Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Wikimandia reported by User:Cbratbyrudd (Result: Protected)

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

Hello, I am a new user and recently created an article for Ebony Flowers. I purposefully put categories based on WP:GHETTO, and another editor also responded on the page with an affirmation that my categorization was indeed correct. Wikimandia has been repeatedly reverting these categories on my page and using personal insults. For example, they stated, "What is wrong with you?" (which seems like a WP:No personal attacks violation) In order to solve the problem, I requested that the user communicate with me on the article's talk page--which I was advised to do from another more experienced editor, and they have not responded and continue to revert the changes. Can you please address this issue or at least reach a consensus? It seems that the user was upset that I transferred the conversation to the article's talk page, but as I said I am a new user and was trying to follow the protocol that was explained to me by a more experienced editor (on my talk page). I am still confused because they did not address the concern voiced in the article and only used personal insults. I added the template above to the editor's talk page.

When I looked at this user's talk page I have noticed they have used personal attacks in the past. See posts:

June 2015 Re: WP:BLP/N https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Telalim&diff=665194683&oldid=665168448 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents friendly advice

First, all edits are from August 4th. At the worst, both editors need to look out for the WP:3RR police. Otherwise this looks so much like distressing inexperience on the part of cbratbyrudd and stressed dismay on the part of Wikimandia.

In checking around you may see some anguish expressed by Wikimandia at this edit, along with the intense response to the other's wrongful copying of user comments. Comment copying by cbratbyrudd could be excused as lack of knowledge.

I myself have not seen WP:GHETTO before (as mentioned to cbratbyrudd by Rosiestep after all the edits), and I am taken aback at the resulting ambiguities. Now that cbratbyrudd has seen that they know not to reinstate cat:American Writers, but I now wonder why not add cat:Human. In any case, I can readily see how the additions looked insane to Wikimandia and against policy/custom, and revertible. It could have been me! I suppose an education for all.

If "What is wrong with you?" seems a personal attack, I fear for cbratbyrudd's ability to work with others here. It was not an ideal question, but the proper response by either party should be "Can you explain why you said/did that?".

Of course Wikimandia should be able to take all manner of confusion and misfeasance in stride, with the constant awareness that the 'normals' of Wikipedia are shifting quicksand at best. cbratbyrudd needs to realize that not everything here is as obvious and transparent as they seem to think. For instance, if they didn't know about WP:3RR, they need to be a lot more cautious. Shenme (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I find this supposed policy at WP:GHETTO to be very suspect and extremely offensive, and should be inspected to see this is not POV-pushing by a few editors, and it should be discussed by the wider WP community. This complaint against me seems to me to be a WP:OWNERSHIP issue. The overcategorization is completely unnecessary when there are categories like category:21st-century American women writers‎ that have nothing to do with race or imaginary category "ghettos". WHAT is the point of having subcategories in the first place if they also have to go in all the parent categories? I also don't think "what is wrong with you" is a personal attack but a legitimate question. You don't have to be an experienced Wikipedia use to know it's wrong to copy and paste someone else's words, with no context, making it look like they wrote it (complete with copying the signature). If I deliver a personal attack, you will know it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor (never dealt with either of these users, never heard of the article subject) - I came across the notification here when I was going to Wikimandia's talk page to warn them for flagrantly violating 3RR. He has made five reverts in 24 hours, while also blanking the talk page containing feedback from other uninvolved editors. This is appalling behaviour from a user as long-term as Wikimandia and he absolutely knows better. This warrants a block in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days. The warring editors are advised to get consensus before making further changes. See WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. If anyone disagrees with the WP:GHETTO guideline it can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

