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 Slakr (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 9 September 2015 (→‎User:Mann jess reported by User:Peter Gulutzan (Result: ): p). 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:Prokaryotes reported by User:Yobol (Result: protected)

    Page
    Séralini affair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Prokaryotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Support */ per David Tornheim, we should be able to replicate the critic per neutral"
    2. 18:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Add per Tornheim and WP neutral"
    3. 18:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "rm POV edits by editor Yobol, Per previosu edit by Tornheim, see talk page"

    # 19:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Publication strategy */ rm to much SYN" See comments below

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    [1] Editor also previously blocked for edit warring.

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 18:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Objection -- article lacks NPOV */ r"
    Comments:

    Yobol apparently confuses reverts with unique edits. If you look at the edit history you can see that he reverts my edits seconds after i made them, i wasn't even aware while editing that he was interfering. Additional, he begun removing content, which had been part of the article for month, and added artefacts. Now editor Jytdog steps in and removes all edits from me and Tornheim. Both editors have a history of edit warring over this and similar articles, i.e. Yobol here.

    • Yobol violated 3RR

    The editor reverts/removes content seconds after my edits. My edits were for the most part readditions from editor David Tornheim.

    • 4 September (Yobol removes my readdition of long standing content)
    • 4 September (Yobol removes my readdition of Tornheim's content)
    • 4 September (Yobol removes my readdition of Tornheim's content)
    • 4 September (Yobol removes Tornheim's content)
    @AlbinoFerret: You need to review your diffs again. Your 2nd diff is me reverting myself. Self-reverts don't count towards 3RR.
    @prokaryotes: Your first diff is not a revert, it is WP:BOLD removal of content added in 2013. As far as I can tell, it has been present in some form in every version of this article since then, and well before you came to this page. It's probably best if you take time to be accurate and avoid such mistakes in the future. Yobol (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, the only mistake i can spot here are your accusations, for instance your claim that i was blocked, and you made 4 reverts which count as a violation. You interfere with other editors, your edits are disruptive and most importantly, not neutral. Something which you have in common with editor Jytdog. prokaryotes (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block log indicates you have been blocked before for edit warring. Yobol (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yobol, even if you are given a pass on the second revert. You still continued to revert after going to the talk page. Instead of discussing you went back to edit war after going to the talk page. The 3RR does not have to be broken to engage in edit warring. AlbinoFerret 21:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Univolved IP editors perspective: Yobol made a legitimate WP:BOLD edit and removed content added in 2013 (there was the B in BRD), then user Prokaryotes legitimately reverted that bold change (the R in BRD). At that point, the next step would be to discuss at the talk page (the D in BRD), but instead it seems that Yobol reverted Prokaryotes to restore his/her Bold edit again? In my view, there should not have been another Revert by Yobol after the original B and R had occurred, that made it BRR and started the edit war. There seems to be an extensive, recent history between these two editors and they should be strictly held to WP:BRD when editing the same articles. In this case it seems that Yobol started the edit war by breaking the WP:BRD cycle, however Prokaryotes seems to have broken 3RR first between the two. 108.181.201.237 (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @IP: Thank you for your comment. You should probably read the history of the article again, I have only made the bold edit once. I did not revert prokaryotes' revert of my bold edit, and did not break the BRD cycle in this instance regarding that specific material. I should also note that the only person involved here that has broken 3RR is prokaryotes. Yobol (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Again you make a false claim, Diff No 4 is not a revert, its me editing the page, per talk - an attempt to make the article fit per NPOV, which you disrupted. prokaryotes (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You appear to be correct about the 4th diff not being a revert, my apologies. Struck the 4th revert above. Suggest protection of the page as it appears no one has broken 3RR. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yobol, I have reviewed the edit history for todays edits again per your request. I see it this way:
    The B in BRD, Yobol boldly removes longstanding text: [6]; then Yobol restores some of the text in a new location: [7]
    The R in BRD, Prokaryotes restores original version before Yobols edits: [8]
    The edit war starts, This should have been where discussion started and editing this text stopped! However, Yobol instead restores their version: [9]
    There is no need to look further, the edit war has now started. I will stick to my original analysis, that Yobol broke WP:BRD and started the edit war, but Prokaryotes seems to have hit 3RR first. The whole thing could have been avoided by sticking to WP:BRD.108.181.201.237 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for your comments, IP. You are, of course, correct that my behavior has been suboptimal and agree that if everyone, including prokaryotes, agrees to BRD we would avoid situations like this. Yobol (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do note that BRD is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. "Broke BRD" is a meaningless phrase. BRD is a process that works well for most editors in most situations. Not all of them. It's good that Yobol says they'll use this process, but it's not required, and not using it isn't grounds for punishment (nor is using it grounds for exoneration; there are ways to disruptively game BRD); it's basically not all that relevant to whether editwarring is happening, other than in that it may slow the editwarring.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yobol follows me now to other article and reverts my edit there, and ignores talk page discussion arguments. At the article we discuss here, Yobol removes long standing content, but on the other article he followed me, reads long standing content, (edit sum = restore long standing consensus; this wording has been in the article since 2010, per talk page. Time for RfC). Notice that "per talk page", he refers to his own comment. RfC with these editors basically means weeks of stalling discussion(example).prokaryotes (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've had most of the suite of GMO articles on my watchlist since I responded to an RfC on the topic earlier this year, no "following" needed as your edits popped up on my watchlist. Yobol (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Following" in this context means pointedly reverting or otherwise interfering with another editor's activities in particular; it doesn't literally mean studying their contributions list. I opine neither in support nor confirmation of you "following", I just note that the pages being on your watch list wouldn't disprove following, if your edits really are targeted in a pattern at Prokaryotes. But following isn't automatically harassment or anything like it; if a user is doing something inappropriate on multiple pages, they're apt to be followed (and in fact to actually have their contribs tracked). As with the BRD point above, this basically doesn't relate very strongly to an editwarring case, unless the edits really are focused against one editor, and the focus is inappropriate. A couple of diffs don't prove this, and as Prok. indicates, the nature of the two edits were different (not in a pattern). "See talk" means "see talk", it doesn't mean "there is an RfC that concluded in a consensus there"; it might simply mean "edit summaries are short, and my rationale can be found on the talk page". So, basically, neither editor is raising anything relevant in this exchange.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • After striking one of the four diffs originally provided as "evidence" and an admission by User:Yobol that he has behaved sub-optimally, it appears User:Yobol's accusation of Prokaryotes breaching 3RR is demonstrably completely without foundation. Surely we are in boomerang territory here.DrChrissy (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like what? I'd support a mild admonition/warning, but don't see much justification for anything else, esp. after Prok.'s not-well-supported insinuation of hounding. Everyone can make mistakes, and it is not necessary to be punitive toward editors who make them; blocks in particular are used preventatively, not punitively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected by another admin --slakr\ talk / 08:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:31.168.164.210 reported by User:Perplexed566 (Result: semiprotected)

