Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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)
1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162
1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172
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:89.110.19.176 and 91.122.6.3 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: )

Page: Alan Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.122.6.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.110.19.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First edit by 89.110.19.176, which is traced to the Russian Federation
Revert by Nightscream
Revert by 91.122.6.3, which is also traced to the Russian Federation
Vanamonde93 reverts 91.122.6.3's revert and leaves a message on that IP's talk page
91.122.6.3 again reverts Vanamonde93
Nightscream reverts the article again, and try to caution 91.122.6.3 in his edit summary and on 91.122.6.3's talk page about edit warring.
91.122.6.3 reverts my revert, and makes no acknowledgement of my message or the policies and guidelines I linked him to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Record of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (actually the reported user's talk page): diff

Comments:

User:Rizlas p reported by User:Tchaliburton (Result: No action)

Page: Michail Lountzis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rizlas p (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

01:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Michail Lountzis. (TW)"
01:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Michail Lountzis. (TW)"
01:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Michail Lountzis. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Stale, editor has stopped. Though they've been warned enough that if this continues, they'll be blocked. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshuaj102003 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked )

Page: Cinderella (Disney character) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joshuaj102003 (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

12:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cinderella (Disney character). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

03:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Ethnicity */"

Comments:

More: [2], [3], [4] NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48 hours. Acroterion (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:LardoBalsamico reported by User:Alans1977 (Result: Blocked)

Page: 1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LardoBalsamico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "reverted vandalism"
11:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "this was the match between Galatasaray and Fenerbahce. Players, officials and trainers should be known. If you remove something, please use talk page first."
06:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "do not revert this. If you want to revert, first go to talk page. Remmeber! You did it first!"
00:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "if it was not match-fixing, then what is match-fixing?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

11:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on 1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident. (TW)"
11:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

11:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:1955 Turkish basketball withdrawal incident "←Created page with '==Roster for each side== How is who was on the roster for each side relevant to occurrence of the event? Alans1977 (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)'"[reply]

Comments:: I'll withdraw this. Looks like an admin user Callanecc blocked them while I was in the middle of filling this. Alans1977 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AbelM7 reported by User:Aquintero82 (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbelM7

Comments:

User:AbelM7 is new to editing Template:Foreign relations of Mexico and other similar articles. Before his arrival, most of the articles were the same in structure, however, he has decided upon himself to change the articles and arrange the continents to his understanding of how the world is without first consulting users who have worked on the articles nor seeking consensus, even though it had been suggested to him. I left a message on his talk page asking him to justify his point of view. He responds with "No mean for disrespect. I'm not the one who formed the continents but each one are separated by something. Each continent gets its own group. The Americas (North America + South America) is a supercontinent just like how Eurasia (Europe + Asia) and Afro-Eurasia (Africa + Europe + Asia) are also supercontinents." Even Wikipedia's article on continents recognizes that there are differences of point of view and that it is not set that there are indeed seven continents. I've even tried to compromise by separating the American continent by keeping the same 'America' section but separating them by North and South. However, this too was reverted back to his point of view. User:AbelM7 would do well to seek consensus on the matter rather than impose his point of view. User:Aquintero82, (talk), 23 June 2014, 15:03 (UTC)

User:Aquintero82 You never did responded to my talk page so we couldn't have seek a consensus. Each group on the foreign relations templates are divided into continents such as Asia, Africa, North America and not the combined continents such as the Americas, Eurasia, Afro-Eurasia. In my edits, I separated the combined landmass of the Americas into the continents of North America and South America in the group sections since none of the other sections uses combined landmasses such as Eurasia or Afro-Eurasia. You're saying it is "my" point of view like if it is mine exclusively but it is not. A continent is a large landmass and there are seven of them (technically it's six but Europe and Asia are divided at the Ural Mountains). I know people sometimes combined continents to form the Americas, Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia but the foreign relations templates used continents in their groups, not the combined ones. Not all of the articles are the same in structure such as Template:Foreign relations of Kiribati which doesn't have the different continent groups. Who's to say you're not imposing your point of view of using combined continents instead of the singular ones? AbelM7 (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I used the examples set by Template:Foreign relations of the United States, Template:Foreign relations of Russia, and Template:Foreign relations of China since I know those would have more edits done and more foreign relations articles as oppose to Template:Foreign relations of Samoa. AbelM7 (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warned both editors. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Funnycoolman reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 15:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 15:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Send back */"
3. 16:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Send back */"
16:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614111189 by Ryulong (talkDeal with it)"
16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "not until you agree"
Consecutive edits made from 16:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) to 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
1. 16:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 16:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Accepted */"
3. 16:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User will not leave me alone after I removed his thread he started from my user talk page. This comes off after a block he had just served and also he resumed edit warring on the page he was originally blocked for edit warring on. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warned and this also looks to be possible harassment since Ryulong has asked them to stop posting on their own talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lugnuthemvar reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