--Thanks for everyone's input. I am still a little confused on how to proceed? It seems as though WP:GHETTO should allow the edits I originally posted to be reinstated. The current article was reverted so it does not have the correct categorization via the Wikipedia policy. From what I am getting from the discussion, there is some disagreement about WP:GHETTO and that debate is best held at the venue mentioned by the above editors as opposed to on this page. Can a third party arbitration committee reinstate the categories based on the policy? I do not want to edit but it seems like an agreement is not being met and Wikipedia policies do seem to support the category edit listing I previously mentioned. Also, perhaps I listed the wrong thing re the personal insult and should have instead listed WP:CIVIL Can any of the more experienced editors who commented on these issues and advise? Perhaps: EdJohnston The Drover's Wife Lambiam Rosiestep

Thanks again!! cbratbyrudd (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Nunodeep reported by User:XYZtSpace (Result:)

Page

Nuno Gomes (diver) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 23:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 23:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 22:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nuno Gomes (diver). (TW)"
2. 23:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "COI notice"
3. 23:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
4. 23:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "3rd warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC) "/* Reverting unsourced edits */ new section"

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Fully protected for a week. That looks more like an edit war between both parties with 5 or 6 reverts each. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• That's the wrong approach. This is not a "content dispute", but a behavioural matter, where one party has been breaching our sourcing policies. Nunodeep has been removing sourced content and replacing it with his own commentary. XYZtSpace has only been restoring the prior, stable, consensus version of the article. Please remove full protection as other editors wish to do maintenance work on the article. --RexxS (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Regarding reverts by the other editor. Isn't that allowed under WP:3RRBLP. Nunodeep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edits are unsourced additions to an article on a living person. Work permit (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Knson3 reported by User:1l2l3k (Result: )

Page: Strobus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and also see notification with the AN3-notice. Continued also with this

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments: Came to this page doing New Page patrolling. When a redirect is lifted, the page comes up automatically in the New Pages Feed. This is the case here: while reviewing, I saw that the redirect had been lifted, but the article was not expanded, so brought the redirect back, as I cannot mark "reviewed" and pass as such in enwiki an empty page (only an unsourced infobox appears), but the user keeps reverting with no reason, and does not communicate. They even reverted my final warning, again with no communication. The user is also doing the same thing in other articles such as this and I really don't know how to get them to communicate. --1l2l3k (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• The user is creating incomplete pages on subdivisions of the genus Pinus (subgenera, sections, subsections), and he or she does not respond to reverts with edit summaries explaining the problem with these articles (for instance, by Galobtter) except by reverting. In most cases this has not reached three reverts yet. He or she is also changing many of the redirects that point to anchors in List of Pinus species (Pinus subgenus Strobus, for instance) to go to these new incomplete pages. So many incoming links from taxoboxes and elsewhere will go to these incomplete pages rather than to List of Pinus species, and quite a lot of cleanup will be needed to fix the situation once the user is dealt with. — Eru·tuon 22:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:184.101.195.188 reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Semi)

Page

2018 in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853909300 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Pushing fake news."
2. 18:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August */"
3. 06:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August */"
4. 04:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "/* August */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring continued on 04:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC) after notification of report here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

And at 19:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC). 3 different users and one bot have reverted them so far.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected five days by EdJohnston. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Knson3 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Knson3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853988336 by Polyamorph (talk)"
2. 05:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853958269 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
3. 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853928466 by Erutuon (talk)"
4. 21:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853913297 by Polyamorph (talk)"
5. 18:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853899785 by Galobtter (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Strobus. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user has made more than 3 reverts to this page within 24 hours, and are persistently reverting the actions of several different editors on this and other related articles.