    Page: New Israel Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 31.168.164.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Examples of reverts:

    1. 1. this reverted this edit.

    Which is also something that is under discussion in the NIF Talk Page. I opened up that discussion because I understood that it was a complex question.

    1. 2. This edit reverted both this and this.


    You'll see that I went to his talk page to warn about previous violations of the 1RR on Sept 2nd here.

    Comments:

    This is about a violation of the WP:1RR to which articles on the Arab–Israeli conflict are under as per the warning at the top of the New Israel Fund Talk Page... I know that there is much tendentious editing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict, and I feel sheepish asking for help here, but I don't know how else to manage with the behavior of this editor... I'm having a bit of a problem with the form. I hope you have everything you need. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. Perplexed566 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Have discussed every change and provided umpteen sources which are continually being removed by Perplexed566. Shall not violate any rules - and did not violate 1RR to best of my knowledge. Will be careful moving forth. 31.168.164.210 (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:91.122.10.67 reported by User:Ashenai (Result: Semi)

    Page
    Final Destination 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    91.122.10.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679813080 by Ashenai (talk)"
    2. 23:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679814380 by Ashenai (talk)"
    3. 00:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679820514 by Ashenai (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "hi! I reverted your edits to Final Destination 3"
    2. 00:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "please explain!"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    This user has inserted what I can only describe as original research into the Final Destination 3 article. I've tried to talk to him twice on his talk page (the last comment on the article talk page is from four years ago, so this seemed more productive), but I cannot get him to respond. He just silently reverts back to his version. Ashenai (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Xxjkingdom reported by User:Cartakes (Result: protected)

    Page: Special administrative region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Xxjkingdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [10]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 01:23, 7 September 2015
    2. 01:39, 7 September 2015
    3. 01:44, 7 September 2015
    4. 01:50, 7 September 2015

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 01:31, 7 September 2015
    2. 01:48, 7 September 2015

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

    Comments: I had repeatedly asked him to discuss in the talk page first before edit warring, but he kept reverting without proper discussions first. In reality he had asked for a full-protection of his version of the page, which was refused. By now he had already reverted 4 times of this article today, essentially violating the 3RR policy of Wikipedia.

