Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

User:BarcrMac (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Serial Number 54129: WP:UP#NOT, "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." a user calling a terrorist group designated as a terror group by 28 European nations and the US as well as Turkey is without any doubt an extremely offensive material (TW)"
2. 18:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Serial Number 54129: WP:UP#NOT, "Extremely offensive material may be removed on sight by any editor." a user calling a terrorist group designated as a terror group by 28 European nations and the US as well as Turkey is without any doubt an extremely offensive material (TW)"
3. 17:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC) "Removing a terror-supporting template"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Harassment of other users on User:BarcrMac. (TW)"
2. 18:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on User:BarcrMac. (TW)"
3. 19:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC) "/* November 2019 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on another user's User page: not good, particularly after having been warned by User:El C on ANI. Talk about overly invested... ——SN54129 19:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, I have self-reverted but calling a terrorists, freedom fighters is extremely offensive especially to me because I know a lot of innocent people who the PKK has killed.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@ patrolling admin: since SharabSalam has done the noble thing and reverted to status quo, I won't press the point. @SharabSalam: I appreciate your personal inflexion, and I also respect your losses; it is all to easy on Wikipedia for editors to forget that what we discuss and type have real-world implications and refections. But, honestly, you know as well as I do that we have our own processes to decide what's "right and wrong" in Wikiworld—and edit warring is never one of them  :) ——SN54129 19:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, there 28 European countries that designates that PKK as terrorists and the U.S as well. The U.S. president has said that the PKK is probably bigger terrorist threat than ISIS.[1]

Also I dont understand why saying that someone supports Hezbullah is wrong(like in user:Nableezy) while saying that someone supports PKK is right.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Does not appear to violate 3RR. Looks to be jumping the gun a little. PackMecEng (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: Note this is the "edit-warring noticeboard", not the "3RR noticeboard". ——SN54129 13:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Yup. Now please familiarize yourself with other cases around here and you will see why this case was doomed. While it is supposed to cover all edit warring it generally only covers 1RR and 3RR violations. PackMecEng (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Please familiarize yourself with this board. And in any case, your presence or otherwise is hardly relevant to either the filing or the result. ——SN54129 16:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Ha, okay whatever you say. You are obviously wrong but okay, I'm done here. Take care. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by the submitter, Serial Number 54129: "..I won't press the point", above, since the editor self-reverted. I hope that SharabSalam is aware that he is on thin ice. Wikipedia is not in a position to correct all the world's problems. In the mean time we need to follow our own rules. EdJohnston (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Khirurg reported by User:Resnjari (Result: Stale)

Page

Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [2]

1. [3]

1. [4]

1. [5]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [6] Khirurg was asked by another to self-revert after the 4 rv within 24 hours but did not accept to do that.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [7]
2. [8]

Comments:

In the last revert's edit summary it was claimed that it was reverting back to the stable version, but in fact Khirurg added content without consensus. To the request for a self-revert, Khirurg responded with personal attacks [9], [10] (after making personal attacks on the talk page) and with claims that the third diff is not a revert. Khirurg actually readded the same POV with a slight modification, from "perhaps" to "possible". Even the edit summary shows he is undoing another editor's edit "nope, west is crystal clear". The edit being reverted was: [11].Resnjari (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Bad-faith report by a WP:BULLY with a history of edit-warring on Balkan topics [12]. This is not a revert [13]. The report is a bad faith attempt at block fishing and intimidation. Khirurg (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The evidence of a WP:3RR violation is clear. In the recent Origin of the Albanians saga, you can misrepresent the edits of fellow editors [14], say they "dont have much to be thankful for in life" [15], and then turn around and say you're being bullied, it changes nothing. You violated the rule, and no ad hominem changes that.Resnjari (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As your own block log shows, your understanding of what is and what isn't a violation seems...lacking. Khirurg (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

And, voila ... more WP:PA... again.--Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out incompetence is not WP:PA, unless one tries to frame everything as a PA, in the desperate hope that something will stick. Khirurg (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

