Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Special:Contributions/89.115.121.50 reported by User:N1CK3Y (Result: blocked)

Page: Cantus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.115.121.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Comments:
This has done nothing else than reverting the same edits on this article 8 times on a single day. Need I say more? N1CK3Y (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm getting the strong impression that Mad_Duke, FGordillo, and 178.148.162.199 were brought by offsite canvassing, that their only purpose is adding the material to promote an organization they're involved in. Yes, the 89.115, did violate WP:3RR, but we don't tolerate this sort of organized WP:ADVOCACY, either. This is why I protected the page instead of blocking.

@Mad Duke, FGordillo, and N1CK3Y: What is your involvement with Board of European Students of Technology? There's no pretending that Mad-Duke and FGordillo are uninvolved, so don't even try it. N1CK3Y, you do have prior edits in unrelated topics, but they're so few and rare that it's unusual that you knew to file a report for some apparently "random" content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, you are correct. We are alumni of the aforementioned organisation. I think. At least, I am. I do not know if one, both, or neither of the two other named contributors are currently members. I do know, though, that the IP that just got blocked is very much a current member. That member is not trying to prevent promotion but, rather, to ensure censorship. Whether the "controversial" statement stays in the article or not does not actually matter much to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@N1CK3Y: see WP:YESPROMO. It's very clear that alumni are trying to "make people aware" of that organization, which is promotion. If there was an independent source that established that BEST was noteworthy for their cantus activity, and the intro of the article mentioned noteworthy cantus-hosting organization, it'd be different. But as it is, it's just holding up BEST and only BEST as equivalent to entire countries. That is promotion, plain and simple. There may be some potentially comparable problems in the article, but that doesn't justify adding more. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:Fair is fair. I see you have protected the article. I agree with your decision. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, Mad_Duke here. All I've done was to put back the mention that they keep on deleting because from their PR standpoint (as an organization which organizes Cantus events) they don't want to be associated with this practice. That is censorship pure and simple. If you take a look, this started on 21:15, 15 May 2017‎ Dragosgaf who is a member of the organization. There is ample evidence that in this huge organization which covers whole of Europe Cantus is regularly taking place. My only involvement is thus adding back the content which was previously deleted @Ian.thomson:. So basically, you got this whole thing backward. Members of the organization are the ones who wish to delete the mention because they don't want to be associated and a few alumni are the ones who keep adding it back because it's a fact that it exists. I don't personally care for the mention of BEST in the article, but I became active after I've found out that the reason why they went and deleted something was because it doesn't work with their image which they are trying to promote. Organizations are not physical individuals and the Europe "right to forget" does not count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

See WP:YESPROMO. The edit war started when 178.148.162.199 added the mention of BEST to the article. It was not there originally. 178.148 was promoting the group, which goes against our policies. This has nothing to do with censorship or "right to forget." Honestly, the idea that you were called in to fight "censorship" of something the article didn't even mention until today is honestly really hard to believe. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Well, this is not a promotion. When a group that works in over 100 universities across Europe organizes this kind of event (Cantus) for decades already then it's a statement of fact. If you could help me how to prove it, without resorting to sticking "hundreds" of external links. The moment when a thing which can be proven to be deleted because someone wants to delete a mention because he is working in PR of that organization then it's called censoring. I can give you the proof of those intentions for the person who has deleted it for example. I'm surely not here to promote an organization I haven't been a part of for 10 years. comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

@Mad Duke: "Statement of fact" is not our standard, citing reliable sources (for this kind of thing, independent reliable sources) are our standard.

