Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 139.179.230.2 (talk) at 07:22, 26 July 2015 (→‎User:Silber47 reported by User:139.179.230.2 (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:DogukanOdaci reported by User:Heimdallr of Æsir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: DogukanOdaci (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. [diff] [1]
    2. [diff] [2]
    3. [diff] [3]
    4. [diff] [4]
    5. [diff] [5]

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

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

    I warned him both in the Turkey page and in his User Talk page: [6]

    Comments:
    Long-term edit-warring disruption in the Turkey article. The user has also received warnings from other users for his disruptive edits in the Northern Cyprus article. He keeps changing/reverting the GDP numbers in the infobox without making a logical explanation for justifying his changes. This behavior amounts to trolling. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DogukanOdaci continues the same disruptive edits in the Turkey article despite receiving a 24 hour block. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:XyZAn and User:179.210.105.123 reported by User:SPACKlick (Result: No action)

    There has been an ongoing edit war at Chris Froome between an IP editor and User:XyZAn that I stumbled into on a pending edits review.

    XyZAn
    19:40 18 July, 12:46 20 July, 08:31 21 July, 13:59 21 July, 15:22 22 July, 8:57 23 July, 12:30 23 July, 12:34 23 July

    XyZAn was reverting without edit comments excepting "reverting IP fail", and "rv irrelevant red link".

    The only discussion XyZAn engaged in across that period was Aahahaha move along pathetic IP in response to a talk page warning for unconstructive edits at 15:23 on the 22 July and then joining a discussion about the edit on the Ip's talk page at 12:34 today in which they opened withI agree with Denisarona, you are adding nothing of value to the article, are being disruptive to existing editors and are not even part of the cycling wiki project. David Kinjah is NOT a notable cyclist, he does not fulfil the notability guide so thus does NOT need linking. the conversation is hard to link as the IP has removed comments they consider attacks.

    179.210.105.123
    18:09 18 July, 00:41 19 July, 22:59 20 July, 11:42 21 July, 23:12 21 July, 03:30 23 July, 10:45 23 July, 12:29 23 July, 12:33 23 July, 13:14 23 July

    The IP's edit comments include "rv vandalism","rv idiot fail" in response to rv IP fail,"obviously not irrelevant. stop editing disruptively.","unexplained unnecessary edit, with spelling errors","rv pointless edit by disruptive user","no reason to remove it)"," rv persistent vandalism"," yet again, no explanation given. pure vandalism" and "rvv" Again there was no talk page usage to discuss the reverting until 12:30 today.

    Could someone take a look and deploy appropriate warnings? Note: While I was typing this {{Static IP|[[Net (telecommunications)|Virtua]]|host=b3d2697b.virtua.com.br}} was added to the users page, don't know if that means anything. SPACKlick (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here, for the record, is the disgraceful history of this dispute: nothing whatsoever to do with content, but simply someone with an account feeling it their right to be pointlessly obnoxious towards someone without one.

    • I made a fairly small edit, removing the judgement-laden and verbose "arguably Kenya's only elite cyclist" and adding a link to the as yet non-existent article about said cyclist.[7]
    • the user reverted the edit without explanation.[8]
    • I restored the edit.[9]
    • the user reverted, again with no explanation, but with a personal attack: "reverting IP fail" [10]
    • I restored the edit.[11] I also left the user a warning.[12]
    • the user deleted the template,[13] and reverted the edit again, this time with the bizarre summary "rv irrelevant red link".[14]
    • I restored the edit,[15] and left the user a second warning.[16]
    • Denisarona reverted the edit, and then restored it two minutes later, with no explanation (about 90% of this user's edits are reverts and they are rarely if ever explained, but that's a whole other story).
    • the user reverted the edit, again with no explanation, and again with a personal attack: "fix ip fail".[17]
    • the user then requested page protection, claiming "since July 10th multiple IP edits which are causing BLP issues regarding the topic of doping and lack of evidence". Checking the history, I found four such edits; one on 14th, two on 15th and one on 18th. The request for page protection made on 21st July was evidently spurious, and was simply intended to gain the user the upper hand in their little game.
    • The page was not semi-protected as the user wished, but instead pending-change protected
    • I restored my edit, and it was accepted by a third party.[18] I left a third warning.[19]
    • The user then sought pending change reviewer status, claiming "Would be helpful to keep on top of BLP issues". Thus far, the only edits they have accepted have been their own, to Chris Froome, starting with a badly spelled partial revert of my edit.[20]
    • They responded to my warning with another personal attack: "Aahahaha move along pathetic IP" [21]
    • They continued to revert without ever bothering to leave a meaningful edit summary: [22], [23], [24]
    • Next, like a small child asking their mother for something that their father refused, they tried again to get the page protected, falsely claiming "persistent IP vandalism".[25]. The request was declined.
    • They made one more unexplained revert. [26]