Edit summaries and talk page sections have suggested the user develop articles in draft-space first, but these have gone unheeded Polyamorph (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note an editor has previously reported this user above, I did not realise this, however, they have been allowed to continue after warnings so action is now a matter of priority. Polyamorph (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:TheBadassNinja reported by User:Hzh (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

American Idol (season 16) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 18:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on American Idol (season 16). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

tried to communicate on editor's talk page

Comments:

TheBadassNinja kept attempting to add an unsourced, badly written and barely comprehensible sentence on the lede over a few days. It has been removed by a number of editors for being unsourced and badly written. It has been explain on the editor's talk page, but the same errors are repeated. Hzh (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 331dot (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Shakira111 reported by User:Chrissymad (Result: Protected )

Page

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

User being reported

Shakira111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853899967 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) BMI confirmed Shakira sold 50M in 2007 so ask BMI why they said 50M. You don't even give out a proof she has only sold 100M records. You don't even have a receipt. Stop changing this"
2. 17:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853875627 by Chrissymad (talk) and please explain to me why you marked that 100M million records sold when the receipt clearly states 125M as of 2012"
3. 14:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 853570379 by Cornerstonepicker (talk) that's a fact."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shakira. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page protected Full-protected for 24 hours. I will not take action on specific editors against a report with an empty "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" section unless it's blatantly obvious (eg: vandalism, libel), which this isn't. Take your concerns to the talk page. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's funny, this says otherwise. I'm not involved in this edit war or article in general (my only revert was because it was identified as both a spam source and vandalism) and not going to waste my time babbling about it on the talk page when the user has a history of this behavior. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Gargaroi reported by User:Filiprino (Result: )

Page: Societat Civil Catalana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gargaroi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

• This user has been blocked by editing the same article on April 13th. I reported him that time too. I have stopped trying to talk with him because he only says random things without any proof nor quotes, blatantly ignoring sourced content (in fact, he removed sources in the past). I suspect he might have a WP:COI or be a WP:SPA as he is only editing that article. He might be a sockpuppet, as that article has been edited by many socks from this two sockpuppet investigations: [19], [20]. I have reported Gargaroi in the Conflict Of Interest Noticeboard too: [21].
• If you take a look at the article, you will find Manlorsen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) doing reverts too. He has been blocked due to edit warring, but once his block has passed, he has reverted the page again without discussion. Other editors found he has a COI. He himself states he belongs to Societat Civil Catalana. Both Gargaroi and Manlorsen do edits with similar fashion. Filiprino (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• • I noticed this edit war when Gargaroi requested the article be protected on WP:RFPP as I was clearing the backlog. I've extended-confirmed protected the page for a month which should help with all the single purpose accounts. Fish+Karate 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Filiprino reported by User:Gargaroi (Result: )

User Filiprino has been also blocked in the past as he/she constantly attempts to subverts other users' edits. User Filiprino's only purpose is to discredit the association SCC and he uses unverified sources and presents opinion and judgement from biased sources as evidence. I suggest he's permanently blocked from editing this entry.

User:Boccadasse reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23] Calls it "deleting my additions" -edit removes sourced content I added to the cuisine section, restores content that is unsupported by RS in several places, and other content that has been challenged on the talk page.
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

This isn't a 3RR case. There have been multiple attempts to discuss on the talk page that have gone unanswered, including a request from Ivanvector yesterday. It seems the reverting and massive undiscussed changes are likely to continue without intervention.

My rewrite sourced the etymology to OED and the reasons were explained in detail on the talk page. The editor refers to it as "my content" in his edit summary even though it was added in October 2017 by User:JimPody during a period when the article experienced significant disruption. [27]. There was a discussion at the time about undiscussed massive changes to a GA article that several regular editors commented on [28].

There have been other changes also effecting content that has already been discussed in detail on the talk page with the regular editors at the article and other unrelated sourced content.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30] - there are multiple attempts to discuss on the article talk page, but this is last comment from Ivanvector before the most recent reverts.

