Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Shortcuts:
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Szymonn04 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Szymonn04 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 08:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
  2. 15:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
  3. 12:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
  4. 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
  5. 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Season calendar */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2015 Formula One season. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on 2015 Formula One season. (TW)"
Comments:

After the user entered unsourced information in the article 4 times, I put a kind explanation that they needed to combine their edit with a reliable source, yet the user made another unsourced edit. Tvx1 (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this guy speaks English [1]. Looks like a Polish user who was trying to do the right thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It's indeed Polish. They must be able to understand a little English, since the user understood enough of EN.Wikipedia to find this article and to edit it. The user certainly didn't choose the right way to try to do the right thing. Tvx1 (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily, he probably just followed the interwiki link from the Polish Wikipedia. He didn't even attempt an English edit summary, so I'd say there's a good chance he didn't understand a word of your advice/warnings. Plus I imagine (as I've said would happen) he has absolutely no idea why there's no flag there. He has edited the Polish version and there's a flag on it. Don't forget to AGF. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The edits are more about entering the venue than particularly about the flag. Tvx1 (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It amounts to the same thing, i.e. he thinks it's a done deal, per the Polish Wikipedia, I suspect. A message to him in Polish might help, if anyone here can do that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I already made a draft, but I'm not certain is entirely correct. Tvx1 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator observation) According to the user's global contributions, they've only made one edit to Polish Wikipedia. I'd suggest that we're dealing with a complete newbie who needs a Polish speaker to bring them up to speed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
There are over 1,300 people in Category:User pl-N, I'm sure that users more active than me will be able to find a familiar, active face there that can help out. east718 | talk | 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have good working relationships with a number of highly active Polish speaking editors. If the user becomes active again and is need of assistance, feel free to leave a message on my talk page where I'll be more that happy to ping those who I'm certain would be willing to help out. I don't want to ping them from here as I know they have ample articles and projects of their own and it would be inconsiderate to force their hand by throwing them into this discussion. It's merely a language barrier issue which can be easily overcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Warned. The editor may be blocked if they continue to revert without any discussion. Gnomish changes and corrections may be OK if you don't speak the language of the English Wikipedia, but edit warring is not. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Virgrod reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: recent_changes)

Comments:
(This article's talk is also affiliated with Joaquín Balaguer's article talk page as they relate to one another.) Virgrod, is continuously replacing my edits (and another user's) with his original work on the hertiage of Heureaux's father. I have found six sources which I provided on the talk page and not only is it being disregarded but it is being used bogusly to source his claims diminishing the accuracy completely that appears in the text. This user is making more assumptions rather than trying to base it on fact or what is said in the sources. User also has not contributed to any sources of his own, where it can verify one another. User states that this person's father was not Haitian from the very beginning when user completely reworded section without a discussion. Meanwhile, all of the sources I have found points to him as such. This User's need to add the history of Haiti from Saint-Domingue is irrelavant in this case as the user is looking for anything (French father, "described to be Haitian") to write him off and it doesn't matter what I do or say or how many sources I present that are highly in favor of, this person is clearly stuck in their own convictions. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussions on Talk:Joaquín_Balaguer#Allegation_of_Haitian_heritage as well as Talk:Ulises_Heureaux#Sources_for_Haitian_ancestry_through_father_.28as_per_recent_changes make clear that it is Savvyjack23 who has adopted an intransigent and irrational position, and insists on repetitively removing accurate and RELEVANT information about the articles. S/he keeps on mentioning the "6 sources" as if that was the problem. The statement in the sources that he wants to include (that certain person is Haitian) is NOT under dispute. The real problem is that Savvyjack23 does not want any mention of any ADDITIONAL information that may be helpful to the reader, and insists on deleting said information. Please, look at the linked discussions Virgrod (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoting User:Osplace (who has been overseeing that the articles relating to the Dominican Republic project group be approached in an appropriate manner), on the Joaquín Balaguer talk page (which conflict stemmed from here) would confirm by saying the following about User talk:Virgrod's edits:

  • "For complete deletion: "However, concerning D’Assas' nationality, it is also relevant that his French father must have left Western Saint Domingue (present-day Haiti) before the 1804 Haiti Massacre, while that area was still a French colony. Hence, D'Assas either was born in present-day Dominican Republic, or arrived there with his French father before Haiti came into existence." No references. Completely WP:OR!"
  • "No, is not that way: "the referenced you need are located in 1804 Haiti Massacre and is simple logic..." No. Is there a reference needed to back up your claim there? Then add it to your claim here and is done. Is not about me. Wikipedia works that work. A casual reader that have not ever read about the 1804 Haiti Massacre needs to uderstand inmediately what are you talking about, how it happened, why is that information relevant there and how is supported. References are not logical. If a reference says or mean something without interpratation, is the source you need. Citing WP:OR: The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."

Again, User talk:Virgrod disregards either one of us. User:‎Inhakito, was the original editor to write about this section, so as a result, he attempts to disregard his sourced edits as well. So this is also happening on the Joaquín Balaguer article as well unfortunately. (The two are blood related and former Presidents of the Dominican Republic, which are both vital articles for the project scope.) User talk:Virgrod, has been warned on several occasions. Savvyjack23 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Both warned. There are three reverts by both Virgrod and Savvyjack23 since 28 November, which doesn't break WP:3RR though it *is* edit warring. Virgrod's argument that Heureaux's father couldn't possibly be Haitian looks to be WP:SYNTH, since at least one book is cited saying he was Haitian. Nonetheless the next person who reverts (prior to consensus on the talk page) may be blocked. See WP:Dispute resolution for options you can follow. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:98.219.178.126 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: no action)[edit]

Page
Functional medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
98.219.178.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC) to 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Description */"
    2. 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
  3. 21:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Functional medicine. (TW)"
  2. 22:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Functional medicine. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content, altering attributed statements, EW */ new section"
Comments:
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg 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. --slakrtalk / 06:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:842U reported by User:Qxukhgiels (Result: Declined; filer subsequently blocked)[edit]

Page
Jetboil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
842U (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 20:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) to 21:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 20:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC) "posted on talk page. the article contanious copious fancruft, promotional photos from the manufacturer and highlights the minutae of a product differences that aren't notable."
    2. 21:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC) "The cited reference does not support the sentence. It does not speak to anything about the product name."
  • Note: some of these diffs contain constructive contributions; I've cited them because they contain disruptive changes I've spoke to the user about.Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Jetboil, again */ new section"
  2. 01:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Jetboil, again */ again"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC) "again..."
Comments:

This editor apparently has a problem with the content of Jetboil, a WP:WPCPY article that I created back in August that is only notable for is products. I have written the article based on WP:WPCOMPG, and have cleaned up surely all of the ad-resembling statements. Starting back to early November, this editor has made some disruptive edits. Revisions as these [7], [8] make the identification of the subject ambiguous (there is nothing wrong with saying that Jetboil "is a company." The reason the products are all listed is because they are the only assertion of notability; each product is significantly covered in reliable sources. This editor also in edits/ summaries as [9] states the the photos appear to be used promotionally, while I've explained to the user the purpose of all of them "to serve as the primary means of visual identification of the subject." I don't think that most people would be able to understand the principle of operation of these stoves without images. The majority of these disruptive edits do not contain edit summaries, and on this particular edit [10] the disruptive edit summary simply reads "These are good faith edits made to improve the article," a possible snow job. This is an unnecessary removal of content. The editor has incorrectly accussed me of ownership, due to the fact that the article "has been largely created by a single author." Some of the changes have been constructive, which (not immediately apparent) I have left. I have discussed these issues with the editor on their talk page([11] [12] [13] [14]) and the article's ([15] [16] [17] [18]) The editor continues to persist with these disruptions without explanations, and reinstate the {{advert}} tag, which I have left on some occasions, but recently removed, as I do not see how the article represents a promotional tone; it complies with WP:YESPOV. This editor is now currently in danger of breaking WP:3RR, but I'll admit to have made some mistakes myself. I am actually not very experienced with company articles; I just wrote this article based on WP:WPCOMPG and similar articles, and I would greatly appreciate help from other experienced editors. Qxukhgiels (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, this edit was made by 65.240.194.232 (talk · contribs) with identical changes as those of 842U five minutes before 842U's first edit to the article. I understand that this may be the result of an accidental logout, but I mentioned this on their talk page, and they have remained silent about it as they have with a lot of the issues I've addressed to them. The only reason I was suspicious is because this user is a former sockpuppeteer.Qxukhgiels (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. You're both edit warring. It's a content dispute. You need to resolve it, or you may both be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: — I totally didn't see you handle this, but I blocked the reporter (and creator of the page), Qxukhgiels (talk · contribs), because while both are long-terming it, the former's been WP:OWNing the article, restoring content and sources disputed by more than one experienced editor, as well as removing page-concern tags (e.g., {{advertising}}) immediately after being added. --slakrtalk / 06:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Slakr, not a problem, my take on the issue was actually the same as yours, but I sometimes bend over backwards to avoid even the glimmer of "taking sides". To the extent it matters, I endorse your action.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Move protected)[edit]