In case there is a misunderstanding over ad hominem, it means attacking the person, not the evidence. 3rr violations are there in the diffs.Resnjari (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) This is a harassing report which in addition to being harassment, it is also invalid. First, this incident is more that two-days old. Second, correcting the POV and sloppy edits of the opposition to conform to what the actual source says, is definitely not edit-warring, unless the opposition does not want the edit to adhere to the actual source. Khirurg's edits should merit congratulations not a WP:CLUEless report at this noticeboard. Dr. K. 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Please observe the following comment on Khirurg's talkpage by one of the edit-warriors: Although I do confess my own revert on West was misguided and based on a cursory scan, rules are rules, especially if you're going to start throwing wild accusations. Translation: "You were correct to revert my sloppy edit, but I am going to try to get you because I don't like your comments about me". Dr. K. 01:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Dr.K. Actually, this is me admitting my own failures as a way to say I am still willing to work with you (Khirurg) as a colleague, but you have to abide by our community principles, which include not violating WP:3RR. His response was to opine on my personal life. --Calthinus (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no 3RR vio on my part. What there is, is a clique of bullies that tries to control Balkan articles and has repeatedly targeted me with bogus accusations and reports. They leave threatening messages on my talkpage and then complain "muh personal life" after threatening me with fabricated 3RR accusations [16]. They keep showering each other with barnstars [17] [18] [19], and likely coordinate off-wiki, such is the speed with which they coordinate. They have a "good cop/bad cop" routine and claim to want to work with me "as a colleague" but then go block fishing at the first opportunity. That's what there is. Khirurg (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

To say, wow, i'm surprised to see this kind of thing from you would have had some faint meaning once, many, many years ago. Instead, in its place only disappointment lingers. As a long term experienced editor one would think that you would know better then to cast WP:ASPERSIONS through ad hominem claims. As i will reiterate Khirurg, 3rr was violated.Resnjari (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I suppose my occasional disputes are all theatre in your mind too? I can't even imagine how much time such elaborate plotting would take. Flattering, but no cigar, no WP:CABAL. Now, as for the 4rr: your first revert removed material added by BATO on the 26th [20], with intermittent edit warring over it involving multiple users-- Ktrimi reverted the part about Slavs and Greeks, you reverted the part about Illyrians. Number two [21] is a revert of my removal of "perhaps" from the content I restored after its deletion (compare : mine [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=928236047]; previous [22]), you then edit war with me again over this point (a rephrase of "perhaps" to "possibly" is not a significant difference in meaning [23], that edit being a revert of [24]). Then, the finale, [25], which is a revert of actually multiple edits as you rolled back to your preferred version. Rules are rules

.--Calthinus (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most desperate block fishing attempts I have ever had to deal with. On the one hand it's "I am willing to work with you as a colleague", on the other it's "will someone pleeeeeeeeease block this guy". Yeah, you might think that's clever, but it's quite obvious WP:LAWYER. But since "rules are rules", let's not forget this racist outburst by you: "the Greek-invented concept of hypocrisy". For which you never apologized. I should give you fair warning that the next such outburst will be reported to WP:AE without further warning. Khirurg (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• I said this before. This is a bizarre report. It is bizarre because the reverting editor admits that he made a sloppy edit after a careless look at the source. Normally, an edit-war is fueled by a fundamental disagreement among the edit-warring editors. If the opposition agrees with your edit, then where is the revert? The argument "rules are rules" sounds robotic and is devoid of editorial integrity. It reminds me of a similar argument: "Brexit means Brexit". See how far that argument helped Mrs. May's career. Dr. K. 18:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Anyone can go around in ad hominem circles alleging this, that or the other, casting WP:ASPERSIONS of other editors here and there to remove the focus from what transpired. In the end this is a report about edit warring at the noticeboard about edit warring. 3rr was violated and there is nothing bizarre about it.Resnjari (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it's better when 3rr is not about content disputes-- which this is not. It's about behavior.-Calthinus (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• • @Dr.K., it's a clearly fabricated "gotcha" report, and the desperation is evident. It's also bizarre in that those who have engaged in racist tirades in the recent past are now talking about "behavior". Khirurg (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The "gotcha" is the 3rr violations.Resnjari (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that you don't get the point. Robotically repeating the same crap multiple times does not validate your clueless report. It is a characteristic of those espousing empty rhetoric, cf. "Brexit means Brexit". Face it, in your rush to harass your opponent you made an invalid and stale report. The faster you understand this error, the better it will be for you in the long run. Dr. K. 22:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As i will reiterate. The focus of this edit warring report is violations of 3rr, as per the diffs. Not Brexit or some other topical news item or to dabble in the WP:ASPERSIONS of others. In general, maintaining cordiality is best.Resnjari (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeating a falsehood like a broken record doesn't make it more true. But go ahead, keep repeating yourself, it seems to be working. Or...maybe not. Khirurg (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The diffs are clear, that is the evidence shows 3rr violations. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS and alike is off topic, to say the least. The noticeboard here deals with edit warring matters. It is not a WP:FORUM.Resnjari (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep repeating yourself. Go on. Khirurg (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I made my report.Resnjari (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can all see that. As we can all see that you are repeating a falsehood in the hope something sticks. Keep talking. Khirurg (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