No evidence has come up to show that the IP who was removing things works for the PR of that organization, and you would need to be very careful in how you try to prove it. It is obvious that you have a conflict of interest with the organization. It is obvious that your account was registered solely in connection to that organization. There is no denying that you have tried to add a mention of that organization that was not there two days ago, in a way that equated that organization to entire countries, while not mentioning any other organizations that organize cantus activities, without citing any independent sources to show that those activities are noteworthy. To claim that you were not promoting but that the 89.115 is trying to censor the article on behalf of BEST is a Trump-esque level of denial and projection. If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, we will have to assume that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote BEST's activities. If you leave us with that assumption, it would only be reasonable for us to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I hereby reaffirm that I think the decision that was made is fair. Forsooth, adding BEST in this article explicitly does not serve any obvious purpose other than promotion. The goal posited by my comrade hereover has already been fulfilled somewhere else (albeit implicitly, which doesn't change a thing) and that page already has a link on the page being protected. N1CK3Y (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: It appears this edit war has actually been going on for nearly a year.[10] From what I can gather, both parties seem to have been sockpuppeting pretty repetitively ever since. All in all, this seems pretty WP:LAME to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course this edit war is going for a year. It just became better communicated lately. Also, threats of account deletion are lame. First, it's not unlike I don't have a new IP every 24hrs so that doesn't make any sense. If someone wants to do harm. He will do it. Also, expecting hard proof of BEST Cantus from independent sources (like there are news agencies that follow student drinking when nothing bad happens) is double standard because then this whole page can be deleted as well as all other mentions: "Belgian, Dutch, French, Baltic, Afrikaans student organisations, and fraternities. ". By the same logic BEST is bigger than some countries concerning the number of universities present. :) Mad_Duke (talk 00:43 CET - 20.03.2018. —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mad Duke: Blocks apply to the user, not just the account. Once you're blocked, your words it's not unlike I don't have a new IP every 24hrs so that doesn't make any sense. If someone wants to do harm. He will do it. have just given every admin the excuse to block any and all accounts restoring any mention of BEST to the Cantus article as one of your sockpuppets. Seriously, consider this your last warning: either you are here to help, or you can go to hell.

As for sourcing, in-depth coverage from independent sources are our standard, and if you don't like it, you should find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: So, you are threatening all articles containing BEST. because of so called actions (for which you have zero evidence) of one person writing under one account? Have you maybe thought about that I want exactly that. To completely destroy any mention of BEST on this "encyclopedia"? :D That would be a cool win. Then I will proceed to each and every other student organization pages. Pinging you in the process :D Oh, and sorry, but you don't know how the internet works. Every 24 hours (or every 5 minutes with a VPN) I can make a completely new account. Not that I feel like it. People actually need to work also hehe :) Also, this is an attack on me because you didn't answer about the inclusion of "Belgian, Dutch, French, Baltic, Afrikaans student organisations, and fraternities. ". Why are they included. I see no references to independent sources. in-depth especially :)

@Ian.thomson:, I'm FGordillo, I was part of the International Board of the organisation (BEST), and now I'm just an alumnus that cares about having proper and relevant information about BEST in Wikipedia. Cantus is being organised by BEST for years but they are not part of the main activity of the organisation, this is why I believe this reference doesn't belong to the Cantus Wikipedia page. I guess mentioning that Cantus is organised by Belgian student organisations is enough to understand the origins of Cantus and since there are no other organisations mentions I see no point on mentioning only one. The main activity of BEST is providing complementary education to students of technology. Cantus it's just a side activity that happens during some of our events. It's the first time I answer in this type of threads, feel free to adjust it or move it somewhere else if needed. FGordillo (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (CET)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Closed)

Page

Jessica Chastain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "The RfC isn't closed and you can't just ignore process and say "I'm going to put my favorite picture in, so there." If you do this again, I'm opening an ANI case. Subverting RfC is serious"
2. 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "You can't close in favor of your own RfC! That a major violation of process. Also, we don't count votes, and closes are done after 30 days generally by an admin."
3. 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "ou are now at the verge of WP:3RR. One more and I'm reporting you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jessica Chastain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */ format"
2. 16:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */ cmt"
3. 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"
4. 16:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"
5. 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"

Comments:

Began an RFC following an edit-war by the user. 6 editors voted against his preferred choice, following which I changed the image back to the original in good faith, since the article will be on the main page in the next few days (as I stated in the talk page). But instead of respecting consensus, he has begun another edit war. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You are listing two reverts. I'm about to initiate a case showing your four reverts, and the fact you're not waiting for the RfC to close but but unilaterally inserting your favorite image. Subverting an RfC and not following process is not the way Wikipedia works. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not unilateral at all. 6 editors disagreed with your choice and agreed on using the original image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 and Tenebrae: Any chance you two would stop edit warring if the photo in the article when it was promoted to FA was used? [11] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I began the RFC in good-faith, without warring. But don't you think 6 vs 1 should be respected? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'd really like is for the edit war on a soon-to-be TFA to stop without blocking anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with the original image or the one that was used when it was promoted to FA, as long it's not terrible. I'd hate for my work on the article to be ruined by the use of a terrible quality image when featured on the main page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you mean this, I'm OK with it. There's a larger issue here, however, and that is an editor completely undermining the RfC process. A nominator can hardly declare in favor of himself ... particularly after just three days! If nominators can simply do that — without even asking an admin to see if WP:SNOWBALL applies, which after three days and a small number of editors is not so in this case — then why have an RfC process at all. Subverting RfC so brazenly and defiantly needs to be seriously addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no subversion. You undermining the opinion of the majority in favour of your own preference is what needs to be addressed. I repeat, not one person voted in favour of your choice. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already said that consensus is not a matter of votes. Do I need to link to that? And after three days and a small number of editors, there is no consensus. Finally, the proper procedure would be to have asked an admin if it were ready to be closed yet. You can't just close an RfC in favor of YOURSELF. Seriously, dude. That is the definition of subverting the process.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is the matter of arguments, and there were plenty that agreed to use the original image. If you refuse to listen to the opinion of others, then that's something you need to work on. ASAP. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is not up to you, the nominator, to decide in favor of yourself. That's the way dictatorships work — not Wikipedia. If you believe there's consensus after three days and a small number of editors, then you ask an admin to close. You don't go vigilante and take the law into your own hands. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely not upto you to slyly favour your preference over the original image either. The original one stays until you garner consensus to change it. And not ironically, the consensus on talk page so far is against your choice. So, there you go. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither of you behaved particularly well. As far as I can tell, the current image was added February 6th. It was changed multiple times over the last few days and each time the change was disputed. Tenebrae, at the point you should have left the photo alone and waited for consensus to form. Krimuk2.0, I understand that time, while usually not a factor, plays an important part here. You should've asked an uninvolved admin to step in before your four reverts. What I suggest is that an admin can judge if clear consensus has emerged in two days time, before the article appears on the front page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I'll respect the opinion of an uninvolved admin. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note No more edit warring over the photo until RFC is closed. Any reverts or re-reverts may result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine and I certainly accept your judgment, NeilN. In the meantime, given both he and I agreed to your proposal for that previous, non-contentious image, would it be possible for you to insert that? Otherwise, letting an RfC nominator unilaterally declare his position victorious makes a mockery of the RfC process. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You really need to get over these childish whims of "victory" and "loss". The better image should be used. Period. This is not a battlefield and neither of us are here to win or lose. My priority is the betterment of the article, one which I was responsible for making an FA. If you want to win at something, play a sport, because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, says the person who thinks the rules don't apply to him. You serious lack a sense of ethics.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't know me, so stop with the personal attacks. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor points out objective facts — that you did four-revert edit-warring and that as an involved editor you broke the rules (by definition unethical) and declared an RfC closed in your favor — and you call that an "attack"? Wow. Just admit, please, that you blatantly broke Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, which is the plain, objective truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Guys, please, I don't understand why this interaction between two long-standing valuable members of the community is full of vitriol. Is there some past history I'm not aware of? Can you not just accept that both of you could have handled things better and move on? You've both had your say about the photo - let others continue the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Note. See above report)

Page: Jessica Chastain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12] by one editor, [13] by another.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14] Revision as of 07:43, 19 March 2018. I reverted to the extant version and wrote: "You can't close in favor of your own RfC! That a major violation of process. Also, we don't count votes, and closes are done after 30 days generally by an admin."
2. [15] Revision as of 16:25, 19 March 2018
3. [16] Revision as of 16:29, 19 March 2018
4. [17] Latest revision as of 16:31, 19 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]. I would have done this on his talk page, but he made the fourth revert too quickly.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jessica Chastain#Infobox image

Comments:

An editor cannot unilaterally decide in favor of himself in an RfC he initiates. And the RfC has only gone on for three days. It has not been closed, and his actions subvert the entire reason we have n RfC process. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not unilateral at all. 6 editors disagreed with your choice and agreed on using the original image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been three days. That is in no way, shape or form enough time for the nominator, of all people, to declare consensus. The proper thing would be to have asked an admin to close it. Though I'm sure an admin would have said, "After three days and just this many people? No." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been three days and not one person voted in favour of your choice. If this is your way of pushing your individual choice, then it's just not going to work. Sorry. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already said that consensus is not a matter of votes. Do I need to link to that? And after three days and a small number of editors, there is no consensus. Finally, the proper procedure would be to have asked an admin if it were ready to be closed yet. You can't just close an RfC in favor of YOURSELF. Seriously, dude.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not close the RFC. I listened to the majority opinion and acted in good-faith. If you don't want to respect the opinion of others, you are free to do so. But don't edit war. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-war? You are the one with four reverts. We generally wait for four reverts before filing a 3RR. That's what I did. But you seem to believe the rules don't apply to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that's the feeling I get from your refusal to see the point of view of everyone on the talk page who disagreed with you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You can feel whatever you want. But I'm not the one who went four reverts, you edit-warring rule-breaker.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for an excellent insult. However, it is not upto you to slyly favour your preference over the original image. The original one stays until you garner consensus to change it. And not ironically, the consensus on talk page so far is against your choice. So, there you go. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not one but two editors reverted your image, and yet you threw a temper tantrum and said things were going to go your way without asking for an admin close the way we're supposed to, and then edit-warred through four reverts. You make a mockery of the RfC process and rampantly edit-war. Those are not the hallmarks of either a good Wikipedian or a mature adult. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't know me, so please don't assume whether I am a "mature adult" or not. That's bordering on a personal attack, and any "good Wikipedian" will refrain from doing so. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I know your actions and your behavior, and what I see is someone who acts as if they're above the rules, and who threw an edit-warring temper tantrum.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note See above report NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:185.40.134.3 reported by User:HanotLo (Result: blocked)

Page: Business Initiative Directions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.40.134.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]
6. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
Hello. I have tried resolving this matter on the talk page but I don't think there is anything more I can do as they have continued to revert it. I have never submitted an edit warring report before so please tell me if there is anything I did incorrectly. HanotLo (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I had reverted this first, too. The removed citations might actually not be reliable, though, and the article's talk page finally contains an explanation. The user has seen the warnings on their talk page and followed my request to explain the situation on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, please read what they wrote on the talk page, they are being very rude, and are not following WP:RS or WP:V. OCCRP is a reliable source.

1. They are using original research to support removal of reliable sources, "I have gone through all information by award winners, they have never paid for the awards"[28]
2. They are very combative and rude, "Hi. Reasonably sourced? Seriously? Can we use some logic?"[29]
3. They are lying in their revert summaries about the talk page, "The organisation which wrote the article being cited admitted their research did not show 100% factual about their finding. I have stated on the talkpage"[30]. They have never mentioned this on the talk page and the source doesn't mention this either. HanotLo (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

About 8 reverts in total. Blocked 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Enterprise Explorationist reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Originally [31], now [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34] - After which, user was asked to address on their talk page to address problems with the edit
3. [35] - Marked as minor
4. [36] - After templated 3rr warning.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] - user talk page, but still.

Comments:

User doesn't appear interested in discussing their WP:FRINGE edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 reported by User:Crook1 (Result: Blocks, Semi)

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 Special:Contributions/93.65.5.225 Special:Contributions/2.35.55.62 Special:Contributions/2.35.52.252

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:16, 19 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Comments:
A clone of User:Olonia. Edited the same page after being banned from his work/study IP. A sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olonia) was filed yesterday because of Olonia's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block.

Since User:Olonia was blocked, I ask all associated IP addresses to be blocked too. I'm asking to reverse his last edit and protect the page. Crook1 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Olonia and User:RegiaMarina were blocked indef by a checkuser. I have semiprotected Italian destroyer Espero (1927). All IPs are stale except one, and he seems to have access to many IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mujdeda reported by User:Mélencron (Result: Blocked)

Page

Forza Italia (2013) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "sry i must finish this war"
2. 23:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "that ip wasn't me"
3. 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[39]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Flag in infobox (resumption of unilateral edit-warring after block)

Comments:

Immediate resumption of edit warring with little engagement (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive363#User:Mujdeda reported by User:Impru20 (Result: blocked)), warned on talk page for a second time here by Impru20 (talk · contribs). Also see article history for obvious edit warring while logged out. Mélencron (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be also noted that a sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mujdeda) was filled several days ago because of Mujdeda's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block. Not only may he have evaded such a block, but he has resumed his edit warring behaviour from his own account once the block was lifted. Impru20 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Piznajko reported by User:AveTory (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [40] [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] [53] [54]

Comments:
The user has been involved in vandalism and edit warring on Mikhail Bulgakov's page since early March and till this day. He keeps adding non-neutral information to the lead which doesn't belong there, as well as to a separate section currently named Views on Ukraine which I created after some debate. Mostly aggressive propaganda that condemns every mention of Ukraine, Ukrainian language or Ukrainian nationalists in two of Bulgakov's works (including fictional characters and Bulgakov's absolutely unrelated thoughts on Kiev during his visit after the Russian Civil War) using such words as "imperialistic", "ukraniophobic", etc. and lines such as "Bulgakov, like most Russians of his time, condemned Ukraine's independence movement", linking to the works of mostly ethnic Ukrainian researches that appeared after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