Page: Intellectual property rights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Intellectual property (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Transhumanist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


I have never seen anything like this.

  • Transhumanist moved the page "Intellectual property" to "Intellectual property rights"
  • He then created a stub over the redirect at "Intellectual Property"
  • I reverted back to the plain redirect on the "Intellectual property" page
  • Transhumanist restored the stub he had created at "Intellectual property"
  • I again restored the redirect at "Intellectual property" with an edit note "you are doing a huge re-arrangement WITHOUT DISCUSSION. please stop and discuss. thank you"
    • I placed a 3RR template on his Talk page in this dif
    • I again attempted to engage on Talk on the Intellectual property rights page in this dif
  • Transhumanist again restored the stub
    • Transhumanist made two declarations on the Talk page of his new Intellectual property article Talk:Intellectual_property saying that his new article has to go through AfD
    • Transhumanist finally replied on the Intellectual property rights Talk page here - again very declarative. No discussion.

Comments:

I appreciate boldness, but this goes beyond Bold, to non-consensus-oriented arrogance. Please restore things to how they were and block Transhumanist for a few days to teach him to work toward consensus. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog is overreacting and extremely impatient. I've already told him I'll be happy to delete the changes myself if I can't make an article he's happy with. You can't get more cooperative than that. Basically, there are 2 distinct topics, intellectual property and intellectual property rights. Both are notable subjects worthy of an article. I'm working on the intellectual property article. It should have some substantial content very soon. I could build a decent article in a day or two, but we should be able to tell if there is enough good material in a few hours. If he doesn't like it at that time, I'll be happy to arrange to have it speedied (per creator). The Transhumanist 04:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You may be right that there are two separate topics and therefore the need for two separate articles, but your move was undiscussed, and therefore there was no consensus for you to make the move. As a disputed move, you should restore the status quo ante and work on your stub in your user space until it is ready for prime time, and then open a discussion and get consensus for there to be two articles on the topic(s). BMK (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a content issue, it is a behavior issue. It is complete violation of WP:MOVE and well as edit warring. yes. Jytdog (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
BMK, thank you for the clarification and suggestion. There is consensus to leave the article in place on talk:Intellectual property rights, as someone else besides me has commented there. But, since Jytdog very much wants to talk it out first, we should at least see what he has to say. I've moved the page to draft space, and have placed a speedy tag there to make way for the move reversion. The Transhumanist 07:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Transhumanist has undone everything, but still does not seem to understand WP:MOVE. Hopefully there will be no more need for trips to drama boards. Withdrawn. Jytdog (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, what are you referring to? Please point out the specific action (diff link) that completely violated WP:MOVE. I wish to understand exactly what you are talking about. Thank you. The Transhumanist 02:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is closed. I'll discuss it on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Intellectual property has been move protected until such time as consensus is reached to move the page. Transhumanist self-reverted his move so no further action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Amaruca reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636572332&oldid=636133580
  2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636816949&oldid=636648136
  3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636833221&oldid=636830468
  4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berber_people&diff=636848238&oldid=636834452