Page: Canadian soccer league system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuthemvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

12:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""
16:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "i mentioned canadian usage. this is proper usage."
16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
16:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ EC + wrong"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor is removing common name from multiple articles and edit warring to do so Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple other articles where the editor has made this change and I won't edit war with the subject over them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warned both editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were to correct errors introduced such as [[Association football|association football]] and WP:REPEATLINKs. The other editor has been involved in three 3RR cases in the past few days. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Tenebrae blocked 60 hours, see below for tit-for tat )

Page: Josh Dallas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Also on Kelly Clarkson and Ginnifer Goodwin

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613958489 by Winkelvi (talk) See talk-page discussion, rather than continuing edit-war with TWO other editors."
20:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "No, we leave the extant, status quo version until there is consensus to change. BLP does not REQUIRE removal, and there is no consensus to hide a name already available to millions via magazines, newspaper and entertainment-news TV shows."
20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "According to Wikipedia policy, the status quo is supposed to remain. The status quo before you started this included the name."
20:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "You are the one edit-warring, even though the status quo is supposed to remain, and you are now at 3 reverts here. Revert again,and you're over WP:3RR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ginnifer Goodwin. (TW)"
20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Josh Dallas. (TW)"
20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kelly Clarkson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

16:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Ginnifer Goodwin "/* Response to edit summary here */ yes"

Comments:

Tenebrae has chosen to edit war rather than continue discussion and go with consensus. He has not violated 3RR but is engaging in edit warring and win at all costs behavior. The articles in question where he is edit warring (Ginnifer Goodwin, Josh Dallas, and Kelly Clarkson) are all BLPs; they are obviously treated differently than non-BLP articles when it comes to content on living persons. Another, uninvolved editor, has also weighed in on the dispute at all three articles. Consensus is in favor of removing the contested content until a resolution is reached. I removed that content earlier today, Tenebrae chose to revert it all back in spite of the discussion on each article's talk page. Policy is clear on including names and identifying information on non-notable minor children of article subjects:

"The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Adding the name and exact birth date of a a non-notable low-profile minor child of a celebrity is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the article subject. Saying the child exists and giving a birth month and year is sufficient mention.

Further, I asked Tenebrae to stay off my talk page twice yesterday. He returned to post there twice more and today has posted there again [5]. He was already been warned by an administrator at AN/I about instigating incivility with me along with lack of respect here: [6] He was told to stop. The edit warring behavior and coming back to my talk page today is, in my estimation, a continuation of the behavior he was told to stop. My patience has been tested to the limit by his uncivil, battleground and WP:POKE behavior. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilevi is dissembling. I returned to his talk page only to post a 3RR warning and that I had begin this 3RR action, both of which were required of me to do. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a complete misrepresentation; there is no requirement to threaten editors. After being told twice already to stay off my talk page, he should not have returned with anything other than a template or a notification. After I placed warning templates on his talk page, he chose to come to my talk page and threaten to report me. There was no notification at this point that he was planning to or had already done so: "You are the one promulgating an edit-war. If you revert again, you will be at three reverts. If you go over that, I guess we'll need to take this to WP:3RR. Or I could go there now, based on your posts on my talk page saying 3RR can be broken in spirit without going over 3 reverts." His own words give the true story. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Here are the 3 messages I was required to put on his talk page. Any admin is welcome to see for himself if I was "threatening." I urge one to see for oneself at: [7], [8], [9]