As I tried restructuring the text to fit Wikipedia rules on neutrality, original research and sources by adding quotes from the articles and Bulgakov's own works (since many of the scholars are biased to the point they change Bulgakov's original text to fit their agenda), Piznajko keeps reverting all edits, inclduing the fixes made to googlebook links, claiming that it's me who is reverting and deleting "constructive edits". You can see an example in one of the latest edits. Currently the section looks like an unstructured mess full of repeated abuses and one-sided accusations that have little to nothing to do with the topic. AveTory (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to explain to you on the talk page, doing analysis of literary works yourself is considered WP:original research in Wikipedia and should be avoided. Also calling certain university researchers with Ukrainian roots nationalists does not mean you can disregard their research and decide to do all the research of writer's works yourself. Also, using hate speech/derogatory term to describe others, e.g., seemingly calling all Ukrainians nationalists, or calling Ukraine "post-Soviet Ukraine" is not exactly friendly WP behavior.--Piznajko (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, you bringing information / passages that have no direct relation to the topic of the section, is not the way to truly improve the article. I'm referring to your bringing information about Bulgakov's involvement with Ukrainian cultural Renaissance (or more precisely the lack of thereof), which is unrelated to the topic of the section (at least the way you've used it); I've tried explaining it to you, but it seem like you disregarded my comment and keep adding it back.--Piznajko (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm seeing that Piznajko was also procedurally reverted by Sparafucil, which technically could be understood to mean that it's too late to just refer y'all to WP:3O. However, he hasn't participated in the talk page discussion, so I'm not seeing much in the way of consensus and am quite inclined to decline this report and tell y'all to go to WP:3O. (Not doing so right away, but letting y'all know that this seems too far from zero-sum for me to take any other action).

Also, @AveTory: read this until you get why I'm telling you to read it.

And @Piznajko and AveTory: this isn't a content dispute board, this is a procedural board. If y'all wanna get into content, I'm seeing possible OR and NPOV issues on both sides. I would like to believe that if y'all were to earnestly try to write from the other user's perspective, y'all might arrive at something mutually agreeable version. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I just would like to notice that Piznajko already made three reverts on the same page, after being reported here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If User:Piznajko has continued to revert the Bulgakov article while this report was open (i.e. since 13:38 on 20 March), it suggests indifference to violations of our policy. He also appears to be engaged in a nationalist dispute, which falls under WP:ARBEE. I recommend a block of Piznajko for edit warring unless they will reply here and agree to take a break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:The Keeper of the Garden reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked)

Page

Talk:Ancient Corinth (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Keeper of the Garden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Biblical Corinth */"
2. 18:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Biblical Corinth */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Ancient Corinth. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831460056 by The Keeper of the Garden (talk) Still no attempt at consensus"
2. 18:56, March 20, 2018 post-initial report dispute resolution attempt on user talk page
3. 18:59, March 20, 2018 post-initial report dispute resolution attempt on article talk page
4. 19:00, March 20, 2018 WP:NOTHERE response

Comments:

This revert and this revert were both by IP editors identifying themselves by this username although not at that point having created their registered account under that user name and should be considered together with the two reverts listed above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So there has to be a consensus as dictated by Mr Eggishorn? A consensus about what? About the fact that historiography is science and that the Bible isn't? A consensus between what parties? Scientists and Christians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Keeper of the Garden (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DY91 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: blocked)

Page

Slot car racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DY91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Why did you change this???? It's been up for days with references......."
2. 08:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "Your cluebot keeps undoing everything I write with references. Please advise."
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC) to 08:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
   2. 07:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
   3. 07:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 08:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "You will never let this hobby grow if you don't stop micro managing it. There's poor grammar and punctuation on this. Why don't you fix that??? Read my next update here which you might approve. I'm undoing with improvements."
   2. 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
   4. 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
5. 07:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "There is no reason for the undo. I'm trying to help slot car racing with the truth. I work in the industry EVERY DAY. Please advise for the undo. Thanks, DY"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked by Yamaguchi先生. I can't help feeling this could have gone differently if people had taken the time to explain why the edits were not an improvement. This good-faith editor seems to have got frustrated with having every contribution reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:37DA:E40:311F:B7AE:39A8:D54A reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: blocked)