Comments:

User:Abelmoschus Esculentus reported by User:2A02:C7D:8024:2300:7127:6D10:5E57:175C (Result: Filer warned)

• Page: Olaf the White (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• User being reported: Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Abelmoschus Esculentus - is preventing editing of articles. Also creating articles without cited evidence for infor within. When edited and asked for evidence responds by threatening to bar user from editing and referring to reasoanble editing (comments added in brackets) as vandalism. The articles are not evidence based in their entirity. Surely the point of wikipedia is to allow editing and comment not to block it and threaten those who attempt to edit. If Abelmoschus Esculentus cannot accept other opinions they should not either post on wikipedia or be allowed to do so — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:8024:2300:7127:6D10:5E57:175C (talk • contribs)

Please see User_talk:Abelmoschus_Esculentus#Do_not_need_a_response_but and below and check this IP's contrib. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait... I only reverted two times. How am I violating WP:3RR?? ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filer warned. Blanking the page at Olaf the White is considered vandalism and is blockable. When you disagree with article content, either open a discussion on the article talk page or, if you are confident of your changes and believe you have consensus, edit the article itself. Adding commentary into the article text is peculiar and is going to be reverted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Foolsandkings reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: Filer warned per WP:COI)

Page

Lora (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 854018462 by Kpgjhpjm (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 11:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC) to 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "profile image"
   2. 12:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC) "info about the artist"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Possible violation of 3RR regarding to WP:BLP. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: – User:Foolsandkings is warned for WP:COI editing. Per their comment here, it appears that Foolsandkings is a representative of Lora's music label. If you believe the article should be changed. don't make the edit directly but use the article talk page to explain what you think should be done. Use WP:Reliable sources in your request when you want factual changes. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:2405:204:6118:6946:4d6a:28c0:255a:8fce reported by User:Meyerscale (Result: Semi)

Page: 2018 in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2405:204:6118:6946:4d6a:28c0:255a:8fce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]

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

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

Comments:

• Result: Page semiprotected five days. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:110.145.188.158 reported by User:Ronz (Result: Semi, Block)

Page: Sanjay Dutt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.145.188.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:35, 1 August 2018
2. 05:38, 8 August 2018
3. 22:18, 8 August 2018
4. 01:34, 9 August 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 01:28, 9 August 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sanjay_Dutt#New_Images_and_more_content_needs_to_be_added and User_talk:110.145.188.158#August_2018

Comments:
This ip is very likely being used by is making edits that are almost exactly like those of Sheldonlove12 (talk · contribs), who has also been edit-warring over the same content, who was also given a formal edit-warring warning. This is continued edit-warring after page protection has been lifted. Ronz (talk) 02:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

aren't you edit warring? and no this user is not me, that is a very mean accusationSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've refactored, noting that your edits are indistinguishable.

I suggest you read the comments in the discussions to learn about the strict requirements of WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

they are indistinguishable? maybe because it takes one undo key? to undo an edit, how is that an argument? ridiculousSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC) anyway the problem is solved now, so lets not fightSheldonlove12 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The IP is has a history of edit-warring on this article in their own right, even if we don't consider Sheldonlove12's edits included, and was previously warned about it. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. User:Sheldonlove12 is blocked four days for continuing the same edit war for which they were previously sanctioned by User:DMacks on 1 August. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

User:BOLO 97 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Paul Manafort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BOLO 97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
Pretty straight forward violation of 3RR, with the fourth revert coming after the user was already warned. Additionally, this account made a couple edits in 2013, went dormant, then reappeared on August 3rd, immediately courting controversy, citing esoteric wikipedia policies like WP:MUG [41], referring to consensus [42], and using Wikipedia specific abbreviations like "RS" [43] and trying to wikilawyer what a "revert" is [44] (note both claims there are false).