And you can, as well, see his threats to me on my talk page

The "4" reverts he lists includes one that occurred before this 24-hour period. In that case, I'll go and add his own "4th" from yesterday to my report below. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And since he's bringing the discussion of BLP policy here, I suppose I need to defend myself here. We're not talking about private minor children of notable but no-famous people. We are talking about the names of celebrities' minor children whose parents have announced their names to the media ... in some cases on magazine covers ... and which in our footnotes themselves are readily available to millions of readers/viewers through WP:RS newspapers, magazines and entertainment-news TV shows. The suggestion that Wikipedia is able to or should keep "secret" Kim Kardashian's child North or Gwyneth Paltrow's child Apple is absurd. This a valid part of such subjects' biographies. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note for this and below: This dispute started at ANI [10], but I'm happy to walk away and let AN3 deal with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 60 hours See below for Filer the panda ₯’ 23:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds about right in both cases, as the AN3 case could have easily been avoided. I left a note on the ANI page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tenebrae explained here that there was no tit for tat reporting. Flyer22 (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 24 hrs)

Since User:Winkelvi has come to my talk page repeatedly to threaten me over editing-warring when he has been doing so since June 15 — and also because he has threatened on my talk page — with two exclamation-point signs and one stop sign — that "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly." Based on his own reasoning and behavior (which has included him telling me repeatedly to "go fuck myself" and similar phrasing), I bring this case here.

Previous version reverted to: Here is the status quo as of June 5: [11], which he changed on June 15 [12].

Despite an editor other than myself immediately restoring the status quo [13], he began edit-warring immediately after that [14] and this edit-warring has continued across Josh Dallas and the other two articles above. All I have tried to do is retain the status quo until consensus says otherwise. There is no consensus yet.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Since Winkelvi is listing things previous to this 24-hour period in his report above, it's only equitable I do the same

16:59, 15 June 2014 [15]
04:11, 22 June 2014 [16]
15:03, 22 June 2014 [17]
17:42, 23 June 2014 [18]
20:16, 23 June 2014 [19]
20:19, 23 June 2014 [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I provided warning, and he erased it with a highly uncivil edit summary [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Consolidated [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ginnifer_Goodwin#BLP]

Comments:
During discussions, the article's status quo is supposed to remain and consensus arrived at for any change, especially a contentious one. He insists his interpretation of BLP is the only valid interpretation, and believes that means he's entitled to keep reverting to his preferred version. The issue is contentious since he's removing names of celebrities minor children even though those names have been released to the media by the parents themselves, in some cases on magazines covers, and are readily available to millions of readers/viewers through RS newspapers, magazines and entertainment-news TV shows.

I bring this here based on his threat to bring me here through "you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule". --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likely a CYA and revenge report (he states, "I bring this here based on his threat to bring me here"). For details on my side of the issue, please see the following diff of my report (listed above this report) here: [22]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Defending myself is not "revenge." You were the one returning obsessively to my talk page threatening me with a claim of which you yourself are guilty. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most brutally childish tit-for-tat filing ever. See WP:LAME the panda ₯’ 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It's rare that I provide disproportionate blocks ... however, Tenebrae's wording in their edit-summaries were clearly attempting to push the other party into a block, which is unacceptable - obviously also showing that they know exactly what edit-warring is (which of course can happen after a SINGLE edit). Do not communicate in this manner in edit-summaries - ever. WP:BLP did not truly apply in these edits - when it doubt, the editor should a) not edit-war, and b) go to WP:BLPN for assistance the panda ₯’ 23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Florian_Blaschke reported by User:Ragdeenorc (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

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:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdeenorc (talk • contribs)

Florian Blaschke has really only reverted three times across multiple edits. I'm seeing no attempt at discussion by you nor warn the editor before you reported him, and it's already been explained to you that the POV you're pushing is undue. Accusing someone of vandalism when it isn't can amount to a personal attack. You seem to be here for only one reason that doesn't particularly seem in line with WP:NPOV, and you also have a precocious edit history.