What can be seen in the diffs is a 3rr violation. Its what this report is based on.Resnjari (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wash, rinse, repeat. Wash, rinse, repeat. But one thing will not be washed-away. What can be seen from the diffs is fake news. Dr. K. 03:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well i guess some humour is needed in these proceedings.Resnjari (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to appreciate my "Brexit means Brexit" analogy, I thought I should change the example. Dr. K. 03:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Brexit" or "fake news" are different topics. That said, every edit warring case has its own set of distinct circumstances.Resnjari (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

True, about your last statement. As far as Brexit and fake news, they may indeed be different topics, but they belong in the same category, that of the rise of empty rhetoric. Dr. K. 04:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Empty rhetoric is for those without evidence. If there wasn't any, there would be no report on 3rr violations and i would not be here at the edit warring noticeboard.Resnjari (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes being a broken record is necessary.

1. . First revert [26] removed material added by BATO [27]
   
2. . Second [28] is a revert of my removal of "perhaps" from the content I restored after its deletion (compare : mine [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Albanians&diff=prev&oldid=928236047]; previous [29])
   
3. . Third, you reinsert "possibly", which is basically no different from perhaps [30], hence reverting this edit [31]
   
4. . Fourth, you roll back a ton of edits, to your preferred version [32]
   

This is what matters, not if an axis of evil has aligned against you, not if you think others had "racist outbursts" (some Greek guy formalized the idea of hypocrisy to describe a phenomenon, as with formalizing the idea of a right triangle, this is not racist), not if you think your colleagues are "incompetent" ([33]) and lack the capacity to comprehend basic rules on wiki, we can go around the moon and back with all the distractions here. No you do not get special exemptions, not even if your opponents were sent by the devil himself, because anyone can argue this, and especially in WP:BALKANS basic principles of conduct must be upheld.--Calthinus (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Stale – I am sure that many people can think of better ways of handling this issue in the future. In lieu of endless reverting, it should be possible to get a focused discussion on several points. In particular, Khirurg's revert of 28 November about the connection between Albanian and Illyrian mythology (based on Stipcevic's book) might be phrased as an RfC, and opened up for discussion. Our article on the Illyrians makes clear that the concept of the Illyrians is very nebulous. This unfortunately means that whenever the name 'Illyrian' comes up in a dispute between people of different present-day loyalties, the debate may continue forever. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:103.91.160.90 reported by User:Skeletor3000 (Result: Stale)

Page

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC) to 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"
3. 19:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC) ""
4. 18:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC) "/* Notable alumni */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (TW)"
2. 19:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Stale However, I have also semi-ed the page since the disruption is only from the IP. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Joseatienza reported by User:SatDis (Result: Page protected)

Page: Hi-5 (Australian TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joseatienza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34] - IP address but believed to be the same before user logged in
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37] - Hi-5 (series 8)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] and [39], and at my own talk page [40]

Warnings for edit warring: [41] and [42]

Comments:
The user has also left messages on my talk page [43] and continually threatens that they are a lawyer. They have left similar edits at Hi-5 (series 8) and Hi-5 (series 9), see here: [44] and [45]. They have vandalised my talk page with threats, [46] and my user page [47]

The user previously participated in similar behaviour and was warned in 2014, here [48] and [49]

It may be connected - the page Hi-5 (series 2) was recently protected due to ongoing disruptive editing by IP addresses, [50] SatDis (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Page protected Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Sridc reported by User:PrimalBlueWolf (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] - not involved in this edit war, but extensive discussion has taken place.