    So, there you have it. 9 reverts by this person, not a single one accompanied by an explanation; multiple personal attacks; several false accusations of vandalism; two spurious requests for page protection; and a spurious request for pending change reviewer status to try to get the upper hand in their stupid little game. If they had any reason for reverting, other than to disrupt and provoke, they'd have said it in an edit summary, wouldn't they? Or on the talk page of the article. But they didn't.

    So who comes out of this having been given extra editing privileges, encouragement to keep on disruptively editing and a free pass to violate the 3RR? And who gets accused of "unhelpful edits"? Well done, User:SPACKlick; well done. 179.210.105.123 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think, as you can see from my edit history, that I don't feel or project any idea whatsoever about "owning a page". I've had edits reverted without explanation so this cannot always be the case. The article was perfectly stable until stage 10 of this years Tour de France, where Froome took the stage win. Since then there's been enough disruptive activity that User:BaldBoris requested protection for the page. It got denied and so this week I simply re requested it with the intention to try stop the doping related edits. See the last edit and revert made on the page- it's a small disruptive edit an ip made insinuating Froome is a doper and another editor made the reversion. SPACKlick then placed a template in your talk page which you immediately took as a personal attack. That was clearly not the intention or the reason for the template being posted. SPACKlick even said as much informing you that the template was the 'closest they could find'. Myself, Densarona and BaldBoris them asked you to stop on your talk page, giving you more information on why we were asking, but you continued to edit, but you took all that as a personal attack. Rather than open up a two way reasonable dialogue where could have placed the red link against the notability guide to see nice and for all if he passed. So I took a step back, as SPACKlick recommended.
    • In final, you can see that through my whole editing history none of them have been disruptive and all have been constructive for the benefit of the various pages. To claim anything to the contrary is just plainly incorrect. You too have violated 3RR, been blatantly obnoxious, made snide remarks in edit summaries and made false claims of vandalism. To claim everything is a personal attack on you when editors make contact is also plainly incorrect. XyZAn (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Grow up. You had no interest in "two way reasonable dialogue". And what's the point of your lengthy rambling about people making doping claims? You reverted with no explanation 9 times. There have been only 5 edits inserting doping claims in the same period, not one of which you dealt with. You posted nothing on the talk page; you explained nothing in edit summaries. Your sole intention was to disrupt. I am sure you found it great fun. 179.210.105.123 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment 2 I don't have to deal with the doping claims in order to protect a page against future edits, I was aware of them and took it from there. My sole intention has never been to disrupt (as is clear from the rest of my edit history, something you seem to be ignoring), from my POV (some may suggest there's a bias on it, but that is not my intention) it seems to be that if anyone challenges, questions or criticises (even constructively) an edit you've made you reply with an angry outburst, a prime example would be the comments left on User:SPACKlicks talk page. That editor has clearly tried to explain and clear up the actions they made, they've been the calm mediator throughout and all you're replying with is angry over the top messages. XyZAn (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: No action. There was no edit warring between these two users in the last 24 hours. Both the IP and User:XyZAn are encouraged to use the talk page. The discussion so far on this noticeboard is longer by far than any previous talk about these questions. But a review of the comments here isn't reassuring about the diplomatic skills of either party. "Your sole intention was to disrupt", or "Aahahaha move along pathetic IP." EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:*sammy* reported by User:Blaue Max (Result: malformed report)

    User:*sammy* started an edit war on Algerian War, he pushed his point of view and broke a consensus established several times here and here without trying to reach a new consensus despite being asked on the talkpage [27]. He acts similarly and on the exact same subject than banned user Historian Student (and its numerous sockpuppets), so it's possibly another case of sockpuppetry. Blaue Max (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:12.125.1.78 reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Scott Kazmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 12.125.1.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [28]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [29]
    2. [30] (also assuming ownership of article with this diff)
    3. [31]
    4. [32]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34] (not article's talk page, but user talk page)

    Comments: This user has repeatedly added the Houston Astros to the list of teams that Scott Kazmir has played for, despite the fact that Kazmir has not yet made his Astros debut. This goes against established WikiProject Baseball practice and is therefore disurptive. I would also like to note that they have been making the exact same type of edit repeatedly on Aramis Ramírez. They have never used an edit summary with these reverts and have not responded to talk page comments either, despite my several attempts to explain to them that this type of editing is unacceptable.

