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 HFM Expert (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 6 May 2018 (Reply to comment). 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:ApolloCarmb reported by User:ZiaLater (Result: )

    Pages: Nicolás Maduro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ApolloCarmb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: Nicolás Maduro: [1], Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea: [2]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Nicolas Maduro

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

    Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea

    1. [6]
    2. [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

    Comments:
    User:ApolloCarmb's actions on Wikipedia have been combative since their first appearance a little over two weeks ago, appearing to be an edit warrior. They are a self-proclaimed WP:SPA. I first noticed this behavior when they were abusive toward another user and I provided a warning to ApolloCarmb. They continued their edit warring behavior and they were blocked once already on 22 April 2018. On 25 April 2018, they were brought to Arbitration Enforcement with questions of WP:NOTHERE and WP:BATTLEGROUND expressed. After I became involved, they have participated in wikihounding on my own edits and have personally attacked my edits.

    With the recent edits included above, it appears that this user is trying to game the system. I have tried to avoid becoming part of the edit warring myself and attempted dialogue on their talk page. The dialogue has shown little results. More comments and advice would be greatly appreciated.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:E.M.Gregory what evidence is there that I am hounding? Also why does the fact that It is "an AfD where SPAs, IPs and editors who are clearly NOTHERE have weighed in." matter? ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:E.M.Gregory. A shared interest in the Arab-Israeli Conflict proves nothing. Lets not forget that it was you who followed me to the Slate Star Codex article.ApolloCarmb (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And tagged it for notability. You provoked my curiosity with your unusual editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are my experiences of ApolloCarmb wikihounding as well. I made edits to the corruption in Nicaragua article and they followed me there. My edits on Medal of Valor (Peru), which was only recently created by me at the time, was also hounded. They also hounded on the UNASUR article. Here are multiple other instances ([1], [2], [3]) It is a constant hounding by Apollo and it still continues today.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ZiaLater as I have already told you numerous times, a shared interest in South America proves nothing. It is really you who is wikihounding me.ApolloCarmb (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    As I can see from this recent edit, it appears that ApolloCarmb is here for a single purpose as I was easily able to verify the material from the source. With ApolloCarmb saying this was "not in given source" is either lazy reading at best or biased lying at worst. They do not recognize the contents of sources and if it does not fit into their belief, they attempt to minimize its verifiability with weasel wording or other unnecessary wording. Any instances of confrontation are replied with excuses of "coincidence" or "accident". This has happened too often to not be intentional, hence why I believe this user is Wikipedia:NOTHERE.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ZiaLater as everybody can see you followed me to that article and reverted me which is yet more evidence of wikihounding. Simply saying "according to" is necessary for NPOV and verifability. One source saying x is y is not grounds to say x is y.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not attempting to wikihound, I'm trying to maintain these reliably sourced articles. After noticing your contentious behavior, I have been monitoring your edits when needed. You removed sourced information in that edit and have performed edits in a similar manner in the past as well. Also, what?----ZiaLater (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, ApolloCarmb is still harassing well-established users. After being politely informed that the user is not the best with English, ApolloCarmb continued to insult the user. The user has continued with WP:Harassment and this cannot be allowed any longer.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ZiaLater, dude........what? Ok I am going to say this as politely as possible and hold my tongue because you are really starting to pis me off. EDITING SOUTH AMERICAN POLITICS ARTICLES IS NOT HARASSMENT. IF I MODIFY AN EDIT THAT SOMEONE MADE TO A SOUTH AMERICAN POLITICS ARTICLE IT IS BECAUSE THESE ARTICLES ARE ON MY WATCHLIST. IF MULTIPLE USERS EDIT THE SAME TOPIC THEY ARE BOUND TO RUN INTO EACHOTHER. CAN I BE ANY CLEARER??? Regarding me "insulting" Jamez42, I did not know what he was trying to say because english is not his first language, merely conveying to him that I did not know what he was saying is not "personal attacks".ApolloCarmb (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ApolloCarmb, you could have just as easily stated "Hey, I did not understand this edit. Could you please explain it to me?" instead of you saying "Please stop adding gibberish that makes no sense in the english language". Also, if you were familiar with internet etiquette, you would know that using all caps is associated with argumentative behavior. Your actions are not helping.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    My response

    I reverted you twice on the Nicolas Maduro article, you are really overreacting. As for the Leader of the Workers' Party of Korea article you will see that it was the other user who was edit warring without a consensus (look at the edit history). How is me saying I edit socialist figures me confessing I am an "SPA". If you actually bothered to look at my edit history you would have seen I have edit a wide range of topics.