Obviously not a new account and obviously the edits from 2013 weren't their only ones. Based on those 2013 edits, I'm guessing it's the same person as a series of accounts, one of which was this one, though that was so long ago I have no idea what that was about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Any admin/user reading this please aware what is happening here is not as it appears. I want to begin by explaining what appears to be happening here: User:Volunteer Marek got called out by me a few hours ago on their talk page as a probable sock of User:AlexOvShaolin and also possibly User:Rider1819. There is a lot of evidence pointing to VolunteerMarek and AlexOvShaolin and User:Rider1819 being the same person. Please check and compare the edits those users made over just the past few days. Before I continue I want to note that user AlexOvShaolin has not been active on WP from April 2008 until just last month. When they start edting again after a TEN YEAR BREAK they immediately begin to edit controversial political articles. This user is very good at what they do (but that's not a good thing for WP). They appear to employ different techniques on WP including but not limited to various bullying tactics, blatantly lying about other users (which is pretty clear with their numerous attacks on me the past 2 days), wikilawyering, gaslighting, and overall bad faith use of wikipedia in a very aggressive manner toward other users trying to contribute.

Admins please feel free to examine our IPs to put the delusion of BOLO 97 to bed of myself of Marek being sock puppets. Worth noting, I have no emotional ties to my edits and are happy to let them go if I'm voted against. Problem is BOLO 97 keep making edit revisions to different aspects of the article which are politically charged and voted against as non-neutral. Bolo's edit history references people with close ties to Rudy Giuliani elusively, which is shady at best. My edit history, well can't be said the same. I trust the judgement of the admins, and I'll exit the discussion with that said (unless an Admin pings me for questions otherwise). AlexOvShaolin 06:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said before, this user is very cunning at what they do. Employing classic distraction techniques (mentioning something about "close ties to Rudy Giuliani elusively"). I think it is also important to notice AlexOvShaolin appears to deliberately use poor english grammar, this appears to be another clever technique used to differentiate the two users and disguise the fact that they are a sock.

One more important thing (please check all of my edits to confirm this). Marek/Alex accused me above of "making edit revisions to different aspects of the article which are politically charged and voted against as non-neutral". This is simply a lie. Nothing has reached consensus or was "voted against" on the Manafort article (plus the mugshot image violates WP:MUG policy so it shouldn't be there to begin with). BOLO 97 (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just alerting any admins here to the fact this user/users continue to smear me. Again just within the hour on the Manafort talk page they said this "Please stop acting unilaterially, seemingly with political cause". I need to make this clear: this is probably the 8th or 9th time (I can't even keep track it's so many times the past few days) that this user/sock has attacked me personally and falsely accused me of either vandalism or being political. NOT ONCE did this user receive any sanctions for any of their false accusations or deceptive and abusive editing practices. What is going on here? The more I think about it the fact that this user is allowed to abuse WP in this way without any penalty is scary.

Looks like I continue to be dragged into this mess, with BOLO calling me a "scumbag"[45]. *sigh* AlexOvShaolin 07:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just caught them red-handed in one of their many WP:GASLIGHT techniques a few minutes ago on Volunteer Marek's talk page. Even the diffs they post are sneakily deceptive. I responded to clear things up.