    --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours. Mostly per this diff where he asserts he is free to do whatever he wants, regardless of consensus at the WP:BASEBALL project. There was also an edit war at Aramis Ramírez. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Abhiram895 reported by User:Magentic Manifestations (Result: Warned)

    Page: Visakhapatnam Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Abhiram895 (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. [35]
    2. [36]
    3. [37]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User already warned multiple times by myself, User:LeoFrank and User:Freakmighty in User talk:Abhiram895

    Comments:
    Long-term edit-warring disruption in the Visakhapatnam Airport. He keeps changing the airport to international and adds airlines/destinations without sources repeatedly.He is playing with the article vandalizing it. Already warned for disruptive edits to articles Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Pune Airport and Vijayawada Airport. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result: Abhiram895 is warned against making any further unsourced changes to airport articles. For example, he keeps changing Visakhapatnam Airport to assert that 'International' is part of its name, while a move discussion on the talk page rejected that name in 2014. You must get consensus on talk before trying to make any further name changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Truth only 1 reported by User:Ogress (Result: )

    Page
    Shakya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Truth only 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Provide evidence and then make change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kachhi_(caste)#Shakya"
    2. 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Yeah you take it to talk and stop warring. Stop misleading."
    3. 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "This sentence "Kachhi community of North India adopted "Shakya" surname" is misleading. Any addition on wiki must be by evidence not by whim or bias."
    4. Consecutive edits made from 06:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) to 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "Removing the first line. Please provide a reliable evidence and then feel free to revert it back."
      2. 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "Cannot find any evidence that current people in India/Nepal have adopted the surname falsely. This article needs detailed profiling about Shakya in modern times."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shakya. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Hatnote */ new section"
    Comments:

    User:Truth only 1 reported by User:Ogress (Result: )

    Page
    Shakya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Truth only 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "standard choice of words"
    2. 06:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Provide evidence and then make change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kachhi_(caste)#Shakya"
    3. 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Yeah you take it to talk and stop warring. Stop misleading."
    4. 03:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "This sentence "Kachhi community of North India adopted "Shakya" surname" is misleading. Any addition on wiki must be by evidence not by whim or bias."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 06:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) to 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      1. 06:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "Removing the first line. Please provide a reliable evidence and then feel free to revert it back."
      2. 06:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC) "Cannot find any evidence that current people in India/Nepal have adopted the surname falsely. This article needs detailed profiling about Shakya in modern times."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shakya. (TW)"
    2. 23:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 23:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Hatnote */ new section"
    Comments:

    User:Atlantacity reported by User:Müdigkeit (Result: )

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

    [38]

    Previous version reverted to: [39]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [40]
    2. [41]
    3. [42]
    4. [43]
    5. [44]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

    Comments:

    Please also evaluate the others user's conduct- no 3rr violation, but surely edit-warring. Müdigkeit (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm, quite likely to be a WP:COI involved and the editor is likely a serial sockpuppeteer. Original account Bmwz3hm is currently indefinitely blocked for serial sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and a WP:COI. Previously used Twitter account to ask supporters to edit her article to attack Buiter and promote Mees. WCMemail 10:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    [46] Has now breached 3RR. WCMemail 10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Had already breached 3rr, but you, WCM, are also edit warring. There was no reason to continue editwarring. If someone partipiciates in an editwar, you should report and wait; and definitely not revert and continue the edit war!--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition: The talk page has been used, now, and in addition to the actions done to the user breaching 3rr, the article might need protection to ensure a discussion. I also strongly encourage the other reverters and editwarriors to use the talk page, to explain their reverts.
    Now using an IP sock to support her edits, alleging bias in editors and lacking WP:AGF. See [47]. WCMemail 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gumercindogracindo reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [48]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]
    4. [52]
    5. [53]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

    Comments:

    No discussion on the article talk page as this is a very simple case of a user repeatedly adding a wikilink when the same article is already linked just above. This user has made this edit something like 13 times overall. He/she has been blocked twice before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Natsume96 reported by User:onel5969 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Doctor Eggman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Pinga (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Natsume96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [55]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [56]
    2. [57]
    3. [58]
    4. [59]
    5. [60]
    6. [61]

    In addition, he's made several edits (and revisions) on the 2 other pages I listed above, based on the assumption that this is a valid nickname.