    You have no ground to say I am wikihounding. I edit South American politics articles, so do you, therefore we run into each other. With regards to my supposed "battleground behaviour" I am only new and am improving as I go along. I think I am not fully aware of the rules.ApolloCarmb (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Wingwraith (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Workers' Party of Korea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Trust Is All You Need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [11]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [12]
    2. [13]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None but the user was previously warned to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block.

    Comments:
    The user should be blocked for his/her edit warring with User:Miacek on the related article. Even though the edits do not meet the revert count stipulation for a 3RR violations report, the blatant disregard for a previous administrative ruling in which s/he was warned to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block that the user has demonstrated should be enough to override the strict procedural requirements for a valid filing of an edit-warring violations report. It should also be noted that the transgression was entirely predictable as the user signaled through his/her comments on the comments section of that ruling that s/he would refuse to acknowledge its validity. (e.g. "EdJohnston (the adjudicating administrator), if you're going to be an administrator you might as well do a good job instead of acting ignorant." and "I don't accept your conclusion"). It is clear that User:Trust Is All You Need has no intention of editing constructively on Wikipedia and I would suggest (at the least) a topic ban on all politics-related articles to be enforced against that user. Wingwraith (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    To that I'll say I was bringing the article back to consensu... There have been 6-7 conversations about this on the talk page... Secondly, I readded the old lead to the article which was factually better and was in line with the article. The new lead mentioned things that weren't in the body... At last, the article has at the very bottom a renowned scholar accusing the WPK of far-right policies. My behaviour on the CP of the Soviet Union should be righly criticised. Here, however, everything is in order. There has been reached several consensuses on the talk page... What is the point of consensus and debates if they always collapse because people forget to check in?
    And Wingwraith, stop this bad faith campaign to block me.. At least I'm making WP better. The only thing you are doing is trying to block me, and engage in edit warring.. What else have you been doing on WP as of late? --TIAYN (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Wingwraith has asked me on my talk page to comment. I agree that the listed edits, especially the second one, are troubling. This has been going on for years now. Trust Is All You Need can edit constructively but at times he lets his politics influence his editing. E.g. he's keen on downplaying the leftist character of North Korea and its ruling Workers Party (diff 2). I suggest a short temporary topic ban from everything related to communist parties as a last warning (he has already been blocked a hell of a lot of times).Miacek (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Prospective administrators should note that a sockpuppet report has been filed against User:Trust Is All You Need here. Wingwraith (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to the above, User:Trust Is All You Need has continued to edit war here, here, here and here despite being warned by @EdJohnston: to get prior consensus for his/her change(s) on article talk page(s) or risk incurring a block. Wingwraith (talk) 06:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, no. See, for instance I had to revert an edit by Andrey Vyshinsky because he has written (or defends) this statement; "His theoretical works justify mass repressions".. The correct answer is this, "As a Marxist–Leninist legal theorists his theoretical work justified using state as an instrumental weapon to defend the socialist nature of the state, and oppress its attackers".. He doesn't justify mass repression, he justifies the class dictatorship (every state according to Marxist theory is led by a ruling class), has to defend its class nature by force if necessary. The interesting thing here is that that standpoints directly leads to repression because, if you have a paranoid party elite, its very easy to find class opponents who try to change the nature of the state. So no, he didn't justify state repression, he justified that the socialist state should be legitimately allowed to defend its class dictatorship (its socialist nature). @Miacek:....
    The thing is, these arguments are factual, and I'm the one with the facts here... I've written about it here User:Trust Is All You Need/Socialism (sourced, referenced by academic writing). The source which Miacek uses is neither as biased or bad. A quick Google translate will prove that too.
    As for my blocks, the last time was 2014... --TIAYN (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What you added in your last semi-revert, is a blatant misrepresentation of the source (written by the deputy prosecutor general of Russia!), whereby you're whitewashing Soviet purges ("state as an instrumental weapon to defend the socialist nature of the state, and oppress its attackers."). This has to stop.Miacek (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    YOu have to be kidding me @Miacek:?
    1. The Soviet Union is one of history's most repressive state... and a state that committed mass murder!
    2. I don't defend mass murderes and I don't intend to whitewash history!
    3. At last, unlike Miacek, I like to stay with the facts. I don't think I need to simplify in order to inform readers that the Soviet system didn't work. Vyshinsky's theoretical work and Soviet legal theory did lead to repression and mass murder on a massive scale. That is indeed correct!! You will however not find "I support mass repression" in Vyshinsky's work or in any other Soviet legal scholars work. Their theories did lead to repression because the ruling class (and their representative, the ruling party) were above the legal system.
    4. Stop this, its pathetic! Its not my fault that the Workers' Party of Korea removed all references to communism in their party charter. Thats not my fault, thats fact. Its not my faulth either that their only guiding ideology is Kimilsungism-Kimjongilism. So don't say I'm trying anything
    5. yes, North Korea is, if you analyse the political institutions, a socialist state (a broken one), but a socialist state indeed. The whole state system is modelled on the Soviet system. The only difference is that the party has been replaced by the Kim family.
    --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – 48 hours. Long term pattern of revert warring, especially on articles about ruling Communist parties such as Worker's Party of Korea, Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Chinese Communist Party. (The last of these articles was fully protected by me due to a previous AN3 complaint about TIAYN). I'm also alerting this editor to the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE since at least Soviet Communism falls under that case. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ringthrust reported by User:Miacek (Result: Blocked indef)