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Berber_people#Miscapitalization_of_animism

Comments:

1) The main article at animism does not capitalize the word itself. User:Kintetsubuffalo

The main article is fixed.Amaruca (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

2) The sources falsely claimed by this user in fact do not capitalize the word. User:Kintetsubuffalo

The sources are reputable and extremely clear on the issue of equality of religion and capitalization of Animism.Amaruca (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The source claimed (Sponsel, L. (2006). Animism. In H. Birx (Ed.), Encyclopedia of anthropology. (pp. 81-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952453.n32) is not available freely-"Users without subscription are not able to see the full content on this title." which is an old trick to hide dishonesty. That article, the visible start at least, says itself "The ultimate source of the term animism is the Latin word, anima , meaning spirit, soul, or life force. In contemporary anthropology, animism is the generic term for numerous and diverse religions focused on the belief that nature includes spirits, sacred forces, and similar extraordinary phenomena. This is reflected in the classic minimal definition of religion, a belief in spiritual beings, that was originally formulated by the famous British anthropologist Sir Edward Burnett Tylor in his 1871 book Primitive Cultures . Tylor viewed animism as the basis of all religions and the earliest stage in the evolution of religion. Animism remains relevant to considerations regarding such elemental conceptual dualities as animal and human, nature and culture, natural and supernatural, inanimate and animate, body and mind, and life and death. In general, animists believe that supernatural forces inhabit animals, plants, rocks, and other objects in nature."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

3) The user accuses me of bigotry (as stated on the talkpage, I am not) and of vandalism (again, wrong). User:Kintetsubuffalo

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.[1] Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.Amaruca (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
And this applies to me how? I haven't said word one against animists (I am Shinto, which is a form of animism), I clearly said I have no problem with animism, I do have a problem with misusing the English language and using false arguments to support the misuse.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Further, you're trolling the talkpage by miscapping what I (and your quoted authors) left uncapped,--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not cite some sources other than the wiki page which is fixed now?--Amaruca (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Talk:Berber people

  1. [19] Removal of other editor's comment.
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
  6. [24]
  7. [25]
  8. [26]

OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 08:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Kintetsubuffalo started out with this contentious stance: "I will continue to revert your miscap every time you make it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)"--Amaruca (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's try and work towards a mutual respect of indigenous peoples as per Professor Snodgrass' recommendation from the Journal article which I based my original changes. The spirit in which I edited this page was in all due respect and with clear cut academic authority.--Amaruca (talk) 11:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Amaruca has been warring about Animism vs. animism at both Berber people and on the talk page. (Changing the capitalization of a header created by another user). User:Kintetsubuffalo made a talk comment promising to edit war and he should avoid that. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )[edit]

Page: Talk:Negative feedback (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28] 20:23, December 5. Reverting hatting.
  2. [29] 21:48, December 5. Reverting hatting.
  3. [30] 05:22, December 6. A series of three edits, reverting hatting.
  4. [31] 05:28, December 6. Reverting hatting.
  5. [32] 06:13, December 6. Reverting hatting.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (The whole dispute is about tiresome talk page exhaustion, so I will not point to an attempt to discuss the dispute.)

Comments:
Brews ohare has exhausted the community's patience at the article's talk page, with unending arguments making a death grip / time sink / tar baby situation for everybody else. People finally got fed up with Brews ohare and started hatting his discussion threads. He has been reverting these, wishing to continue the (fruitless) discussion. I find it ironic that this demonstrates a failure to adjust to negative feedback. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

History with Brews shows that a temporary block (even a year) with be of no use in the long run. I actually think his protracted many months of "discussion", if you can call it that, at Talk:Negative feedback has been a good thing, as it has absorbed most of his energy and attention such that it hasn't required a huge effort to prevent the sort of damage and bloat he tends to do to articles when he's not being thwarted. Thanks for helping to keep him in a box there. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:SultaanPop (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