    1. [62]
    2. [63]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Natsume96#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Doctor Eggman#Nickname

    This is obviously a good faith edit by Natsume. The issue is they do not seem to understand the nature of a reliable source (either that, or I don't!), nor the 3RR rule. I came across this situation while doing my daily Stiki patrol and the Pingas dab page came up. When I investigated whether or not this was a valid change, I came across both the other articles. He reverted changes rapidly, and was less than civil in his discussion on the talk page, so I began this report. I waited a bit, as it seemed to have calmed down, but then he reverted twice more (last two above). In addition he incorrectly posted edit warring tags on my talk page and MarnetteD's talk page. Several editors have attempted to explain to him, but he does not seem to want to engage in a dialogue.


    Comments:

    They have way exceeded 3RR and are repeatedly leaving the same warning/threat on my talk page, even after repeated deletions. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:100.38.85.114 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    The Originals (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    100.38.85.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673039582 by Carniolus (talk)"
    2. 17:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673039271 by Carniolus (talk) the originals official insta acc. and it isnt fake I WORK on set"
    3. 16:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673038438 by Carniolus (talk) it is an interview and look on the instagram acc in the tble read she is there"
    4. 16:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673027091 by Carniolus (talk)movie pilot is very relible and it seems real as the cast can verify it"
    5. 12:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 673013080 by Callmemirela (talk)"
    6. 12:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672951034 by Callmemirela (talk) she is listed that she is playing aurora."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:13, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Originals (TV series). (TW)"
    2. 17:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    It should be noted that the IP has also edit warred on The Good Dinosaur with the same user (not me). Callmemirela {Talk} ♑ 17:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Was going to report this user when I noticed this was already open. Has reverted at least 5 more times since this report is filed. Finally engaged on the talk page, albeit it in a pretty uncivil manner, but I don't think they understand. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 3 months – by User:NeilN for block evasion. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jemima West. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HardstyleGB reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Valencian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    HardstyleGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Logged out (sock) edit made from 47.60.47.85 replicating earlier, grammatically-incorrect edit-warring edits after warned about 3RR/edit warring
    2. Consecutive edits made from 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) to 05:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      1. 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672977525 by Ogress (talk) edited with another words, don't edit my CORRECT editions because you want, thanks."
      2. 05:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "I've added the source which says that it's the own language of the Valencian Community. The source it's official website of the Spanish Senate."
      3. 05:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672977616 by HardstyleGB (talk) This edition is BAD because another user was editing it so my last edition just WENT TO NORMAL... Don't revert my own work if it has references."
    3. 05:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 672977315 by Ogress (talk) No, it's not any incorrect information. Also, there aren't any grammar mistakes. "although it can be referred to the catalan language" is correct in English"
    4. 05:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "I've improved better the intro of the article. Valencian is a language spoken in the Valencian Community and it's the own language of the valencian region."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Valencian. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "/* New introduction */ reply"
    Comments:

    I was also going to make a report on the IPs that reverted Valencian in turns, and while I obviously can't show that those IPs belong to this user, he was the one who initially introduced the controversial edit, and also the one who reverted back to it after multiple warnings to the IP users to avoid doing that and discuss on the talk page instead. I think even if it not proven to be sockpuppetry (I am aware of an investigation on this being ongoing), the user is engaging in edit warring: as evidence of maliciousness, I'd like to show his latest revert summary where he falsely claims that I had neglected to add corroborating sources to the talk page before editing. I have gone to great lengths to make sure I linked to the exact diff that showed my talk page changes. This cannot be attributed to mistakes. LjL (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – 48 hours. HardstyleGB wants Valencian to be called a separate language, and not be considered only a local name used by Valencians to refer to the Catalan language. He reverts the article to enforce that opinion, trying to use some quotes from the Spanish Constitution (not scholarly work by linguists) as proof. I'm also semiprotecting the article due to my suspicion about two IPs that are echoing the same edits as HardstyleGB. Hardstyle removed from this noticeboard Ogress's comment that an SPI had been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/HardstyleGB. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ogress reported by User:HardstyleGB (Result: Filer blocked)