    User:Martin IIIa reported by User:Stormwatch (Result: )

    Pages: Shockwave Assault (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Shockwave (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Martin IIIa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [12], [13]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [14]
    2. [15]
    3. [16]
    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

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

    Comments:


    User:Martin IIIa seems to believe that there should be a page for the video game "Shockwave Assault" and not "Shock Wave" — even though the latter is the original title of the game, and the former is a compilation of the game plus an expansion. This would be absurd like, for example, moving "Duke Nukem 3D" to "Duke Nukem 3D: Megaton Edition". Even prevented from editing the game's page, he keeps editing the aforementioned related pages. Can someone tell him to stop the nonsense? --Stormwatch (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Martin IIIa and Stormwatch: — have either of you attempted dispute resolution, for example, asking for a third opinion on one of the talk pages? It seems that Martin attempted a merge proposal on a talk page, though I wouldn't call the result "consensus." Still, I see no such moves from Stormwatch, and just because one of the pages was protected with one particular version of the page, that does not inherently mean that it's the "correct" version or the "winning" page. --slakr\ talk / 08:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SyriaWarLato reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [21]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [22]
    2. [23]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Raised on user's Talk Page: User talk:SyriaWarLato#Vietnam War

    Comments:
    User:SyriaWarLato is edit-warring Vietnam War changing the casualty figures claiming that the reference is outdated but without providing any suitable reference and refusing to discuss on the Talk Page Mztourist (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    you're forcing an outdated cold war source. given the huge disparity in the numbers given it gives the impression of page info unreliability. SyriaWarLato (talk) 10:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    also put my latest (referenced)edits up. SyriaWarLato (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You are adding the POV of the Hanoi government, not WP:RS and a number of other users are also reverting your edits. Mztourist (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    by that logic every source is pov. SyriaWarLato (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Mztourist, the validity of Hanoi's numbers is NOT the issue here. The 2 million figure from Hanoi is basically in line with recent scholarship, unlike some of the other figures cited in the article. Furthermore the thrust of Hanoi's supposed POV is uncertain, and there is no evidence that they had a political incentive to inflate the figures AFTER normalization of relations with the US. The issue is whether or not Hanoi has ever estimated 4 million civilian deaths. I've only seen this reported by the BBC, so it may just be an error. All in all, the sourcing is WAY too weak for the 4 mil figure added by (EDIT)SyriaWarLato.Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the original source for the number: A mistranslated AFP report that double-counts Hanoi's rough estimate of two million civilian deaths in order to advance the opinion that (paraphrasing) "US imperialism is worse than Hitler."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, I've seen this AFP excerpt. clearly its the actual French AFP report that is in error not its translators.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anniepoo reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Protected, editor warned)

    Page
    Rose Venkatesan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Anniepoo (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 16:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) to 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 16:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 16:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    2. 16:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679888381 by Rubbish computer (talk)Human Rights!"
    3. 04:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "doesn't matter, we don't do this. "I can dox this person, and they're trans so it's OK" isn't a good argument"
    4. 01:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. 04:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679681379 by 65.94.253.185 (talk)Removed non-famous previous name of trans person per MOS:IDENTITY"
    6. 21:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "removed offensive content"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Although the subject (a transgender) has acknowledged her birth name and original gender to the media, this biased user tries to remove that information. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Obviously MOS:IDENTITY needs expanded to cover this issue. Wikipedia policies don't trump basic human rights. Doxxing trans people still isn't OK. Attempts to engage Rubbish_Computer in dialog led to angry retaliation, so naturally I've been reluctant to engage. Anniepoo (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Anniepoo: That's because you called me pro rape. Rubbish computer 17:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Leave. me. alone. Rubbish computer 17:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    How dare you call somebody pro rape with no justification whatsoever. You should be ashamed. Rubbish computer 17:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    pro rape names, dead names, assault names, there's lots of words for it. They aren't pretty words, because it's not a pretty activity, sticking trans women with them as a way of disgendering us. That you reacted so strongly makes me think of 'the lady doth protest too much' If you want left alone, leave off the adding pro-rape names. Anniepoo (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anniepoo: No, actually I objected to being called pro rape for no reason. Rubbish computer 17:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article protected for one week. You can all go to the talk page, where you should have been already. Anniepoo, let me make this clear, accusing another editor of being "pro-rape" with no justification is not acceptable, and if I see you do it again you will be blocked. Firstly, many articles of trans people include their former names (see Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner, and secondly, you do not get to unilaterally decide Wikipedia policy. I hope this is clear. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mann jess reported by User:Peter Gulutzan (Result: protected)

    Page: Watts Up With That? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

    Comments:

    This article is subject to 1RR and a prominent warning appears when one tries to edit it, (text is here). For an early history showing Mann jess inserted denial in this article and reverted 12 editors who didn't go along with that, including 4 reverts in one day, see here. Mann jess has started WP:AE actions against other editors three times so we're not looking at an innocent. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, right. I forgot it was under 1RR. I won't revert again. It would have been nice to have been warned, or for discussion to have taken place regarding this change before jumping right to a report. On top of that, Pete, you restored a version of the article which was strongly opposed in a recent RfC. I'm not sure why you did that right after a brand new editor except to game a 1rr restriction. Discussion is taking place on the talk page. It would be best if we could leave the article in its stable state until new consensus forms. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    On further inspection, it appears the article is not under 1rr. The edit notice was placed on the article in 2010, but there is no active 1rr sanction logged that I can find. WP:GS#Active Sanctions doesn't mention 1rr, nor does the obsolete WP:GS/CC, and I see nothing in WP:ARBCC. It is under discretionary sanctions, of course, but it appears the edit notice is out of date. Please correct me if I'm wrong.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This would be worth clarifying. My impression is that the climate change probation of 2010 has been superseded by the remedies imposed in WP:ARBCC. Maybe worth asking at WP:ARCA. Of course 1RR is generally a good idea even if it's not formally imposed.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The gleefulness with which Peter Gulutzan seemed to adopt the position of the newly arrived account seems like he is trying to bait enforcement action against Mass Jess. His transparent collusion to this effect on his user talk page is worth considering. As he tries to push climate change denial positions, it becomes increasingly difficult to assume good faith about his activities here. jps (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume an administrator will confirm or refute Short Brigade Harvester Boris's impression, and I assume that once again jps will get away with making comments like those above. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't like being called out for pushing climate change denial? Maybe you should stop pushing climate change denial, then. jps (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this section interesting, but have no thoughts on the actions. Clicking on the link in the 1RR template brings up where they are logged.[29] It appears they are probably superseded by WP:ARBCC remedies, but thats something an admin will have to determine. AlbinoFerret 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Gulutzan is well known as a climate change denial apologist editor. Mann.jess is equally well known as a patient defender of climate-related articles against POV-pushing. That really is all you need to know. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, there it is! Thanks AlbinoFerret. Yes, it appears the last log on that page was in 2010. According to the header of every page at WP:GS/CC, those general sanctions are no longer active, and according to WP:GS#Active sanctions, they are "Superseded by WP:ARBCC". It looks like the edit notice on Watts Up With That was just never updated, so we should probably fix that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Your welcome, I wondered where it was and know nothing really disappears on WP. Assuming good faith, its likely that you missed this small template sandwiched in the rest. I am sure you will be double checking in the future to make sure of anything like this, Even if its old, its better to deal with removing it first to avoid sections like this one on drama boards. AlbinoFerret 20:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Skyllfully (Result: no violation)

    Page
    User talk:Fyunck(click) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    2. 02:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    3. 02:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    4. 02:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    5. 02:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    6. 02:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    7. 02:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    8. 02:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    9. 02:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    10. 02:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    11. 02:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 119.81.124.81 (talk) to last version by NorthBySouthBaranof"
    12. 02:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "rvv"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on User_talk:Fyunck(click). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Obvious edit warring, with a bad track record. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 02:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious removal of personal attacks, harassment and an attempt at outing by an anonymous IP, all of which are prohibited. I have reported the IP on WP:AIV. I find it interesting that this account magically took interest to "report" the issue here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The user in question has now been blocked by Bongwarrior for personal attacks and harassment. I appreciate the quick attention to this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP was being disruptive - this is not an EW violation on NBSB's part. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page
    Indian Rebellion of 1857 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Danielsagittarius (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 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC) to 05:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ""
      3. 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ""
      4. 05:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    4. 17:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    5. Consecutive edits made from 02:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC) to 02:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
      1. 02:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ""
      2. 02:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Indian Rebellion of 1857. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Others have attempted to engage him as well. Ogress 07:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:46.11.61.241 reported by User:HardstyleGB(Result: )

    • This user is a well known vandal user which always modifies the same articles and his location is always from Malta. He was banned 3 days ago from the IP: 78.133.27.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for repeated vandalism without taking importance of my notifications, as I've warned him various times. This time happens the same; he came, vandalised the same articles, and only reverting my changes because he wants, without discussing nothing, without reason, nothing.

    All my changes are made by trustful sources and he modifies the normal aspect of the article only because he does not like it. He kept reverting and making changes,his last 4 changes are: 1 2 3 and 4. This user keeps reverting useful/trustful changes acusing me of "vandalism" while puts stale information or information without any sources. Also, it keeps reverting and changing articles without discussing on the talk page. It's a well known user from Malta which made vandalism editions before, another of his elder IPs were (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.133.67.226) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.133.23.197) and every time uses different static IPs to edit articles. Always edits the same kind of articles; which are climate related articles. HardstyleGB (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:I've also want to ask if the articles Malaga, Ceuta, Valencia and Climate of Malta can be semi-protected some days. Regards!
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=680161334"