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• @Lord Roem: You didn't block PrimalBlueWolf.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I believe Lord Roem mean that they blocked both Sridc and Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the other editor involved in this edit war. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Ah, thanks for the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:SharabSalam reported by User:Here come the Suns (Result: No action)

Page: Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]

The page is subject to a 1RR limitation.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:
In a somewhat comical manner, the user posted a notice on my page letting me know it is subject to a 1-RR limitation [63] (making it obvious he is aware of the limitation), right after he made his second revert. Here come the Suns (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, The first edit is a bold edit not a revert and the second is the one revert to you. so I didnt break the 1rr. The bold edit is because the whole paragraph is based on unnamed source and the claim is exceptional. --SharabSalam (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I made only one revert. You have reverted me saying that this is a long standing material and that I have to seek consensus first. Per Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", you shouldnt have reverted me.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Read the policy page Wikipedia:Edit_warring: " A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, " Your first revert, above, completely reverses the following edit [64]. Bold edits that revert others' actions are still reverts. You still have a chance to undo it, I suggest you take it. Here come the Suns (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here come the Suns, LOL. I had no idea that a user had added that content 2 years ago which actually shows why it is completely wrong since the editor apparently doesn't have much knowledge about wikipedia policies and guidelines.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

How do you think that content got there, if it wasn't added by an editor? read the policy page I linked, above: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."Here come the Suns (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I have already self-reverted. I still believe my first edit was bold. Although I don't care. You are probably trying to harass me since you have followed my edits reverting them. Have fun!.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Marked as 'No action' by User:Bbb23 due to the self-revert by SharabSalam. But the paragraph in question (about explicit Syrian govt. responsibiity for the gas attack) seems to hang on the words of one anonymous source interviewed by the Deccan Chronicle. If the Chronicle's report came out as long ago as 2017, you might expect that by now other sources may exist that we can use. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kumarcd reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: )

Page

Vijay Antony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 928551128 by DragoMynaa (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

At the request of User:DragoMynaa, who feels Kumarcd is troubling him. Since Drago couldn't ARV Kumarcd himself, he asked me to, but I won't do anything more. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Ebob103 reported by User:Steven (Editor) (Result: )

Page

Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ebob103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 928831783 by Formulaonewiki (talk)"
2. 17:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC) "Just a little more info that I've referenced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See the edit history for more reverts by this user Steven (Editor) (talk) 08:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Pinging Formulaonewiki who has been reverted multiple times, I’ll be on here later to add more info, but if you can add that would be good. I also want to note that the user has also been warned twice on talk page by Formulaonewiki but has not taken this into account Steven (Editor) (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A brief run-down of events: The article has, for some time, been made up of original research and promotional content. Having been marked with notice templates highlighting the issues, no sufficient improvements were made nor reliable sources added or used so the content was removed (NB, sources are readily available as mentioned in my advice to an editor here). While less serious an issue, there was also concern raised over a self-proclaimed (then self-rebutted) role account making edits not in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (as well as issues non-reliable sources). User Ebob103 has repeatedly reinstated the unsourced content, as well as the edits by the aforementioned user, with no improvements made nor justification given. Talk page warnings have been ignored, also as mentioned above. – Formula One wiki 09:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

User:EddyCodoZKazamaMrTabohZAMG reported by User:Sophiajoanne (Result: )

Page

Running Man (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) to 06:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 06:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Guests with the most appearances */ Don't Change I Said this is real Result"
   2. 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "/* List of guests */ I Said Don't Changed ?!"
   3. 06:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "/* List of guests */"
   4. 06:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "/* List of guests */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC) to 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
   1. 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Guests with the most appearances */ Don't CHange ?!"
   2. 00:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Guests with the most appearances */"
3. 21:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC) "/* Guests with the most appearances */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Had previously warned the user (Refer to: [[User talk:EddyCodoZKazamaMrTabohZAMG#Another user has made a complaint about your edits at WP:RFPP]]). However, the user made the same type of edits again and reverting the correct edits made by other editors after a little over a month. Sophiajoanne 09:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)