    Page: Jüri Ratas' cabinet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ringthrust (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. [15]
    2. [16] (note the bogus edit summary, he did not "restore" anything)
    3. [17]
    4. [18] (note the bogus edit summary, he did not "restore" anything but removed sourced information)
    5. [19]
    6. [20]
    7. [21]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

    Comments:
    This user is following me across Wikipedia and blindly reverting me to spark edit wars. He's clearly a sock puppet of someone, cf. the wiki term "rv" in his 4th edit[23]. A clear disruption-only account. Miacek (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Further to the above I have filed a sockpuppet report against User:Ringthrust here. Wingwraith (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefblocked as a confirmed sock, the report can be closed.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: initial edit 05:07, 20 April 2018 -- placing aramaic transliteration ("Yeshua") as first word and adding "the" in "Jesus Christ"

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 06:42, 20 April 2018 -- adding "Yeshua" infobox title, adding content referring to contemporary Judaism as "pharisees"
    2. diff 07:51, 20 April 2018 -- dropping Yeshua issue, now restoring "pharisee" business
    3. diff 01:48, 23 April 2018-- similar change, changing WL to Judaism to Rabbinic Judaism and changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church which is a disambig page. In an FA.
    4. diff 05:41, 23 April 2018 -- restoring "the" in their "Jesus (the) Christ"
    5. diff 01:36, 24 April 2018 -- restoring "the" in their "Jesus (the) Christ" and again changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church
    6. diff 05:36, 24 April 2018 --again changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church
    7. diff 00:43, 25 April 2018 -- again changing a good WL Christian Church to just Church
    8. diff 02:23, 3 May 2018 -- same as intitial edit above -- placing aramaic transliteration ("Yeshua") as first word and adding "the" in "Jesus Christ"
    9. diff 02:36, 3 May 2018 - putting back the "rabbinic" thing mentioned above.
    10. diff 11:18, 3 May 2018 -- drastic diff series, with edit note in first diff mocking problems with their aggressiveness

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several sections at Talk page.
    Comments:
    This is an FA and this editor has been editing aggressively for a couple of weeks now. They are not getting it, that on an FA they need to be way less aggressive and much more consensus-driven. Many of the issues over which they are obsessing (aramaic name, "Jesus (the) Christ", the rabbinic/pharisee thing, are idiosyncratic and not driven by sources and have no consensus. Their talk page discussion is raw assertions (not source driven) like this and this and this Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Of 19 (Result: No violation)

    Page: Premier Development League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Walter Görlitz (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. [24]
    2. [25]
    3. [26]
    4. [27]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    Comments:
    This user and his IP have been constantly removing the sourced fact that the league is a mens league without any discussion. The only discussion he has left me was in an edit note that stated say this with the kindest intent, you're simply wrong". Besides continually deleting my basic, sourced, edit, the user was very aggressive and arrogant and refused to use the talk page.Of 19 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, "my IP" would be in Vancouver, BC, Canada, and the actual 195.59.186.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was from England, so it wasn't me. The WP:POINTY editing in the lede by Of 19 goes against WP:NOTNEWS. I added content to a location where it makes sense. The first warning, was not a diff of edit warring but a claim that I was vandalizing the article by explaining why the pointy edits should exist. I'd be happy to actually discuss, but the discussion makes more sense at WP:FOOTY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Magnacartalibertatum reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page: Involuntary celibacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Magnacartalibertatum (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
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:

    User:206.47.42.10 reported by User:Bpcarney (Result: No violation)

    Page: The Tyee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 206.47.42.10 (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. 2018-05-04T15:21:55 (UTC)
    2. 2018-04-30T20:31:24 (UTC)
    3. 2018-04-23T20:16:18 (UTC)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: <none>

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

    First revert by a user on their vandal edit noted that "Previous entry stated that The Tyee is a 'far left' publication. That's entirely subjective and not something that can be stated as a verifiable fact, and is an opinion."

    Comments: Same clown repeatedly adding "far left" and "extreme left" in place of independent media

    @Bpcarney: First, edit warring is more than three reverts. This is only three. Second, an edit war is more than three edits in a twenty-four hour period. The anon from Calgary has made the three edits in just under a fortnight. Third, no edit warnings were placed on the editor's talk page. Fourth, the ANI notice wasn't placed on the editor's talk page. I just placed it there.
    Page protection may be a better option. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    unregistered user 2601:14F:4501:8DF8:E192:2A11:4566:7A6D deleting wikipage material without substantiation 3 times (Result: Declined – malformed report)

    User 2601:14F:4501:8DF8:E192:2A11:4566:7A6D is trying to unilaterally delete a valid reference to a Wikipedia page without explanation. This is the only wiki page editing done by this unregistered user.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:14F:4501:8DF8:E192:2A11:4566:7A6D

    Rsarlls (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Rsarlls: First, edit warring is more than three reverts. This is only three. Second, WP:EL is fairly clear what should and should not be in an external links section. There is nothing encyclopedic about the link so it is quite reasonable to remove it. I just did so. Third, the warnings placed on the editor's talk page were incorrect. The first one placed (but @ScrapIronIV: appears to have been a level two warning. The edit warring notice was appropriate, but reporting here wasn't (see the first point). Fourth, the notice for where to explain wasn't placed on the editor's talk page. I just placed it there. Is there anything else to this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. NeilN talk to me 13:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Doc James reported by User:Vitreology (Result: both editors warned)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [30]

    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: [34]

    Comments:

    Vitreology (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting that I was the one who started the conversation on the talk page.
    And that you had not replied to my concerns but simple continue to revert.
    You only replied after you opened this. Not exactly the correct process.
    Also you brought this here after I warned you.[35]
    Plus I did not make 4 reverts.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact here is: I'm trying to make constructive revisions.
    User:Doc James has reverted my edits 3 times. I have only reverted 2 times.
    After the first revert by User:Doc James, I asked him to desist from doing so.
    After the second revert, I explained that I needed User:Doc James to not revert me because I was going to add the page numbers to the revision. I just needed a few moments to add the page numbers to the reference. I also warned him against edit warring. In spite of this, he reverted me a 3rd time, ignoring this request.
    I would like to make some constructive changes to the article to address the citation concerns raised by User:Doc James, but I refuse to engage in an edit war.
    Well you could address the concerns I had raised on the talk page rather than continuing to revert.
    You still have not address the concerns on the talk page, which are more than not using a page number.
    Plus you have still not provided a page number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Vitreology, why not just add the pages numbers at the same time? If you had done this to start with, all this could have been avoided? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Martinevans123 if you've looked at the Diffs, this is clearly not just about page numbers. I encourage you to look. In any event, the absence of a page number in a citation is not grounds for a revert. Vitreology (talk) 10:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The explainations given for the first two reverts by User:Doc James was:

    1. "was much simplier before"
    2. "You need to format your references and include page numbers"

    Grounds for revert? Vitreology (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I tend to agree with him on both counts. And your "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" doesn't look to me like a very optimistic or collaborative attempt. Just sayin' Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you John. Seems leopards never change their spots. [36] Vitreology (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:46.208.188.159 and User:46.208.175.215 reported by User:Philip Cross (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Oliver Kamm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 46.208.188.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [and multiple other IPs who are possibly the same user]

    Previous version reverted to: [37]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [38]
    1. [39]
    2. [40]


    The editor then changed their IP address, but it remains within the same block of 46.208. as IP: 46.208.175.215, and must thus almost certainly be the same user trying to evade 3RR