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely running out from the actual thread. I am neither pushing POV nor can my edits be classified as "undue", which I'll try to explain below. Just because Florian says so it doesn't mean his claims are correct. And its not me who is obliged to use the disscusion page, since I am not the one who removed >> sourced << material. Anyway... in fact there are three different cases:

^{Case 1:} Florian removed RELEVANT etymological elaborations of the scholar Mario Alinei. Since the etymological section can't be a case of "undue", because of the simple reason no alternative etymology EXISTS, it is a clear case of hardcore POV by Florian.

^{Case 2:} Next, he removed a substantial component of NPOV-relevant material in the section /*/ Kurgan hypothesis /*/, which has always EXISTED at the article. Again, a clear POV case by Florian.

^{Case 3:} This time he completely removed the entire Etymology section INCLUDING the Sergei Starostin reference. This can't be an "undue" case but only a clear POV case by Florian.

A similar POV case has also happened here, but fortunately prevented by User:Yagmurlukorfez. There are various users who were confronted by Florians stubbornness and his frequent, seemingly harmless fitted, insults such as "Pan-Turkist" or "Paleolithic Continuity Theory™" (1, 2). --Ragdeenorc (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear-cut editing dispute with no attempt to discuss the matter from either party. The content is not exempt from the three-revert rule and no warning was issued by the reporter. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Collect needs to take a look at his own edit history on both pages. Lulaq (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lulaq reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[28] 19:30 22 Jun
[29] 02:37 24 Jun
[30] 03:08 24 Jun
[31] 03:47 24 Jun
[32] 13:18 24 Jun
[33] 14:00 24 Jun

And also reverts at Charles Rangel where the documentation for Template:Infobox officeholder now reads: Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

[34] 03:02 24 Jun
[35] 13:30 24 Jun
[36] 13:49 24 Jun after Lulaq was directed to the template documentation

Notice given at [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38] and [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:State_Bar_of_Texas concerns such material, as well as a BLP violation which has been removed, the template discussion was widely aired at Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#RfC_on_successor.2Fpredecessor_where_a_district_is_not_reasonably_viewed_as_the_same_after_redistricting, and had been noted in edit summaries on the Rangel page (Been linked to a change in concensus concerning listing predecessors - await further chats on whether other changes made are ok, etc. as well as asking this editor to read the template documentation per Template:Infobox officeholder -- using "redistricted" instead of random other names, read the template discussion PLEASE before making an edit war here -- the change was fully discussed indeed to which the answer was I don't see ANY discussion on talk. In fact, I don't see ANY discussion on Talk in over 2 years although the template was specifically cited)

Comments:

I rather think managing to simultaneously carry on two edit wars at the same time may show a problem. Collect (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response was [40] No, I'm not, but it does seem you're cyberstalking me to revert my edits. Lulaq (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC) and previously What the hell are you talking about? You are the one you is dangerously close to 3RR. I kept your edit, but asked you a question. Quit putting false and harassing warnings only wall per WP:HARASS. Thank you. Lulaq (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)]] Which would take some doing onmy part indeed as Lulaq appears to have actually followed me (The SBOT article was to fix a gross BLP violation mentioned at WP:BLP/N, and Rangel was not edited by Lulaq ever before this!) Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