Thanks for sharing your theory, if you could sign your posts with four "~" at the end, that will help the admins track our conversation. AlexOvShaolin 07:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh I guess I must be a terrible vandal because I forgot to sign. Just did some digging through your edit history and it looks like on April 6th 2018 AlexOvShaolin starts editing for the first time after being dormant for literally 10 years. That very same day Rider1819 (probably you) also re-appears and makes an edit. Hmm...interesting. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what "Rider" is. Can you clarify your point cohesively? What's your point? Thanks. Sorry for my curtness, but I'm having trouble making sense of what you're saying. AlexOvShaolin 07:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've never had any Wikipedia account other than this one, and I've never had access to anyone else's. Rider1819 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: BOLO 97 is now up to 8 reverts within 24 hours, by my count. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Nine, now, and they also keep making personal attacks in edit summaries. --bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Never made any personal attacks in any of my edit summaries (please just check). Looks like the trickery is working unfortunately. VolunteerMarek tricked another user (Bonadea) into aiding and abetting him. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: AlexOvShaolin is now up to 7 reverts within 24 hours, by my count. BOLO 97 (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• More evidence of sockpuppetry and gaslighting (yes both in the same sentence) from AlexOvShaolin. Here is how he responded to a user on the Manafort talk page "Indeed, and I am calling this virtue signalling in an attempt to be overtly neutral. He seems to feel a need to go against his beliefs to "Prove" he's not being political, but the opposite is true." I guess he is capable of reading other users minds. Also notice how a user who has clear problems with the English language throughout his posts, all of a sudden uses the term "virtue signalling". BOLO 97 (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• H'mmm, noting that BOLO 97 has now been warned twice by administrators about making unsubstantiated allegations of socking, etc. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop...I provided several pieces of evidence they are a sock. Also provided numerous pieces of evidence for their other abusive behaviors throughout multiple Wikipedia articles and talk pages. BOLO 97 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sure that any CU here will decline your request. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Were you addressing that to me or VolunteerMarek? Because besides the false accusations of being a vandal and being political and wikilawyering, etc (all things he himself does so there is clearly some projection going on here) he has accused me of bein a sock too. Above he said "Obviously not a new account and obviously the edits from 2013 weren't their only ones". Yes that is true I haven't edited WP for about 5 years (took a long break but now I want to contribute again and edit articles I'm interested in). AlexOvShaolin/VolunteerMarek took a break for 10 years so what does that mean? BOLO 97 (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Have you really checked their contributions? Alex returned on 19 July which you haven't even returned to Wikipedia yet. Volunteer Marek has always been editing and didn't took the "break" you mentioned. I suggest you to stop accusing others of sock puppetry. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I provided several pieces of evidence they are a sock

You have provided no evidence, unless you count shouting as evidence. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Says the user who frequently teams up with Volunteer Marek. Don't take my word for it, just check the edit histories of Calton and Marek, you'll see the crossover on articles. BOLO 97 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 14:16, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 09:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• I'm about to drop a block, I think, but let's get one thing out of the way: BOLO accused a bunch of editors of being each others' socks, and after they were warned (by two admins and two other editors, at least) responded by saying "VM does it too". That's not exactly true; VM accused BOLO of not being a new editor, but more importantly they suggested some evidence. Either way, it's kind of a false equivalency, since BOLO accuses three (at least, I think) accounts, and has done so on multiple occasions without evidence even after being told to stop. Throw in the "scumbag" (that's you, AlexOvShaolin? I thought it was VM), and the edit warring...I'm going to have a look at the article and that talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  Drmies, I just dropped a short "yes, we're serious about NPA" block on BOLO. If you feel it needs to be extended for the other behavioral issues, no need to consult me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you SarekOfVulcan. I'm about to type out my little report. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This is interesting, with good people on both sides (see what I did there?). First good people is Mr Ernie for this edit, which is perfectly in line with policy and practice. Second good people is, surprise! Marek, who as things are getting exciting makes this edit--a revert basically to Mr Ernie's version, or at least an edit that does not reinstate the mugshot. (I assume Marek had read the talk page, and while voting to keep the mugshot must have taken in comments by Mr Ernie, Cullen328, 331dot, and maybe others.) There's also not good people, and I am going to block BOLO. But first I have to note that User:AlexOvShaolin would have gotten a block had they been warned earlier about edit warring. I cannot find evidence that they were ever warned before or participated in an ANEW discussion, and while this is a technicality, it's an important one. They'll know for next time--they thoroughly deserve one. (Note that I lost count with the reverts; I stopped early on when I had BOLO at six and Alex at five--and VM at one (1).) Alex also needs to know that next time they drop a personal attack like this they deserve a block. And don't falsely accuse others of vandalism please.

As for BOLO, they were edit warring to a ridiculous extent (warned by MelanieN on 5 August), and combined with the other problems (false accusations of socking, vandalism, other personal attacks, etc.) they deserve a block. Sarek blocked for 12 hours for the personal attack, but the disruption in the mugshot matter, which they indeed started and with the help of Alex brought to a ridiculous height, went on for what, three days, so I'm upping the block to three days. Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)