    Page
    Valencian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ogress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 05:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC) to 05:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      1. 05:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 672977315 by Ogress (talk): This is ungrammatical. take it to the talk page."
      2. 05:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "rv: grammar, incorrect information)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Near violating the three-revert rule on Valencian. (TW)" this is not the warning but the second diff from above, repeated. Ogress smash! 20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 14:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC) "/* New introduction */ reply"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on User:Ogress talk page
    1. 05:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Comments:

    This user kept reverting my changes because he wanted. I've added trustworthy sources (a link to the Spanish Senate official website) while this user kept and kept reverting my changes. Then, I've defended myself in the talk page saying what I'm editing (I only added a phrase to the article) and another user kept reverting my changes. This user also has threatened me with things like "If you'll keep editing you will be blocked/banned" while he reverted my changes because he wanted. I am involved in the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian&action=history) and I've added my reasons to make the edit: the only thing that changes it's a new phrase which I've added.

    Also this user accuses me to use another different IP to make reverts while my Wikipedia account was always logged in my computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&action=history In the history of the article you can see that a lot of unidentified users edited this article, while he accuses me to be the user with a IP starting with 41.*** while my IP starts with 151.***

    I fail to see edit warring or violation of 3RR. The Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and the Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on User:Ogress talk page do not actual link to attempts to resolve the dispute or to discuss with me on my talk page.
    I edited the page twice because it was an unsourced edit in incomprehensible English, then tried to talk to you on talk:Valencian about your broken English addition to the page. This is not edit warring. I also did not threaten you, I informed you that you can be blocked for edit warring, and repeated this information when you started yelling on the talk page. "Then this user added to my talk page the "stop hand" image saying that "don't violate the 3 revert rule although your account can be banned" and I mean really, I mean for real ?" Yes, for real, your edit warring can get you blocked. Ogress smash! 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited the talk page of the Valencian article to prove that my editions were legit and they are correct with a trustworthy source. Then, you could make something better with your time and stop reporting users because you don't agree with them. Now you reported me to "sock puppeting" whatever... do something with your life, ok ? As for example improve Wikipedia, not spending your time in this things. As I said before my IP starts with 151 and I've made different editions on Wikipedia with my own IP but talking with you is like talking with the walls. HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 22:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)
    I don't know if one of you two is the person editing (and repeatedly reverting) now from various anonymous IP addresses, but if it is, that should stop. If it doesn't, I will request locking of the page from anonymous edits. This should be discussed further on the talk page instead. I have added a reference to the official Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua stance on the matter on the talk page, and hopefully that should clear things up. LjL (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @LjL: I have reported HardstyleGB for sockpuppetting; I have not edited the page since 10:25 pm yesterday (UTC−7) and do not support the addition of the ungrammatical material that is being spammed there. I'm fine with protection since the user is also misreporting me for edit warring and apparently socking. Ogress smash! 21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    You were reverting my changes without reasons so yes, you were doing a bad use of the website. Also you can grow up and use your time to make better things. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HardstyleGB take a look at it  ;). Anyways, the "comments" box are for comments related to the report. HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 23:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)

    User:Silber47 reported by User:139.179.230.2 (Result: )

    Page: 2015 Suruç bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Silber47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 13:27, 25 July 2015
    2. 18:16, 25 July 2015
    3. 03:16, 26 July 2015
    4. 06:35, 26 July 2015

    The user insists on removing the word "Kurd" from the article, reverted at least for edits that added it back. Two Austrian IPs also seems to be involved in performing same reverts at the same time period, (05:14, 25 July 2015, 05:26, 26 July 2015), could be the same person trying to evade the ban.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

    Comments:

    I warned the user that if he wants to remove sourced information, he needs to explain his reasons. He doesn't dispute the truth of the information, but just insists on removing it, mentioning something called "Wikipedia's ethic standards". Looking at his contributions, he did the same thing repeatedly throughout the day.--139.179.230.2 (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=673123023"