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)
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:Ilirpedia reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page: Greek government-debt crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ilirpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

00:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "m (→‎Social effects: - World Health Organization is NOT a nationalistic ogranization. DR.K has nationalistic pov)"
00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - no contributions added by DR.K. and POV used by DR.K"
Consecutive edits made from 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) to 22:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 21:52, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - the crises had an impact on the social effects in greece. Also causing rising rates of depression, infant death, and HIV cases. No need to take to talkpage. Multiple sources provided. Please obey the wikipedia rules. Thanks."
2. 22:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Social effects */ - No changes, but "Whispering" is OK to have in the article the impact on Horse Racing, and Soccer Players, but gives me BS and a hard time on effect on greek people's lives. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED!!!"
21:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "updated social effects and added source on the rising HIV rates in greece linked to the greek govt debt crises. thanks"
21:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "few was not defined by World Health Organization. plus "few" greek lifes do matter and all lives matter. the social effects on slef inflicted HIV among Greeks were enough to be reported by WHO. Please stop messing up the links if you have nothing to add"
20:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC) "part of social effects. and the source is World Health Organization. If you think WHO is irrelevant, than you shouldn't be editing here. thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Nationalist-based SPA disruption. Rapid-fire edit-warring against multiple editors adding irrelevant material to article, Will not stop despite warnings. Edit-warring while this report is ongoing. Dr. K. 00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No rapid editing, but my contributions were undone without any type of logical justification by the gang of editors of the page in question. Ilirpedia (talk) 00:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of bad motive by Ilirpedia, but they have technically violated 3RR. I'm working with them to try to get them to self-revert their most recent edit and then discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sensing bad motive here either, just a new editor that needs some guidance. Whispering 01:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how familiar you are with this area of the wiki, but this is a topic infested with nationalist SPAs and socks pushing all kinds of POV. Sure indicators are usernames indicating an association with Illyria, a favourite focus of nationalist POV-pushing. Another sure indicator is loud edit summaries with exclamation marks trying to shame their opponent. Another indicator is attempting an edit which is clearly disruptive, yet somehow they can't see why other editors disagree with them. Yet another sure indicator of nationalist POV-pushing is an apparent inability to understand 3RR and a refusal to self-revert, even when they are given clear guidance and warnings about it. Still another, is calling editors who oppose them, a "gang" multiple times, including in the comment just above, and during their unblock request, this time in all capitals. Yet another indicator is rapid-fire edit-warring, indicating that they have a battleground mentality. This SPA fulfills all these criteria in spades. Dr. K. 02:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred , User talk:Whispering and trigger happy User:Drmies- To make the record straight. DR.K accused me of having a nationalistic pov, because of my user name. I want to clarify to your excellence that my user name is based on a common name for people living in a certain area of Eastern Europe. Based on DR.K's logic/IQ level, having the name Whiteman, or Blackman should be automatically assumed that such a person is a Racist. And therefore, if your last name is Whiteman or Blackman, you should be silenced on Wikipedia no matter if it involves facts from the World Health Organization (part of United Nations). I might a be a new user in Wikipedia (two days old, inclusive of 24 hr block by trigger happy User:Drmies), but that does not mean that I can be a victim of nationalistic pov's by DR.K and his baseless assumptions that are looking for the next gullible admin ((User:Drmies do you know any?)).

I respectfully, ask you User:Drmies, to block DR.K for 24 hrs, for manipulating the facts as I described above and using his own pov where he successfully argued with you to block me based on my user name. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilirpedia (talk • contribs) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring by User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has resorted to socking while blocked. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ilirpedia. Dr. K. 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Religious Burp (Result: Page protected)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Loudest_Sound_Ever_Heard&oldid=788182029
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:Walter Görlitz has a long history of edit-warring & sock puppeting. In March 2017, he promised to change his ways but he has not.

In the current case of The Loudest Sound Ever Heard, I have added a simple sourced quote from the band giving their perspective of the album. I am not connected to the band, I just want to flesh out the article as it is bare bones at the moment. Many Wikipedia articles about music projects feature quotes from the band. Walter doesn't like the quote, so he has taken it upon himself to persistently remove it.

In addition to a number of blocks Walter has received previously, he was edit-warring with me at length on The Prayer Chain page, and clearly was sock-puppeting to avoid breaking the three revert rule, though the case was unreported at the time. Again, he reverted additions to the article, for no reason except that he thought the band didn't warrant having more information written about them. Wikipedia is a source of information, it's why people read the articles.

This is a small example of Walter's behaviour in unnecessarily removing content. I believe it is so he can be controlling, rather than enhancing articles. He has done this to me often, which I consider bullying. As he has a habit of doing this, I believe it is negatively impacting Wikipedia. It is antagonistic behaviour for the sake of being antagonistic, as evidenced that he reguarly gets blocked.

Attempts to reason or compromise with Walter are in vain. He is driven by his own self-importance and antagonistic attitude. I am driven by Wikipedia's core purpose - to be a source of reliable & interesting information.

I propose that Walter and his IP address be banned until he can learn not to bully other users. His IP address should be banned to avoid sock-puppeting behaviour.

I also propose that he be permanently blocked from editting The Prayer Chain and The Loudest Sound Ever Heard

Religious Burp (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Walter has again reverted changes to The Prayer Chain since I had noted his edit-warring. I am very familiar with the work of the band, Walter is not. His changes make the article less informative, and his removal of headings less easy to read. Clearly, it is another attempt to edit for the sake of edit-warring. This page really needs to be protected permanently from Walter. I would also like my page to be protected from Walter's bullying comments. Religious Burp (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE I edited the article after Religious Burp mentioned it here. My edit was to remove short sections, copy edit and tag the article's dubious statements. I later realized that the editor reverted multiple editor's work over to his preferred version, while adding more extended quotes. This includes changes by @Arjayay: and @Metalworker14: as well as minor corrections made by a bot, an anon and @Haakonsson:, @Synthwave.94:, @Johnpacklambert: and @John of Reading:. I'll take it to the Wikiproject: Musicians to see if a neutral editor can look at it. I get the feeling Religious Burp is WP:NOTHEREI have seen battleground behaviour, forum shopping (notably this ANI and returning here rather than talking), little or no interest in working collaboratively and the personal attacks are becoming worrisome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not made personal attacks. Walter believes that if he doesn't get his way, this is a personal attack. Attempts to reasonably discuss articles with him are fruitless because he insists on his personal preferences, in this case removing content about a band because he doesn't like the band itself. Walter's long history of being blocked for edit-warring is evident, and this is another case in a string of incidents. I reverted a lot of long-standing grammar & spelling errors in the article that Walter reverted back a number of times, as well as adding sourced content to the article. We have to ask ourselves, is Wikipedia about being a source of reliable & interesting content, or a place where bullys assert themselves? I won't be pulled into attacking people & their contributions like Walter does. Adding relevant sourced content is not battleground behaviour, persisting in removing it is. I am politely trying to do add content. Religious Burp (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another concern I have about Walter is that he is using wikipedia to edit for his own business interests rather than with neutrality. By his own admission he says "If the IP is blocked, I could lose employment at the company which is the reason I ask for the block not to extend to the IP." Why would a company need to edit Wikipedia? Sounds suss to me. Original comment found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz/Archive A lot of concerns about this editor. He removes content without basis, bullys people, edits for business interests, has a history of being blocked for edit-warring, has sock-puppeted, is antagonistic toward others. The list goes on. This user & IP really should be blocked. Admittedly, this goes beyond the edit-warring alone, but it builds a pretty strong case. Religious Burp (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you - none of this matters here - this board only addresses edit-warring. If you've truly got all those conduct concerns, take it to ANI. Not that I'd recommend that, you wouldn't likely get any action taken beyond a lecture about all the bad-faith assumptions going on in this otherwise straightforward content dispute. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Full-protected for 3 days by Anarchyte. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: No violation)

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:

Unregistered user, persistently adding unsourced content. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Only three reverts. What is marked as diff #4 in your list is not a revert, but is the addition of a source (finally). EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bittertruth reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Indef)

Note: Bittertruth has been editing with their IP address as well - 63.250.224.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahmin&diff=prev&oldid=797877993

[9]
[10] - Quack
[11]
[12] - Quack
[13]
[14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk page. There really doesn't need to be discussion over blanking the lede because he doesn't like it or replacing it with copy-and-pasted material from a website (material was donated its WP:RS status is questionable).

Comments:

User just doesn't get it. As it is, I think it'd fall under the "straightforward cases" clause for me to block him for a few days, but were I uninvolved I'd probably indef because the user has demonstrated that they're more concerned with their agenda than cooperation or mainstream academic sources (though as I have reverted I could see someone using to argue that I'm an abusive admin or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an indef block should be considered. This is POV-pushing and abuse of multiple accounts. The IP is also getting into trouble on caste-related articles such as Kshatriya. No reliable sources for anything. Attempts at discussion are going nowhere. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thomson and the gang present the Eurocentric version as the Gospel and all Indians should agree to that. If any one disagrees about his caste's representation by these experts, it is considered ignorant user behavior. I made my point very clear about my caste-Brahmin of your misrepresentation. Wikepedia has no value anyway as a bunch of people run it not knowing the diversity of India. The reasoning has to based on the European way, and references have to be British, German and American Indolgists' writings or Communist Intellectual writings. Keep your rules and your consensus wikepedia misrepresentations by sarah, david, abraham etc. Block away indefinitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to incorporate facts. You are the vandal who has no respect for Brahmins and misrepresents their heritage. Are there any Brahmins on your editorial board of this great Wikipedia? My edits were reverted more than three times, one after the other by Sarah, twice and then Ian. Is this vandalism or not? Or is it censorship to remove my edits more than three times? Where is the content that I have added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bittertruth (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You ask Are there any Brahmins on your editorial board of this great Wikipedia? -- That mistakenly assumes that we judge people by their ancestry instead of judging their contributions by their own merit. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. Disruptive edit warring of the WP:NOTHERE variety. The editor Bittertruth keeps removing sourced content and replacing it with strange 19th-century census data. The user is likely using IPs, their behavior is affecting multiple articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Per my summary above, and per the unhelpful responses given here by the editor. Often we try to explain our system so that people don't get blocked due to not knowing the ropes, but in this case it would be an impossible task. There is too wide a gap between this editor's thinking and the goals of Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Editor2020/User:Ian.thomson/User:Jytdog reported by User:Camillegweston144 (Result: Declined)

The reasoning for each reversion or edit (completely removing text) is the use of the Bible as a reliable source.

The question is: Can the Bible be used as a reliable source of information and testimony on Wikipedia? Can an admin please render a decision that will not be left to subjective opinions?

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Attempts at resolution and warnings:

Comments: Considering the number and record speeds at which these editors have been reverting or editing my contributions over the past few days, I believe that it is time for an administrator to consider the edits in these articles. God Talk:God Abrahamic religions Trinity Wikipedia:Lamest edits wars [User talk:Camillegweston144]] To be honest, I'm not really sure how to handle this because it is the same behavior happening across multiple accounts. How do I properly warn in this case? I have warned one of them and tried to discuss with another. After pointing out a bias in reverting my edits for using the Bible precisely as it is used by other editors, and successfully citing pertinent examples; now User:Theroadislong is attempting to edit those examples, too. So, other users are now dealing with this. I am concerned. It will be difficult to cover this up a personal bias in reverting my edits by removing Biblical references throughout Wikipedia. There are far too many. They are in every theology article about Christian theology and are these Biblical citations are being used the same way. I understand that because I am new I am learning, however, it appears that the actions of these editors are designed to essentially prohibit use of Biblical citations throughout the context of Christian theology as it is presently being used in similar circumstances. Please, advise?


 Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how to handle this because it is the same behavior happening across multiple accounts - If all the traffic is coming in your direction, you're probably in the wrong lane. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I mean, you're reporting three editors who collectively have about 28 years experience on this site... Because we keep telling you that per policies we've pointed out, linked, and summarized for you, Wikipedia has standards of sourcing that you are not following. You might want to check Proverbs 12:15. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have brought a couple of cases here of people who believe the Bible is True and come to Wikipedia trying to force content into the encyclopedia based on this belief.

The OP has taken care of this on their own behalf. This person will not adapt to Wikipedia, where we use secondary sources.

They cannot see - nor hear - that when they write stuff like this However, a certain commonality can be referenced in the Book of Genesis among adherents to Abrahamic religions. Genesis 15:1–6 stipulates that while Abraham was still Abram and childless, the word of the Lord came to him in a vision and promised Abram multiplicity in his future descendants. they are interpreting what that bible verse says, and that in Wikipedia this is not OK per WP:OR.

This has been explained to them a bunch of times. No eyes to see nor ears to hear, as they say. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much hostility here to garner clarity or understanding. Have you actually read the Bible verses being sourced? They stipulate exactly what I stated. :) Camille G. Weston (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone has been pretty clear with you here, on your talk page and on Talk:God. The bible on WP is used as primary source. As others have stated, using policy violations to justify your own policy violations isn't how things work here. PureRED | talk to me | 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "hostility". As you noted, you are new to Wikipedia and like every new user, you are making mistakes, and your edits are getting rejected.

There is a learning curve here. Please open your eyes and ears so you can see and hear - then you can learn. You actually promise to learn and follow the policies and guidelines (letter and spirit) every time you edit. This is part of the Terms of Use for this website. Editing is a privilege offered to all, but when people refuse to learn, their editing privileges are restricted, usually temporarily and for a short period of time, to say "hey wake up!!", and then for longer periods, and eventually permanently in one way or another if the person really refuses to learn. The road you are choosing, is the road you are choosing. What will you do? Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Camillegweston144: You said They stipulate exactly what I stated. -- Says you. That's your interpretation. A simple work written in our own time and culture by a single author can result in a variety of interpretations, so a multi-layered work with multiple authors across diverse periods and cultures can result in countless interpretations. We only discuss interpretations that are discussed in mainstream academic secondary and tertiary sources because we don't have enough room to include what every single person thinks when they read a verse in light of their own experiences (instead of the likely experiences of the historical authors). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really Camillegweston - please look at this -- However, a certain commonality can be referenced in the Book of Genesis among adherents to Abrahamic religions. That sentence is not in the Bible. You wrote that, based on things you think and believe about the world. That is not OK here. You need to base what you writ on what reliable, scholarly sources say (as Ian notes above), and you need to cite them.

More importantly, when you write in Wikipedia, what you wrote needs to come from scholarly sources. We don't write what we believe and throw a source behind it. Quite the opposite. This is a scholarly project, not a confessional one. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Declined. The suggestion that direct quotes from the Bible ought to be treated as an authoritative source of truth in Wikipedia articles, and that you yourself can be trusted to draw correct conclusions from these quotes, is not in harmony with our policies. We generally rely on secondary sources for interpretation and we trust the work of mainstream scholars. You could ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if you are not convinced, but don't expect a favorable answer there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: jd22292 reported by User:124.159.170.92 (Result: editors have resolved the dispute)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[17] "Please take it to the Talk page; you've been reverted multiple times now."
[18] "You are removing sourced content without explaining your actions."
[19] "Stop edit warring with two IP addresses and take it to the Talk page."

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no reason given by reverting user, thus not clear what they would expect from a talk page discussion. See below.

Comments:
I made a straightforward edit, explaining the motivation in the edit summary.[21] This was reverted without any explanation a little while later.[22] When I noticed that, I restored the edit.[23] At this point, the user I am reporting got involved, making the first revert listed above. Their edit summary offers no reason for their actions, and instead indicates that they reverted only so that there had been more than one revert of my edit, so that they could tell me there had been more than one revert. Subsequent edit summaries offer no further insights into the reason for their actions. The second revert falsely claims that I did not explain my edit, and as "encyclopaedic" is a tiny subset of "sourced", the fact that anything is sourced is meaningless. And also untrue in this case; the material in the link given does not verify the claim made. I did not start a discussion on the talk page; if someone undoes an edit repeatedly without explaining why, there is no basis for any productive discussion. I asked the user to stop their disruptive behaviour. They reverted a third time while I was leaving the message.

The user has not broken the 3RR but is clearly editing disruptively and so I am reporting it here.124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment: I see that the user requested full page protection before offering any clear reason for their reverting. That seems like an incredibly bad faith action. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See my attempt to discuss here. The both of us were told to discuss at the talk page by administrator Ferret, to which I have attempted to do. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noticed Jd22292's RFPP request for this, which I declined as reverts appeared to have stopped and discussion was occurring on Jd22292's user talk. Warned both parties involved and asked them to use the talk page. No edits to the article since, though Jd22292 has started a section at the article's talk. Note the IP also edits as 128.28.203.197. Neither editor appears to have broken 3RR directly, they are both at 3 reverts. -- ferret (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: (edit conflict) 124.159.170.92 and 128.28.203.197 are the same individual and edit warring on Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as well. Both IPs should be blocked. — nihlus kryik (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I should be blocked? 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is a behavior and not a number. — nihlus kryik (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So because it happened that twice in a short space of time, editors reverted my work without explaining why, I should be blocked? I did have the impression that this is much more about discrimination against IP edits than anything else; you're rather confirming that. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~See also WP:SOCK. Editing with multiple IPs is generally frowned upon. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, you toed up to the 3RR line on multiple pages. No conspiracy. — nihlus kryik (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I began to respect Jd22292 for retracting a false claim of vandalism, they come out with an absurd accusation of sockpuppetry. "The use of multiple Wikipedia user accounts for an improper purpose is called sock puppetry", starts the article they linked to. I do not even have one Wikipedia user account, let alone several. Given that I was in one place, then moved to another place, my IP address obviously changed. Who frowns on that? These personal attacks against me are really quite disgusting. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please cut the drama. No one is personally attacking you. Nevertheless, I appreciate you going to the talk page and discussing it, so I don't think you should be blocked unless you edit war again. — nihlus kryik (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do regard false accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry as personal attacks. I am very happy to see both claims have been retracted. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The IP and I have come to a conclusion on the article's Talk page that the content in question is to be removed as planned. Any uninvolved editor can make this reversion on the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we have come to an agreement. 124.159.170.92 (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you both agree, then I'll close this with a reminder that it can be edit warring even if you don't exceed 3RR, and that being right is not a defense against getting blocked for edit warring. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:62.12.114.214 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: blocked)

Page: Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.12.114.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

07:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "removed speculations"
07:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797970139 by Jingiby (talk)"
07:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797969582 by Jingiby (talk) Terrorism, vandalism, pseudoscience, nationalistic claims."
06:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797961522 by Jingiby (talk) Rv - vandalism and pseudoscientific claims"
04:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Ethnogenesis */ see the talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

07:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "EW notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None

Comments:

Have not edited Bulgarians page. Jim1138 (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP was blocked by Favonian for 2 weeks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User: Mason.Jones reported by User: Redom115 (Result: reporter blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[25] "Also look at financial position of the US"
[26] "You were warned 4 times this year for edit warring (blocked once, appeal denied). A WP admin will review.."
[27] "Actually they do, they mention household wealth which is figure that is stated in this article."
[28] "You're (1) edit-warring, (2) out of order, and apparently (3) a nonnative speaker of English

"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Completely biased, no counter points given, no logic to support statements

Comments:
I made a simple minor edit but the user I am reporting reverted my edits due to spite and being simply biased, even after the evidence that I provided which states the facts the user still did not listen and did not give adequate reasoning and resorted to online bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs)

I've blocked Redom115 indef, until they acknowledge that they will stop edit warring. This is a recurring issue with them. Mason.Jones may have miscounted reverts, but the sheer number of reverts Redom has made against unanimous opposition makes that understandable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked for 1 week )

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: The following are added here to summarize the below for additional cases of edit warring which occurred post nomination, which was added as a second article above as well:

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

Comments:
I have previously sent a warning to this user as he instantly reverts any changes without bringing it to the talk page, however he only removed it from his talk page. The user he was warring against that led to the warning before was a different user who I also warned here [40]. After that warning the other user stopped. Here are his 5 reverts in a short period of time that led to the warning previously [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]. I notice this user has been blocked twice previously for edit warring as well. - Galatz ^Talk 16:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

????????--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know the difference between edit warring and reverting vandalism? I reverted vandalism and nothing else, what you would have noticed if you did research into the matter.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly did, however what you are claiming is not listed as an exception in WP:NOT3RR and you made no attempts to resolve the issue on the WP:DISPUTE and didn't submit anything with WP:RPP. - Galatz ^Talk 17:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the vandal: [46], [47], [48] ?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a question to be answered through the process laid out in WP:AVOIDEDITWAR rather than your unilateral decision making. - Galatz ^Talk 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To further the argument, he has done 3RR on FIBA Europe Under-20 Championship so far today, including edits after this was brought here. This is a clear trend of edit warring. [49] [50] [51] - Galatz ^Talk 18:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, he has now done a 4th RR on this page as well, 50 minutes after these edits were added to the discussion here [52], additionally it was after he made this edit [53] on the page, indicating he must have seen that this was added to the discussion. - Galatz ^Talk 19:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of a previous history of edit warring, and because edit warring is going on while this thread is open, and because he's just throwing around accusations of "vandalism" whenever someone disagrees with him, I've blocked Anaxagoras13 for 1 week. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Klačko reported by User:Galatz (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[55]
[56]
[57]
[58] (this is a combined edit as they made the same changes over multiple edits this time)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Comments:
This is the other half of the edit war with the user I have nominated above. I had previously warned the other user but not this user previously, so I only warned this user earlier. It appears however that this user took me nominating the other one as a sign that he could continue to revert (see edit description here [60]). - Galatz ^Talk 18:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been reported before for vandalism and I am active editor on Wikipedia for almost a decade now. My first edit that reverted Anaxorgas13 edit (who has been in edit war with other editor earlier in the day) was backed with source/reference in difference to his edits which were not sourced whatsoever. Additionally, I left the mesage on his talk page encouraging him to try to re-open discussion on article's talk page and maybe reach new consensus since there was already consensus among editors reached in 2014 that he was breaching with his today's edits. Respectfully, Klačko (talk)

And again telling lies, you did not provide current sources. Ignoring actual sources and showing 10 years old outdated sources is the usual method users like you use for years. There are many sources cited in the certain basketball articles that back my edits.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact is that you did not back your edits with any sources whatsoever in difference to my edit where I put the source from FIBA official website (it is irrelevant how old is it since it clearly concerns the very esssence of our dispute). Fact too is your edits breached the consensus that has been reached on the article's talk page as far back as 2014. Fact is that I asked and invited you to start discussion on article's talk page and try to reach a new and different kind of consensus that would make your edits plausible and reasonable - you didn't even bother to answer to my plea but rather kept reverting my edits for one more time. Lastly, fact is that you went into edit war earlier today with another user as well over the same issue. Regards, Klačko (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying you put in a source but I do not see it in any of the edits you made. In addition looking at the official FIBA website, they seem to count Serbia different [61]. I am certainly not an expert in this field, and this is not the place to discuss how it should be, but if you felt you were right why didnt YOU start the talk page discussion rather than telling someone else to? Per WP:BRD you should have started the conversation once reverted. - Galatz ^Talk 19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My second edit on 17:05 CET was sourced with reference to this ^[1] where it clearly says "The FIBA World Congress ratified today the affiliation of the Basketball Federation of Montenegro as its 213th member federation." and then continues "The Basketball Federation of Serbia will retain the place of the former Basketball Federation of Serbia and Montenegro as a FIBA member." That clearly says that Basketball Federation of Serbia retains seat of previous Basketball Federation of Federal Republic of Yugolavia (1992-2003)/Serbia and Montenegro (2003 - 2006) i.e. it is the direct and sole successor of it. And that completely backs my claim - please see #Final disscussion: Results/medals history on article talk page back, which seems to have reached similar conclusion. Klačko (talk) 19:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.fiba.basketball/pages/eng/fe/06_wcm/news/lateNews/FE_news_lateNews_arti.asp?newsID=16063

That source is no where in any of the edits I posted above. Additionally I believe you are reading it wrong, as the FIBA listings do not match what you are saying, and your source is over 10 years old. If you believe you are correct wouldn't it have been written somewhere more recent? Also your wikilink to the final discussion is not to a page so no one knows what you are trying to show us. But again this is not the place for that discussion, the point is that you were edit warring. - Galatz ^Talk 19:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And just to add, you are probably right that I should ve start discussion on talk page but I felt that it should ve been done by one who was trying to change something that was there for years and that certainly wasn't me but the user Anaxagoras13. Point is that it needs to be be previously discussed on the talk page before someone unilaterally change something that was agreed upon years ago. Anaxagoras13 didn't do it. I would be perfectly okay if he had reached or at least tried to reach consensus on talk page before editing - in that case it wouldn't bother me in a way it did today. Klačko (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because User:Klačko did not technically exceed 3RR, and because he has not been blocked previously for edit warring, I am not blocking. However, this was edit warring, and Klačko is reminded that edit warring - even when you are sure you're right - can result in a block even if 3RR is not exceeded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:McSly reported by User:Pudding30 (Result: Malformed report, no violation)

Page: Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help). McSly (tal Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:
McSly keeps eliminating facts of record from the page. I see no reason as to why neutral depiction of facts about a person that has been independently verified is eliminated. If there is any reason for factual information should be excluded from a page, it should be noted and posted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pudding30 (talk • contribs)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. No, wait, don't, because No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ian.thomson: I took a look at the history of the article they were referring to, and you were right to decline it. This user has had their edits reverted months apart from each other. GUtt01 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lord Aseem reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned)

Page: Battle of the Hydaspes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lord Aseem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 798064311 by Khirurg This matter now has a section inTalk, hence you shall not rv again. As repeated, There is ZERO POV push. Language is DIRECT from Sources which are UNIVERSALLY renowned. Page reviewed by Oshwah and Capt.a.haddock"
19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC) " (Undid revision 798030278 by |Dr.K. The revision was done on the Talk page of the respective users and the case was settled since a Month ago. Check dates. Not a Sockpuppet. I am the same user. Where did I claim to be separate. Do not prolong the Edit War.)
11:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "(Undid revision 797990717 by Dr.K.|talk rv. Vandalism. Every SINGLE statement made here has a reliable and renowned Source and the language is WORD BY WORD taken from them. The page has been reviewed by User Oshwah and Cpt. Haddock.)"

1 revert as IP

115.97.40.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Named account admits to being the same as the IPs: 19:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC) " (Undid revision 798030278 by |Dr.K. The revision was done on the Talk page of the respective users and the case was settled since a Month ago. Check dates. Not a Sockpuppet. I am the same user. Where did I claim to be separate. Do not prolong the Edit War.)

Consecutive edits made from 08:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC) to 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
1. 08:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 797274985 by Khirug Take this up in TALK. Nilakanth Sastri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._A._Nilakanta_Sastri) is more reliable than Kaushik Roy, who does not even have a wikipedia page."
2. 08:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "manually restored my painstaking edits (sourced) subjected to ruthlessly indophobic and bigoted vandalism by user Khirurg. Take up debatable material on TALK. User OSHWAH has already reviewed the page."
3. 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "removed irrational demand for citations. All the sources were given in the old edits, yet the indophobic bastard khirurg has removed them. Wait till I restore them as well."
4. 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Motives */ gave sources for demand for citations by khirurg"
5. 09:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Pre-battle maneuvers */ removed a extra curvy bracket and repeated sentence"
6. 09:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Aftermath and legacy */Roy's claim is baseless.Arthashastra, the book of Statecraft of Mauryans clearly contradicts this. Source: http://www.claws.in/images/publication_pdf/1381380497MP-38%20inside.pdf, http://www.idsa.in/system/files/monograph20.pdf"
7. 09:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Aftermath and legacy */ completed a incomplete sentence"
8. 09:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "removed repeated word"
9. 09:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Aftermath and legacy */ corrected spelling, gave a link to the battle"
10. 09:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Battle */ added "assumed" before the 200 elephants number as this is a matter of debate as seen above."
11. 09:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Battle */ described the elephants and soldiers on the Indian side to better to shed more light on the Indian soldiers."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

10:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Battle of the Hydaspes. (TW ★TW)"

3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talkpage discussion

Comments:

POV-pushing, base personal attacks in edit-summaries using IP socks. Please see my comment. Dr. K. 20:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: My Edits were reviewed by users Oshwah and Cpt.a.haddock and were considered fit for wikipedia in all aspects. They remained so for a month till vandalism was started by Khrirug and Dr.K.

Lord Aseem (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Lord Aseem is relatively new, and since they have not reverted again since this report was filed, let's try to do this without a block.
@Lord Aseem:, stop insulting other editors in your edit summaries. Continuing to do so will result in a block.

Stop calling edits you disagree with "vandalism". The people reverting you have been around a long time. It is much smarter to ask for their advice/feedback than to claim they're vandalizing.

Stop edit warring. You want to add material to the article. If people dispute that, it is your responsibility to gain consensus for the change before adding it back.

I'm not concerned with switching from an IP to an account; that's actually useful. It would have been better to be more transparent that you were the same person, but that's a small detail.

Assuming discussion occurs on the talk page, the insults stop, and no more reverts happen without consensus, I'm inclined to leave this at just a warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Warned John (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khirurg reported by User:Lord_Aseem (Result: No violation)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Hydaspes&diff=797273670&oldid=797243683 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[62]
[63]
[diff]
[diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments: My Edits were reviewed by users Oshwah and Cpt.a.haddock and were considered fit for wikipedia in all aspects. They remained so for a month till vandalism was started by Khrirug and Dr.K.

Lord Aseem (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmyLevine reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has referenced the talk page but has not responded to requests to discuss there.

Comments:
Continued to revert after warning, won't discuss on talk page. Also improperly marking contested edits as minor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: Agreement)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Moors#Lead

Comments:

The editor continues to revert an edit even as support for it has emerged in discussion. Even when the discussion was opened and status ante was restored, Tarook97 reverted back to his version, insisting that remain in place during the discussion. Another user restored the edit that has gained approval on the talk page, and Tarook97 has again reverted, insisting that the discussion is still on-going (he is the only one to oppose). So it is his version, no matter what, even during the discussion, and even when the discussion goes against him. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the LaszloPanaflex/Pinkbeast duo have failed to provide any plausible arguments for Soupforone's edit. Their arguments seem to be "It has been stable for months" (an argument against my edit, but not Soupforone's apparently) and "We're two and you're one". I have listed MOS:INTRO and MOS:BEGIN and quoted policies that state the introductory text should not contain etymology/terminology or significant information covered in the remainder of the article and the response is "We're two and you're one". In addition to Pinkbeast's violations of Wikipedia:PG. Tarook97 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The argument has been clear from the first comment of the talk page discussion. The addition is descriptive of the subject and cites an established reliable source. The only reason Tarook97 has offered for reversion is that the edit is somehow too specific, which no one else has agreed with so far. At any rate, this argument does not excuse 5 reversions, including reverting away from the status ante during discussion (and a total of 6RR on the page for the day). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarook97 has clearly violated WP:3RR but seems unwilling to step back. If a block is needed, it would logically be for a week because the last edit warring block (in May) was for four days. He might avoid this if he will promise not to revert again at Moors until consensus in his favor is reached on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I promise not to revert again until consensus in my favor is reached on the talk page. Tarook97 (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No block for the 3RR, since the user agreed not to revert again until consensus in his favor is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan arndt has been doing destruction on

The user is doing destruction and willingly destroy articles. May be he has no idea of what he is doing. Such an editor does not fit for such a work and previous destruction caused by him should be reverted and keep him away in future. Thank you. Note witness by Bakilas and the article KDK Dharmawardena Dinuraeditions (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Dinuraeditions is confused as to what constitutes edit warring. If anyone views the edit history of K. D. K. Dharmawardena they will see that there is no history of me reverting any edits. What I have done is made a series of copy edits to the article and identified a number of maintenance issues that require addressing. It would appear that Dinuraeditions is assuming ownership of an article he has created. I think that his concerns have been properly and adequately addressed on the article's talkpage. Dan arndt (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you placed a wrong template top of the article having no idea of what it was about. Then who is confused? me?? Dinuraeditions (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As previously indicated this is covered on the article's discussion page and there is no evidence of edit warring involved. Dan arndt (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the word to be used, you acted such a way that could only be expected from a peacock. You just don't care what the content in an article, never read it but worry about the one who created it. That are the reasons behind your destruction as the edit history witnesses itself Dinuraeditions (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for this discussion as no one appears to have broken any rules in regard to edit warring, it appears that Dan made a mistake and fixed it. I would suggest ending this, as some [74], [75] comments are starting to get a bit accusatory. Bakilas (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that people generally do mistakes. It's alright. But this mistake has a kind of ground. Remember it. I hope that this is the end. Dinuraeditions (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Umair Aj reported by User:Anoptimistix (Result: )

Page: Ahmed Rushdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Umair Aj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

10:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 5 edits by Anoptimistix (talk) to last revision by Umair Aj. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blindly reverted 5 edits of mine using twinkle's restore feature and also to escape from three revert rule, those edits of mine included removing peacock terms, and promotion on the article of Rushdi [76] . No use of warning, user was formerly blocked for a week for engaging in edit-war sockpuppetry, and was once again re-blocked recently for edit-warring [77] Anoptimistix "Message Me" 11:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported User:Anoptimistix for sockpuppeting [78] a few weeks ago because being a fan he was vandalizing Arjit Singh. The article resembles a fan site and me as well as other editors removed the promotional content as it had serious issues of impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking and overuse of quotes. My removal of POV content was not objected by any editor less Anoptimistix and here [79] is the evidence of his false claims. I think he took it personal and has reported me to WP:ANI several times but did not get the desired results. Recently he did blind edits to Ahmed Rushdi and I tried to resolve the issue here[80] on the talk page but he reported me again for adding reliable citations to the article not knowing that I did not break 3RR.-Umair Aj (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Well, Umair Aj attempt of reporting me for sockpuppeting and linking me to Shaphiu (in which I was proved innocent) and placing Afd on my recently created articles like Phir Wahi (song) and Rashmi Singh (lyricist) was a case of Wiki Hounding, check Umair Aj talk page history, prolific admins have warned them for wikihounding other users. The sockpuppetry investigation in which two accounts of Umair Aj was indeed blocked, is itself a proof of the users editing history. The user didn't gone for any formal mediation, Request for comment or dispute resolution process for resolving dispute with me (if they had any?). But kept on wikihounding me, the user followed me with an intention of harrasing me at Page moving rights page, and also at AIV (where I submitted a report of a WP:SPA users report) and also placed Afd deletion with personal attacks at my above mentioned articles, which were kept as they were created according to policies. The user was also recently blocked by admin Anarchyte for edit warring. It seems Anarchyte was keeping a watch at the contribution history of the user Umair Aj to protect good-faith users from wikihounding by Umair Aj. That's all what I have to say. Anoptimistix "Message Me" 12:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anoptimistix you exactly know it all started from Arjit Singh where you were adding promotional content and once I highlighted it, you got personal. First you tried to blindly edit my created article Zubair Jhara (wrestler) and then you started reporting me every day. This time also you reported me blindly though I tried to reason with you on your talk page. I added the template of fan site on Arjit Singh, you did it in return on Ahmed Rushdi but there is a lot of difference. Please understand that other editors also removed your POV content from Arjit Singh. So it is not me only who reverted your edits.-Umair Aj (talk) 12:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification The user Umair Aj first started wikhounding me when I reported his edits of promoting the singer Ahmed Rushdi at the article of singing, for which they were issued block warning by admin EdJohnston right here. Since then they are stalking my contribution history with an intention of wikihounding. And the wrestlers article read "greatest wrestler in the history of wrestling" which was supported by a single user-generated and unreliable source called dostpakistan.pk [81]. Clearly Umair Aj was promoting wrestler from pakistan.Anoptimistix "Message Me" 12:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to resolve the issue of impartiality of tone, undue weight, peacocking and overuse of quotes on Talk:Arijit Singh with user Anoptimistix. Me as well as other editors told him not to add promotional content on Arjit Singh but being a fan he never rests and kept on promoting Arjit Singh's songs on Wikipedia. Now after a break of a few days he has again started reporting me despite of no violation on my part.-Umair Aj (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.fiba.basketball/pages/eng/fe/06_wcm/news/lateNews/FE_news_lateNews_arti.asp?newsID=16063

[1]

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