    1. [41]

    The editor would appear to have changed their ISP so edits are now traceable via IP 150.143.63.108 , but the location of the IP is as before and content of the edit remains the same

    1. [42]

    The editor would appear to have changed their IP 146.200.206.41, but the location of the IP is as before and content remains the same [An apparent new user made 1 edit

    1. [43]
    2. [44]

    The editor would appear to have changed their IP 46.208.174.74, but the location of the IP is as before and content remains the same

    1. [45]
    2. [46]
    3. [47]
    4. [48]
    5. [49]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [50] [I explain that I have myself broken 3RR, claiming exemption #7. The addition of the same material has already led to a block on a user (who may be the same editor or a meatpuppet) for inappropriate edits on the page this week and are covered at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive366#User:Leftworks1 reported by User:Philip Cross(Result: Blocked 48 hours) and an editing restriction on the article blocking changes by new or registered users for two days. I should add that I have a COI issue, as the plaintiff (Neil Clark) in a forthcoming court case against Oliver Kamm, which is the subject of the improperly cited material, has repeatedly mentioned me in derogatory terms on his blog and Twitter.] Philip Cross (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:103.230.21.185 reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: Page protected)

    Page: Munda people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 103.230.21.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [51]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [52]
    2. [53]
    3. [54]
    4. [55]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

    Comments:

    Only edit warring. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:172.56.35.238 reported by User:Arms & Hearts (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Mat (picture framing) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    172.56.35.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid acknowledged POV vandalism"
    2. 12:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Notability is only a standard for subjects of stand-alone articles"
    3. 12:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Wasn't aware 172.56.35.238 was banned and at any rate whether editor is a fool is irrelevant bias. Only content should be analyzed."
    4. 12:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "Beyond My Ken vandalizes pages by removing info with no more rationale than it concerns someone he doesn't like. This is POV editing."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mat (picture framing). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    The tool for creating this report, which I've never used before, insists that I provide evidence that I've personally attempted to resolve a dispute in which I haven't (beyond a single revert) been involved and in which one editor is demonstrably on the wrong side of WP:3RR. I don't really see the why making such an attempt would be necessary (or, at least, why it would be incumbent upon me specifically) or a productive use of my time. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 1 week for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wolf Cola reported by User:Kishfan (Result: Closed)

    Page: Mohammed Rafi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Wolf Cola

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

    Comments:
    Pinging the crazy-haired admin for input. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    NeilN - ROAR, I am the crazy-hair admin! Why have you summoned meeee?!! Yeah, so this has been handled. I ran into this debacle today and saw that it was an edit war over content, and I blocked both users as a result. Wolf Cola appealed with an unblock request and stated that he believed the other user to one of others that were causing disruption and alongside sock puppet accounts. I had Wolf Cola promise me to stop reverting that article, and I unblocked immediately afterwards. He understands that he dun goof'd in this situation and that this wasn't a situation to repeatedly revert over (even if the account was a IP hopper / banned user - which I haven't gone to figure out). Looking at his contributions and experience, I can definitely tell that he performs well with counter-vandalism and handling disruption; he's just not yet experienced with situations where the suspicion is present but the edits and the behavior aren't blatantly obvious, and that's where this comes in and why this report was filed. Wolf Cola graciously accepted my offer to help train and mentor him, and I feel that he understands to be mindful of what he's reverting in the future regardless of suspicions. Should it please and sparkle the jury, I recommend that we consider this matter resolved and closed ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure that close is longer than any five of mine combined here. --NeilN talk to me 22:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No charge for going beyond my character limit, right? ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, may I know the reason why admin Oshwah is so much on the side of user Wolf Cola? User Wolf Cola deliberately removed sourced material from Playback singer and then he intentionally removed the sourced material from Honorific nicknames in popular music which I reverted. Moreover, admin Oshwah immediately unblocked user Wolf Cola and started supporting him here [63] which was unwarranted. Plus he added the same pov statement in Mohammad Rafi which was removed by me. Last but not the least, when I reported user Wolf Cola for sock puppetry, this admin immediately closed the investigation without blocking Wolf Cola. Atleast he would have investigated user Wolf Cola, his talk page is full of warnings which clearly tells that he has been vandalizing the wikipedia whole time. Please answer my questions if you think I deserve a reply.Kishfan (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kishfan: I think you're awfully familiar with Wikipedia processes for someone who has 44 edits in total. And stop with the vandalism accusations before you are blocked. Oshwah handled the situation perfectly properly. --NeilN talk to me 23:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN Thank you very much, I already new the answer. And on what account would you like to block me? For asking a question. Very funny and thanks once again for your kind reply.Kishfan (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kishfan: Repeatedly accusing another editor of vandalizing in what is essentially a content dispute is seen as a personal attack which results in blocks. --NeilN talk to me 23:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NeilN, emptiness of your reply is well heard. You take good care of your self.Kishfan (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Enough. I'm sorry that you're unhappy with how I handled the situation here and chose to educate and help the user instead of being punitive, I really am. But that's not how blocks should be used, and it's certainly not how I choose to use them to enforce policy when it involves a user who made an honest mistake. I will choose to assume good faith, help the user to understand what happened, brush them off, unblock them a few minutes later, and encourage them to move on, don't feel bad, and turn the situation into a positive learning experience - and I'll give hours of my time to do that any day before I want to consider otherwise ;-). You can be as upset and insulting as you want toward me; it won't hurt my feelings one bit. But when you start acting chippy toward another editor who isn't myself and because they're telling you how the case was handled and because you didn't see the punishment handed out the way you wanted, that's not going to fly. This discussion is now closed. Thank you for filing this report (yes, it was a legitimate report to file and I do appreciate that a lot); it's time to move on now :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad to exercise my right to ask. It is amusing that you are so merciful with some editors and trust me, I did move on. Just wanted to know the reason. Kishfan (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vanguard10 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: )