Page

Stacey Dash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:306:37DA:E40:311F:B7AE:39A8:D54A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831494717 by Tenebrae (talk)"
2. 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 21:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831494376 by Tenebrae (talk)"
4. 21:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) to 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831494167 by Tenebrae (talk)"
6. 21:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831493679 by Tenebrae (talk)"
7. 21:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831493545 by Binksternet (talk)"
8. 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831493145 by Tenebrae (talk)"
9. 21:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Added {{ISP}} template. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[55]. Also, previous discussion at Talk:Stacey Dash#Sources differ as to her birth date

Comments:

Note, per WP:EDITWAR: "There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy." I believe that applies to my edits in this case, since the anon IP is violating WP:BLP by shaving a year off the subject's age in defiance of multiple sources including the book Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The anon IP is also adding vandal edits, such as this. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours but do take care not to let yourself get dragged into an edit war. In this case it was not so urgent that you couldn't wait for them to be blocked and then revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:119.224.3.221 reported by User:Tubedogg (Result: )

Page

Deception (2018 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "put back original source"
2. 22:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "rounding reduces accuracy"
3. 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "knock of the zap2it rounded inaccurate crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
4. 21:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "restored better source -- no reason to change to rounded zap2it crap"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was previously advised by myself and at least one other editor to take proposed changes to the talk page instead of continuing to revert. tubedogg (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I should note I have no particular interest in the outcome of what content ultimately stays on the article. I simply came across it via Recent Changes. tubedogg (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Seanking2919 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: )

Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seanking2919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

User:BrightR reported by User:Doniago (Result: )

Page: 12 Monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrightR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]
7. [70]
8. [71]
9. [72]
10. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:

Not sure what to say here. BrightR inserted refs into the Plot summary for the film, and multiple editors have reverted them feeling they were unnecessary. BrightR started a discussion at the article's Talk page, but then seems to have dismissed every argument raised aagainst their edits and an evident lack of consensus in favor of them. They even went to the point of starting an RfC on the matter, one which not only isn't providing the consensus they're apparently hoping for, but which they keep attempting to clarify in the apparent hope of ultimately changing peoples' minds on the subject. I hoped starting a discussion with them on their Talk page asking them to at least hold off ontil they had a visible consensus would prevent this filing from occurring, but they seem to have decided that they don't really care what anyone else thinks at this point. DonIago (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: you are incontrovertibly edit warring on that article. You have also been here a long time and have never been blocked before. Do you undertake to stop edit warring and not make that edit until it is supported by consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jaco IV reported by User:Colonies Chris (Result: )

Page: Italian basketball clubs in European and worldwide competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaco IV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous version reverted to: [81] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:
If I block User:Jaco IV I'll also have to block User:Colonies Chris because you've both violated 3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that's not necessary to block anyone. Just make a recommendation to Colonies Chris to stop edit wrong or dated links, especially for the Italian basketball clubs or for any basketball club that is using sponsorship names because he mainly transmits wrong information and secondly he causes a small chaos in the pages in which he "offers" any "help". (Jaco IV · talk) 15:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've pointed Jaco IV to the places in the MOS which explain my edits, but he chooses not to engage in any discussion about them, just reverts without explanation. My edits are not 'wrong information', and I have no idea what 'small chaos' means in his response. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:142.196.0.207 reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: )

Page: Kane (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.196.0.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]
6. [89]

1st 3RR warning:[90] 2nd 3RR warning:[91]

Comments IP was warned twice before report was filed, IP made a total of 6 reverts of the same content 2 different ways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:71.246.98.233 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Sphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "people say bring this on talk, but there's NO discussion on the talk page at all about this yet.... Again, BURDEN ON YOU TO PROVE that this site is "unreliable"....No one has yet. Mere assertions are not proof of anything. This source was agreed upon (to repeat) a while ago....stop edit warring for obvious I DON'T LIKE reasons"
2. 18:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "already "defended" and approved and agreed-upon a long time ago. If you want to remove it YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT'S AN "ADVERT" OR "UNRELIABLE" SOURCE.... It's an academic and school learning website.... And WP does not forbid such sites.... Burden on you. This source was already confirmed in the past..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor repeatedly inserting the same link which has been removed by multiple editors, repeating their same refuted arguments in edit summaries and on multiple editor talk pages. Warned already, but has disregarded that and multiple replies. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Contrary to what the IP asserts, the source was discussed on the talk page in 2015 and was hotly contested and removed multiple times. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)