Page
List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636872475 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  2. 09:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636864996 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"
  3. 07:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636858693 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  1. Bladesmulti (1)
  2. SultaanPop(1)
  3. Bladesmulti (2)
  4. SultaanPop (2)
  5. Bladesmulti (3)
  6. SultaanPop (3)
  7. Bladesmulti (4)
  8. SultaanPop (4)
  9. Bladesmulti (5)
  10. SultaanPop (5)
  11. Bladesmulti (6)
  12. SultaanPop (6)
  13. Bladesmulti (7)
  14. SultaanPop (7)
  15. SultaanPop (8)
  16. Bladesmulti (8)
  17. SultaanPop (9)
  18. Bladesmulti (9)

AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 12:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

    • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked SultaanPop has been blocked as a blatant sock. Bladesmulti won't be blocked since he was reverting a blocked user's sock.. ‎ east718 | talk | 13:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:SultaanPop (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

Page
List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636881925 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  2. 13:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636881397 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  3. 11:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636877059 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  4. 11:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  5. 11:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636875118 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  6. 11:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636873692 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  7. 11:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636873304 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  8. 10:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636872823 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  9. 10:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636872475 by SultaanPop (talk) obvious duck account"
  10. 09:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636864996 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"
  11. 07:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 636858693 by SultaanPop (talk) no agreement for these changes"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"
  2. 10:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
  3. 10:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"
  4. 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
  5. 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "/* Sections */"
Comments:

Edit waring. No worthy explanation even i asked him many times. SultaanPop (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Reporting account is a blatant sockpuppet which I've Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked. east718 | talk | 13:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ramiericson reported by User:Summichum (Result: )[edit]

Page
Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ramiericson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) to 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    1. 06:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum don't add survey reports here. There is a main page for that."
    2. 06:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "reverting false and WP:POINT edits by User:summichum"
  2. 09:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC) "Summichum write all these content on your website. Don't distrupt wikipedia. Writing false content on wikipedia, will not make Khuzaima a Dai."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

the user also has COI, AND has been informed not to remove information Summichum (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:107.15.41.141 (Result: Submitter blocked)[edit]

Page: Five Nights at Freddy's 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: multiple instances

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35] (reverting a revert of previous revert)
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38]
  6. [39] (which is a partial revert of this change)
  7. [40] (partial revert of this page)
  8. Edit: 3 more reverts since filing this report:
  9. [41]
  10. [42]
  11. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's talk page is protected, put warning on article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Suggestion in comment [44]

Comments:
Edit warring

--107.15.41.141 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is subject to tons and tons and tons of fan speculation. I've also been gamed into this by a banned user trying to get me blocked. Also of note is that this IP left me a threat that had to be oversighted. This should be shut down and the article semi-protected (as I have requested multiple times to end the vandalism and unsourced edits) so established editors can work on it properly.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
First edit is a revert, this is reverting a banned user which is an exemption to 3RR, part of this is also reverting a banned user which is exempt from 3RR, a revert, a revert, this is not a revert at all but a rewrite, this is also not a revert at all but another rewrite, another exemption from 3RR, partial self-revert to reinclude content that was removed in prior edit that is not a revert anyway, probably a revert but I went to the talk page. There was no "attempt to resolve on the article talk page" as the edit brought up is an edit summary made by a banned user's sockpuppet so this whole thing should be thrown out. 107.15.41.141 is an IP operated by a Gamergate troll who is trying to get me banned through any means necessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
First, a minor point. The IP's edits were rev/del'd, not oversighted. Second, who is the banned user?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine, revdel. The Israeli IPs (the 31 ones) I believe belong to user:Wiki-star/User:Dragonron who just reverts me for the sake of reverting me rather than any actual interest in the topic seeing as he reverted me on completely unrelated pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I've reported the IPs because of the reverts to items that were not Five Nights at Freddy's 2 but checkuser isn't going to solve anything with that new evidence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe he's referencing this sockpuppet investigation. He's concluded the investigation on his own apparently, allowing him to exceed 3RR. Even discounting the reverts of the alleged banned user, I believe he's still exceeded 3RR. Ryulong, can you please clarify what you mean by "probably a revert but I went to the talk page" -- I see don't see recent contributions by you to the talk page. And please keep your comments civil. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I went to the user talk page of Spidervenom123 to leave him a message telling him that his edits are unwarranted because I left him an identical message 5 months ago regarding the other game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Now he's apparently followed me to unrelated pages to revert my comments in a discussion he was not involved in?? 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
That was trolling on your half, plain and simple, just as you've done across the project.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the point in continuing this conversation beyond argument for argument sake; admins (or whoever reviews these requests) you have my evidence, if you have further questions I will attempt to address them. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
How is this attempt at being a strawman "SJW" not trolling?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Recommend review of IP's contributons. There's very few 'main space' edits & mostly drama. WP:NOTHERE, might be considered. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, because no one in good faith notifies every editor I've reverted in the past 24 hours of this thread [45], [46] (there are others but the IP made the pages new so there's no diff).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with procedure in these proceedings, I was not involved in the edit war so I thought it relevant to notify the involved editors. Ryulong went to each of these user's pages and removed my notification. He appears to be "following" me around wikipedia and reverting my edits, is this permitted? Please advise. -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to notify anyone else about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not often participate in discussions on this board but I have two observations. Ryulong is being baited and Ryulong should know how to not take the bait. Chillum 03:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Chillum, I agree 100%. The question is, what are we going to do? Block for edit warring which seems to have happened? (But I'll want Bbb23 to confirm.) Block the IP for dramah mongering even though they've made a few valid article edits? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well then get rid of the fisherman because he keeps blowing up my notifications when he restores his invalid messages across the project. I'm obviously being baited but I have to respond to this shit so I don't get blocked for being baited in the first place. Half of the edits hes pointed out are not reverts. Then others are exempt from 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Admins, can you please advise on this issue: Ryulong has reverted my notification on these users' talk pages multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of his "instructions" from my own talk page. Is this permitted? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    Every time you do it I get notified because you've linked to my talk page and I asked you to stop but you clearly haven't. You are the definition of WP:NOTHERE.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    Everyone doesn't have to be notified - only the user being reported. Further, his removal of any "warnings" and such on his talk page is an acknowledgement that he's gotten the message and he has the right to remove them. Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You misunderstand, he removed the notifications I placed on OTHER users' talk pages, multiple times. In addition, he reverted my removal of HIS notification on MY talk page. I hope that clarifies. Is this permitted? -- 03:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ryulong, that was foolish. I have blocked you for three hours on the minor matter of edit warring on the IP's talk page (a clear-cut case, where you disregarded their request you stay the hell away) and the notifications. That there may be no requirement that they notify other involved parties doesn't mean that they can't--frankly, I'm surprised that you'd make such a big deal out of something like that, but that's what EW is often about. Chillum, Bbb23, your advice on the larger matter is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there any objection to me restoring these notices and reverting my talk page? -- 107.15.41.141 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record I have blocked this IP. The recent contributions from this IP show a bad faith and successful attempt at disruption and little to no effort to create an encyclopedia. As always my talk page is open for discussion. Chillum 03:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, another admin beat me to it: yes, after the latest edits I was going over there for a NOTHERE block. Thanks Chillum. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Given recent history I think it is a rotating IP who is reoccurring as such I used a short block. I am watching the IP though and if the same person resumes I will increase the next block. Chillum 03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry everyone, but I was busy doing bad things, you know like eating dinner, watching a movie, terrible things like that. Looks like you sorted it all out. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: Submitter blocked 72 hours by User:Chillum, per "anon IP engaging in disruptive baiting, not here to write an encyclopedia". EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:‎Volunteer Marek reported by User:Antonioptg (Result: Declined; filer warned)[edit]

User:Moonsell reported by VictoriaGrayson (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3
  4. diff4
  5. diff5
  6. diff6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Warning diff

