of the wide recognition of the patriarch as a spiritual leader, he kept adding SYNTH disclaimers to the lead in clear violation of BLP, OR and NPOV policies. He started rapid-fire edit-warring adding badly-sourced original research in the BLP article, just to provoke an edit-war, although I had explained in detail why this material does not belong in the lead of the article. He needs a block for harassment as well as for his battleground mentality. Dr. K. 04:49, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the trash sources Judist added to the article, observe a source from "katehon.com" in these edits by Judist: diff1 and diff2 and then read a representative article from "katehon.com": The Military/Security Plot Against Trump Is Real. Also this is an excerpt of the actual source that Judist inserted in the article from "katehon.com": What is your view of what is called the ‘Pan-Orthodox Council’? I have been following the stages in the development of this farce for 40 years and there is a spiritual principle about humility which has been ignored from the very beginning.. This is quite apart from the SYNTH added at the lead, in the same edits: ...and as the spiritual leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide, which is the official position of Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, yet his status as first among equals is rejected by the heads of other Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Turkish authorities., as if Turkey has expert standing in Orthodox Church religious affairs. Dr. K. 07:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not stalk in any article of my watchlist. Wikipedia is free and you can't limit me which article to edit. Stalking you is a complete imagination and you know it because I haven't reverted you in edit conflicts since a year or two! There was only one case when you stalked me before two years and I responded back then. You edit every day or week, I don't stalk you for so long time but now I am stalking you? The point was that the part which you consider disputed material should be edited or removed instead of blanking entire sections. The material has to be poorly sourced and contentious to qualify for an exemption, but it was well known uncontentious material, i.e. 1. the rejecting position of the Turkish government (seeThe Turkish government banned the term 'Ecumenical' and Bartholomew was prosecuted according to the official website of the European Union) and the well known opposing perspective of the Russian Church, 2. quotes from international scandals, all can be verified by major newspapers about the scandal in Geirgia, Greek newspaper about the scandal in Bulgaria. There should have been reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption and straightforward edit-warring. I would greet you if you don't be banned. Happy editing ! Please avoid tendentious edits in future controversial topics. Thank you. Judist (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hayman30 reported by User:2.25.45.179 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[59] 06.51
[60] 07.32
[61] 07.34
[62] 07.36

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] No hint as to why the editor was reverting, thus difficult to resolve the "dispute". They are claiming violation of NPOV without any elaboration of how that might be.

Comments:

Editor is undoing my edits with explanations that are either absent or nonsensical. I requested a proper explanation but none was forthcoming. 2.25.45.179 (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:2.25.45.179 reported by User:Tornsado (Result: )

This editor causes Vandal.

@@ Line 436: / Line 436: @@
 Editor is undoing my edits with explanations that are either absent or nonsensical. I requested a proper explanation but none was forthcoming. [[Special:Contributions/2.25.45.179|2.25.45.179]] ([[User talk:2.25.45.179|talk]]) 07:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
+== [[User:2.25.45.179]] reported by [[User:Tornsado]] (Result: )==
+This editor causes Vandal.

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards