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)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
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:Glueman9 reported by User:Openskye (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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:This person is clearly only changing this page for kicks and not actually being helpful.

No violation – You didn't show four reverts above, and the ones you do list are spread over different days. Nobody has broken WP:3RR. Try discussing your issue on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for some options you can consider. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:58.120.40.69 reported by User:PurpleLights123 (Result: Semi)

Diffs of the user's edits:
Informal Talks

Link Removed info about Brian, Alec and Alistair. When I reverted this edit, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary.
Link Removed info about Brian, Alec, Alistair and Nazarov, and added false info with no source (which the user has also done in this edit and this edit) Again, when I reverted this edit, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary. I also left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69, explaining my reasons for removing his/her edits (which has been ignored)
Link 3rd time removing info about Brian, Alec and Alistair again. Again, I explained my reason for reverting in the edit summary, and reported this on the administrator's incident noticeboard here
Link 3rd time removing info about Suhrobjon again.
Link 4th time removing info about Brian, Alec and Alistair again
Link 4th time removing info about Suhrobjon again

A Bright World

Link Removed info about Gaive. I reverted the edit and explained why in the edit summary.
Link Removed info about Thep
Link Removed info about Gaive again. I reverted the edit and explained in the edit summary that I re-added this info, because in Season 2 Episode 2, this info was confirmed. I also left a message on User talk:58.120.40.69, explaining my reasons for removing his/her edits (which has been ignored).
Link For the 3rd time, removed info about the representative (Gaive). And again, when I reverted, I provided an explanation. I also reported this on the administrator's incident noticeboard here
Link For the 4th time, removed info about the representative (Gaive)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
As I stated before, after the 2nd and 3rd time this user has removed the same info (on both the Informal Talks and A Bright World pages), I provided an explanation in the edit summary when I reverted the edit and left a message on User_talk:58.120.40.69, first to explain my reasons for reverting, and 2nd time to make the user aware I was reporting him/her on the administrator's incident noticeboard. That report was not dealt with, and was simply archived by a bot. It can be found here. The user has not replied to either message I left on his/her talk page.

Comments:
I am open to discussing this with the user, as I am sick of constantly having info removed, or false info added, with no explanation. But since my attempt to discuss the issue as failed (the user has not replied to my messages), it seems that the only solution is to report this on the Edit Warring page. Starting October 18th, this user has repetitively removed the same info over and over again, it seems unlikely they will be willing to stop.

Please help me with this issue by either warning or blocking this user. Thank you for your time! PurpleLights123 (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Two articles semiprotected one month (A Bright World and Informal Talks). The IP user reverts but never talks. Be aware that you should make your case on the *article* talk pages so that other editors (not just the two of you) are aware of the issues. If this comes back to WP:AN3 again and you haven't yet used the talk pages the next admin may not be sympathetic. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you! PurpleLights123 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2602:301:7705:1CB0:882D:B98E:3A7D:F81C reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Semi)

Page: Mariko Yamada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:301:7705:1CB0:882D:B98E:3A7D:F81C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC) "Contribution information"
22:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

NPOV-violating language (non-weasel and non-peacock), also. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected two weeks. IP adding negative information based entirely on a primary source (state contribution records). See WP:BLPPRIMARY. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Furqonab reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: No violation)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The edit is pure spam, but more importantly, the account appears to exist simply to create...well. take a look: Hello, My name is Furqon. I manage some websites http://purwasuka.id/ - http://alwib.net/

Anmccaff (talk) 07:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Only three reverts so far, but I'm leaving a message for the user. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suspect the reason it stopped at three was because I left their version up, pending review. Any thoughts on the (more important) point, that the edits are created solely for unrelated commercial purposes? Anmccaff (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing from you on the article talk page since March. The content he is trying to add is not obviously promotional -- linking to some typical floor plans is conceivably useful to the reader. If you don't like this reference consider finding a better one. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess blatant is in the eye of the beholder, but when I see a wikitor whose user page limks to commercial websites Hello, My name is Furqon. I manage some websites http://purwasuka.id/ - http://alwib.net/, add content that is sourced back to one of those sites, supposedly written by someone with one name, "Aldira Srour", but whose author contact "alzabar142", further links to evaluations of improving search engine hits [[5]], I get suspicious.

Headlines like All About Steel Buildings, a Great and Tough Kind of Building Ever do very little to convince me this is a source worth including. It's littered throughout with these suggestions of copy-and edit verging on plagiarism, and gives no proof -or even suggestion- of expertise. It also links at the first link to a few particular builders. Whether this is paid editing of an attempt to pump-and-dump a URL, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Anmccaff (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are critiquing, not our own article, but the one that Furqonab linked to. It's unlikely that AN3 can help you with this, since we are primarily for edit warring. Consider asking at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkouhyar reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13], [14], [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16], [17]

Comments:

Result: Warned for making three reverts. There is also a discussion of a possible legal threat by this user at ANI, but the conclusion seems to be that it's at most a WP:CIR issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aerozeplyn reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring, though a block for disruptive editing might also have been considered. Appears to be a strong believer in the reality of 'mucoid plaque', a concept which is not favored by conventional science. Here he adds text to an article complaining about 'Wikipedia propaganda'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aqwfyj reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31] (user reverted warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
Aqwfyj's reverts are a textbook example of edit warring behavior. After the first reversal, I have made an effort to note these changes I have made, readily available to discuss what I had believed was not grounds for reversal. Only until the latter stages of reversals, Aqwfyi finally decided to respond via my personal talk page here. Aqwfwj's consistent reason for his/her reverts were because: (he/she) "felt they were unencyclopedic and extraneous," and continuously reiterates that statement which isn't consistent with WP:IRRELEVANT for grounds for removal, as the content I have provided via talk directly relates to the subject [Russell Wilson], from credible sources such as Washington Post etc. (I have since removed other lesser credible sources that were there before me such as Facebook in favor of sources that carry much more weight such as that one). Aqwfyj is neither contributing to a ongoing discussion again citing he feels this my changes were "unencyclopedic and extraneous" when sources I have provided states otherwise. I had even tried to lay out points where we agreed and disagreed, attempting to at least meet Aqwfyj halfway; a common ground if you will, with strike throughs to my own edits and reinsertions of his/hers. Unfortunately, it seems it is his/her way or the highway, with no narrow pathways to compromise whatsoever. The content in question, are parental and maternal multiple generational grandparenthoods that had been much to talked about in April, 2016 after subject has undergone an extensive research into his family tree; notable Americans and noble lineages that were all cited by credible sources, which has since been removed. I had also trimmed down what I originally inserted tremulously, again to find compromise with Aqwfyj, but to no avail and doesn't look like that will improve any time soon. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You edited, I reverted, then you reverted my revert, rather than abiding by WP:BRD. Honesty is important. aqwfyj ^Talk/_Contribs 18:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Not enough reverts. Aqwfyj is concerned you are overwhelming the article with trivia. Be aware that most biographical articles don't go deeply into ancestry unless it is connected to what the person is best known for. Material is kept in articles only if its inclusion s supported by consensus; having sources is not everything. Consider using WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petergstrom reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User demonstrates here that they are aware of the consequences of edit warring.

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

Comments:

User is also edit warring at Moses and Ignatius of Loyola (where I have reverted him) to push aspects of a minor article's considerations as some sort of popular and accepted reasoning. I'd block, but I've tried to revert at Jesus (China needs to get its internet act together) and have elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page thread started for Jesus [39] and 3rr warning for Jesus [40] prior to the latest introduction of the material [41] Meters (talk) 03:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Petergstrom is now claiming that a tabloid is an academic tertiary source. If he resumes this behavior after the inevitable block, we need to push for a topic ban on WP:CIR grounds. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warned The editor most recently posted here that he would stop edit warring over the mental health stuff. He hasn't reverted since that post. I'm going to assume good faith that the block would not be preventative at this time, but if the behavior continues, ping me. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dino nam reported by User:Mztourist (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [42] Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] and [49]

Comments:Dino nam is a relentless POV pusher who seeks to play up US war crimes, while playing down North Vietnamese and Vietcong war crimes, see: [50]. He/she does not attempt to establish consensus on Talk pages before making material changes. As can be seen from his/her talk page and block log this is an ongoing pattern of behaviour. Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should tell some of user:Mztourist's conduct before you consider anything on my part. It's arguably him the one who waged the edit war and made disruptive editing by soundly bad faith editing. From 29 Oct to 30 Oct he continuously reverted my editing[51] without any particular explanation during the same period about his reasoning on the talk page, even when another editor had already given an argument similar to my point here.[52] That's clearly a violation of the WP:COMMUNICATE policy, which is an assurance of good faith in editing. Dino nam (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Dino nam is referring to the comments of User:77.75.203.108 whose only contribution on WP is a lengthy argument regarding the outcome of the Battle of Khe Sanh, suggesting a possible sock, perhaps of User:14.177.199.124 who made the original change to Both sides claimed victory. Mztourist (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkouhyar reported by User:Softlavender (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60], [61], [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63], [64]

Comments:

Result: Warned for making three reverts. There is also a discussion of a possible legal threat by this user at ANI, but the conclusion seems to be that it's at most a WP:CIR issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkouhyar reported by User:Softlavender (Result: 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On article talkpage:

[73]
[74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75], [76], [77], [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79], [80]

Comments:

It's funny!!Jkouhyar (talk) 06:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Euryalus (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Balisong5 reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Coconut oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Balisong5 (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 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC) to 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1. 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Add content"
2. 14:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Add content"
Consecutive edits made from 13:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) to 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1. 13:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Add content"
2. 13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Add content"
Consecutive edits made from 02:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC) to 02:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
1. 02:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Added content"
2. 02:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Health claims */Added content"
3. 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Health claims */Added content"
4. 02:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Health claims */Added content"
5. 02:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Health claims */Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Coconut oil. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

15:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversial health claims */ new section"

Comments:

No action needed. Balisong5 is now discussing the issue. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:2605:E000:A8B4:A700:CC96:7FFD:5F77:AD4C reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)

Page: Jimmy Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:E000:A8B4:A700:CC96:7FFD:5F77:AD4C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision by Karst who is engaged in a silly edit war. Clarification on Lori Maddox as a groupie does not change the narrative."
18:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 747146335 by Karst (talk) there is nothing libelous in clarifying that Lori Maddox by her own admission was a groupie"
18:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "fixed grammar and spelling"
18:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Partners */ fixed punctuation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated insertion of BLPVIO: note misleading edit-summaries also. _Muffled ^Pocketed 18:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very misleading. I only reverted once and left a warning on their Talk page. The comment left on the Jimmy Page Talk page is confrontational and no attempt at seeking consensus. Especially this: "Otherwise a WP article will be created about Lori Maddox which will include many references to her own words in interviews and other main stream articles which talk about the so called "kidnapping/Riot House" incident which would be much less complimentary to Mr. Page and his personal decision to have a relationship with a 14 year old girl." appears like a WP:THREAT to me. Karst (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP's final revert was actually of my revert, not Karst's (which obviously the IP did not understand). The fact is that the IP's edits were generally not an improvement to the article, and I concur with Karst's observation about the comments here, left only after two warnings concerning edit warring and about the same time as Karst opened this case. The IP clearly is on a mission, and it is not the general improvement of the encyclopedia. General Ization ^Talk 19:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Karst and General Ization: You are both absolutely correct in both your assertions, and thanks for pointing them out. Tbh it was a 50/50 with AIV. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add on here, this recent edit shows further proof this user is WP:NOTHERE. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected In my view, everybody is edit-warring, so I have full-protected for three days and left a note on the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:99.194.52.254 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
N/A -- discussed in the following edit summaries: [87], [88], [89], [90]

NOTE: "source" cited by IP (see here) does not', in my estimation, confirm his editing contentions (I explained: "There are no reliable statistics on the number of Muslim victims. The Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina were ethnic Slavs and spoke a variety of Serbian and Croatian dialects. Croatian nationalists as well as the radical Ustaša leaders perceived all Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina as Croats; the regime aimed to convert them to Catholicism. They were persecuted for religious and political rather than racial reasons.")

The IP was blocked on 28 October for 31 hours for "for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content", and other editors have also been reverting his/her edits. Other pages he/she has edited include: Jasenovac concentration camp (see [91]), Timeline of Croatian history, Ustaše Militia (see [92]), May 1941 Sanski Most revolt, Croatisation, and Croatian nationalism. Quis separabit? 00:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User:PsychopathicAssassin reported by User:Cornerstonepicker (Result: )

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[93]
[94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:
As other editors told me before in WP:INCIDENT to report this user if this happens. He just don't want to understand my edit. He seems the owner of the article. I explained the reasons (that every editor in WP articles for music artists know), and his response: "again, you're wrong, I'm right" Cornerstonepicker (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I think PsychopathicAssassin's username may be potentially in violation of the policies regarding usernames, as well. Quis separabit? 04:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Upon reviewing Wikipedia:Username policy I withdraw my position. The name is distasteful but I don't think it is a violation. Quis separabit? 05:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:BG89 reported by User:The TV Boy (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Comments: BG89 (talk · contribs) has been repored before for edit warring, enters highly not neutral and unsoursed edits. Even thought he started discussion on the talk page, he continued edit warring. Warnings had been issued on the user's talkpage by me and by other users, without any notice by him so far.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 16:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response by the person accused by User:The TV Boy

Actually, it's TV Boy who is trying to compromise that page and several others too. He keeps removing parts of the article he doesn't like and claims they are unsourced and non-neutral which is simply not true... The reason behind that is that he supports another football club and is trying to diminish CSKA 1948. I've requested protection of the page but he continued editing without any discussions even after the page became protected. In the archive of his talk page can be found several complaints by other users from his actions which they consider as vandalism. As for the edit war I was part of and the warning I received by admin, I'm under no circumstance denying that and admit my mistake. However, ever since the warning I've used exclusively the talk page which can't be said about TV Boy. He already reported me and accused me of vandalism on numerous occasions but administrators explained him that my actions aren't vandalism because there is a content dispute. Actually, he keeps calling every comment or edit he doesn't like vandalism in order to diminish its importance. I'm ready to answer questions regarding TV Boy's accusations --Ivo (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BG89, may I ask you to comment the source of this text that you entered and tell me if you think this is neutral and sourced. To remind you again such unsourced accusations are highly unacceptable in Wikipedia and should be reverted immediately:

The move was a scheme to avoid paying around 15 million Euro of debts (half of which taxes owed to the National Revenue Agency). CSKA (Sofia), which is an abbreviation for Central Sports Club of the Army, was originally founded by Bulgarian army officers and was the biggest and most successful Bulgarian club. It was led intentionally to bankruptcy in September, 2016, but generally suffered bad and even criminal management in the last few decades. Grisha Ganchev, owner of Litex and shady businessman, who was charged with tax evasion, being part of an organized criminal gang and making death threats to the former head of the National Revenue Agency in 2015, is the main figure behind the move. His campaign to replace CSKA (Sofia) with Litex (Lovech) was backed by the Prime Minister Boyko Borissov and was seen by most as a low, dirty way to overtake the great CSKA (Sofia) without paying anything.

Any source, anything for that?--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 17:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:95.133.216.135 reported by User:Parsley Man (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I urged him to take the matter to the talk page.

Comments:
There is a point of contention over whether the 2016 Nice attack should be considered an act of terrorism. There has been a talk page discussion that more or less agrees that it should not be classified as terrorism just yet, though it is still open for anyone to contribute as it has not yet been archived. The user was informed by me of this open discussion, but he merely removed the warning notice with a reiteration of the edit summary he has been using lately as reasoning ([106] [107]). Afterwards, he made the fourth revert without making an attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page whatsoever. Parsley Man (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This was clearly terrorism, and numerous notable sources call it terrorism. [108] [109] [110] [111] No matter if the attacker was a lone wolf or not, it remains terrorism. 87 deaths without terrorism?! Even if not terrorism it must be categorized under the parent categories Category:Attacks in 2016, Category:2016 crimes in France etc. Not simply remove all categories as he made. Note, user ParleyMan also made more than three reverts. [112] [113] [114] [115] 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is all information you should be bringing to Talk:2016 Nice attack, where there is an existing consensus to not label it a terrorist attack. If you want to change that, edit warring is not the way to do it. clpo13_(talk) 18:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No any consensus in that dicussion as you can see. Opposing side didn't show any sources which said it was not terror attack. No final decision was made in that discussion, so categories must be remained per status-quo rule. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There were no disagreements in the discussion, and no one came in to contest it at the time, so it was believed to be WP:CONSENSUS by default. You can still contribute to the discussion, though, and present your case. Not edit-war. Parsley Man (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Try to read the discussion with more attention. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You were still urged by me to take it the talk page in the process of your edit-warring and you disregarded that within a few seconds by making your fourth revert. And that first diff is only a couple of days old so I don't think that counts as violating WP:3RR. Don't try to deflect. Parsley Man (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, user ParslyMan used vandalism templates against me although he don't know what is vandalism and what is not. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I needed to warn you about your edits somehow, but I didn't know what other templates to use, okay? Parsley Man (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - He can use his own words, not wrong templates. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And what does this have to do with this edit-warring?... Parsley Man (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ask to admins. Please restore terrorism categories in 2016 Nice attack article per status-quo rule until final decision will be made in the talk page discussion. 95.133.216.135 (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What status-quo rule? Parsley Man (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2016 (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