−

Some of the edits cited are not reverts, but rather refinements. I have accepted correction on a lot of my edits and actually stripped out most of my original contributions. Other third editors are editing, while Collect is reverting and doing major section blanking. Self reverting my edits are not an option at this point, otherwise I would, because other third party editors seem to have accepted these refinements. Lulaq (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP issue has been corrected, but that is not stopping Collect from harassing me. Lulaq (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits 29, 30, and 31 are not reverts but rather my attempt at refinement, which seem to have been accepted. I don't know why Collect is hell bent on multiple section blanks. Again, I can't revert my refinements at this time even as an olive branch without harming the article. While I initially made an UNINTENTIONAL BLP error, I corrected this as soon as I was pointed to policy a couple of days ago. This hasn't stopped Collect from holding a grudge. Lulaq (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the "error" which you repeated? Meanwhile I have a total of 6 edits at SBOT (3 in a row, 2 in a row, and a single edit), while you appear to have 25 edits; I have a total of 4 edits on Rangel, while you have 6 in under a half a day. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPAplease. As you were the one who followed me you charge of "harassment" is a teensy bit weak. And I trust you now note the "infobox officeholder" documentation is directly applicable to the Rangel BLP. BTW, "refinements" can absolutely still be "reverts" in case you failed to read the policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're following good faith Collect. I refined a great MAJORITY of what I wrote, which is totally contrary to what you are attempting to imply here. I told you to discuss the specifics of the Charlie Rangel article on his talk page. This article is relevant to me since I live very close to his district. Lulaq (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're upset that your section blanking edits were not accepted. I've felt the same way too, but I can't do anything about this now without harming the project. All controversial edits I made a couple days ago inadvertently were removed well before today, though initially I was visibly upset over it. Lulaq (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the fully unsourced section? As in -- you feel that the silly Wikipedia rule about using sources does not apply? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, please quit personally attacking me here. It seems you are still holding a grudge over an edit 2 days ago that has since been corrected and I'm not still disputing. You clearly have a vendetta against me and sound very personally pissed off at me quite frankly. Lulaq (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refer to Collect's talk page on his Charlie Rangel edits. Lulaq (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- where I was thanked for showing another editor the wording at the infobox officeholder page -- seems pretty clear from here. Pray tell though how my "vendetta" managed to force you to suddenly edit on the Rangel page which you had previously not edited? Collect (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ashumech527 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bhumihar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashumech527 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
03:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
01:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

09:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Bhuimar. (TW)"
09:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "/* June 2014 */ ce"
16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bhumihar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not technically 3RR in 24 hours, but has been reverted by 3 editors before I just reverted and several warnings, all ignored. Dougweller (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Particularly disruptive to revert again after the filing of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dustin V. S. reported by User:68.111.70.220 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:30, 22 June 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by BDE1982 (talk): Tornado Warnings in the United States are capitalized. (TW)")
14:43, 22 June 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by BDE1982 (talk): It is a NWS proper noun. The only reason the article isn't "Tornado Warning" in caps is because it is not US-unique. (TW)")
15:46, 22 June 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by BDE1982 (talk): You have failed to provide any counter-reasoning on your talk page, so I am reverting you. (TW)")
13:43, 24 June 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted good faith edits by United States Man: Don't undo my revision if you aren't even going to look at the discussion I already had to waste so much time on. (TW)")

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

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

Comments:

User:Dustin V. S. reverted 4 times in 24 hours, insisting that "tornado warning" should be capitalized even though it is not a proper noun. Several users disagree, including me, and I reverted the user's edit accordingly. But I am not sure if he will soon revert me as well, which would be his 5th revert in 24 hours if he does so. 68.111.70.220 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have an odd notion of 24 hours. Dustin reverted three times in 24 hours. The fourth revert occurred a couple of days later.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.132.234.244 reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Talk:Suzannah Lipscomb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.132.234.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

17:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614253216 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
17:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614252402 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
17:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614251794 by NeilN (talk)"
17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614251161 by NeilN (talk)"
17:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614250817 by NeilN (talk)"
17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 614204460 by Mdann52 (talk) cant delete previous discussions."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned on previous account/IPs about EW. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. If they jump IPs, semi-protection will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC) "at wikipedia doesn't matter the ethnicity but every contributor have the right to play with every strange article? Without consult those of whom the article belongs? If in a big news paper someone says The Romanian Language doesnt exist, we can add this?"
17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC) "Mister Plakidas, if you are greek as you pretend, must have respect for our name and values but you dont and you are not greek. Take care our wiki page. It's yours, whoever you are!! Congrats!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Makedonovlah has been edit-warring across many Aromanian-related articles. His latest foray is in the Aromanians article where he is edit-warring since at least 31 May converting their origins and changing their onomatology without supplying sources. He has already been blocked twice, the first time for disruption, the second for edit-warring. I have tried to explain to him through warnings and other messages that what he is doing is disruptive but to no avail. This report is technically not a violation of 3RR in 24 hours but it should be taken together with this user's large-scale disruption and long-term edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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