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Link

Comments:
Moonsell is edit warring with 2 editors. Moonsell has serious ownership issues with this article going back a long time. This is problematic, since this user does not understand proper sourcing at all. In the first diff, you can see he replaced an academic book with these 2 websites: Link 1 and Link 2. Also this user continually proclaims his personal knowledge as correct. Thus there are WP:VNT issues as well. Lastly, he does not understand WP:BRD.VictoriaGraysonTalk 04:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Yep. And the editor is inserting what appears to be personal OR and it is incomprehensible. I recommend protecting this version of the article until the sourcing and WP:OR issues can be addressed. Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Please consider this in the light of the contribution histories of the people involved and in the light of the breakdown of collaboration over recent months on the talk page. Moonsell (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE is required. These edits are unsourced or fringe sourced, constitute WP:OR and are, as noted above, read like gibberish. And he is at 6RR. Montanabw(talk) 04:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:HarrisonBotani (Result: sock blocked)[edit]

Page
List of awards and nominations received by Mohanlal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637027191 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
  2. 14:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637026252 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
  3. 14:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637025626 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
  4. 14:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 637022133 by HarrisonBotani (talk) obvious duck account"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

no matter the reason. An edit waring is an edit waring. HarrisonBotani (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Obvious Wiki-senetor sock. Reporting reverter to edit-warning board is also a Wiki-senetor mo. Is WP:NOT3RR except. Avono (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Avono Of course and per Wikipedia:NOT3RR you can also edit war over the violation of biography of living person and copyrights, these edits of HarrisonBotani/Wiki-senetor violates both. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Transparent sock blocked. Kuru (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:94.197.46.68 (Result: Submitter blocked)[edit]

This editor is edit-warring on Sangram Singh and has now violated WP:3RR on suspicion that he is reverting copyright violations, I see it as mere content dispute, the information being removed which I personally favour. He claims it is copy-pasted from the source but the source is reliable and the info can easily be rewritten and redacted, not a legitimate excuse for blanking.

94.197.46.68 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just in the process of reporting this IP at WP:ANI for repeated violations of copyright. If the IP wants to rewrite the content, he/she can - but we DO NOT include copyright-violating content in artices, ever.
It should be noted that this IP appears to have followed me from the Vivek Murthy article, where I had reverted the addition of an image clearly copied without attribution, and in violation of copyright, from the Washington Times. [[54]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talkcontribs)
For closing admin: bottom line: 3RR has been violated and at the time of my post, the defendant has not self-reverted and this is compelling evidence of edit-warring in that the accused has no intention of standing back. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The IP clearly posted here to harass Andy and cares little about copyright violations. --NeilN talk to me 19:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Two things, if the witness testifying for the accused has any proof of the allegation then may he take it to the appropriate project page, otherwise if he has evidence that 3RR has not been violated then may he present that here. Thank you. --94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Fact: the material in the Sangram Singh article was copy-pasted from the sources cited, in violation of copyright. Fact: removals of copyright violations are exempt from WP:3RR. Fact: repeated violations of copyright aren't exempt... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
All right then, where is the evidence that it is a copyvio? 94.197.46.68 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you actually checked the links, you'd see that text was copied from linked pages. --NeilN talk to me 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The IP has continued to insert the image into the Vivek Murthy article, despite the warning template on the image page (both on Wikipedia[55] and Commons [56]) Since it seems apparent that this IP has no intention of complying with policy, I suggest a substantial block is called for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Result: Submitter blocked 5 days for copyright violations. The photo of Vivek Murthy was published in the Washington Times and there is no evidence that it has been made free for our use. Regarding the IP's statement, "the info can easily be rewritten and redacted". That is not how copyright is handled here. The material should not even go into the edit history if it's copyrighted text. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Lmmnhn and User:UU reported by User:George Ho (Result: )[edit]

Page: Template:Umbrella Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lmmnhn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
UU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]

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

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

Comments:
I was just uninvolved. I warned them about violating the rule. --George Ho (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The warning came well after the edit war. However, in addition to the reported article, they both also violated WP:3RR at Template:Hong Kong political parties. Actually, I think the only reason it stopped is because Lmmnhn did the last reverts at both templates and UU hasn't edited anything since that time.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)