    Page: SeaTac/Airport station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Vanguard10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 22:10, May 2

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:42, May 3
    2. 20:45, May 4
    3. 00:10, May 5
    4. 15:17, May 5

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page discussion

    Comments: The editor asserts that this set of bus stops is too far to be considered part of the station, despite having dedicated infrastructure (in the form of a pedestrian bridge) and acknowledged by the transit operator (Sound Transit) as part of the station; everything down to the public art in the adjacent plaza and the drop-off area is considered "part" of the station by Sound Transit and third-party media outlets. The editor has not shown sufficient coverage that supports their claim that the bus stops are not part of the station itself.

    The user has also made attempts to canvass other users (see here) and has asserted ownership (see this discussion on my talk page) of aviation articles in general. All of this comes in an attempt to take the article to FAC, despite having no previous role in editing the article. SounderBruce 22:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am deeply disappointed that SounderBruce has taken this issue to this board, which could be considered drama or over aggressive use of Wikipedia disciplinary proceedings. I was thinking that a RFC would be more appropriate but, exercising restraint, was continuing discussion to avoid even that.
    I originally considered SounderBruce to be an esteemed Wikipedian due to his many transit articles but am increasing concerned that those transit articles occur because of low participation, allowing him to assert ownership of articles. While I take his opinion into account and then suggest alternate or compromise wording, he just uses Twinkle to revert it. Instead, discussion and alternate wordings are a better form to allow discussion. I am an editor who has brought articles to FA and GA and seek collegial discussion to make articles FA and GA, in addition to having made more edits to the article than anybody else, except SounderBruce.
    This noticeboard is not to discuss what the edit conflicts are but I will summarize. SounderBruce appears to want a grandiose view of the light rail station, saying many bus lines serve the station. The Port of Seattle, the government organization that owns the airport, writes that there are bus lines adjacent to the station. To get to the bus stops from the station, you have to exit the station by crossing the street on an overpass then re-cross the street back for the southbound buses. This may be why the Port of Seattle doesn't write that the bus stop inside the station. SounderBruce, without documentation or proof, just speculates and dismisses this as an "intern" writing for the Port of Seattle. I am very flexible, phrasing things in different way, often using the word "adjacent", which SounderBruce objects to.
    I still am hopeful for cooperative discussion. However, this noticeboard report should be closed as inappropriate at this time and all parties encouraged to cooperate and seek peaceful resolution by discussion (talk page discussion or, failing that, RFC). To maintain enthusiasm for Wikipedia, I ask that no sanctions be taken against SounderBruce. Please close this complaint and encourage cooperation. Vanguard10 22:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were an administrator or had some sort of managerial capacity in Wikipedia, I would encourage both editors, who are good article writers and have brought articles to FA/GA (SounderBruce on transit, Vanguard10 on aviation) to try to work things out and, if a genuine effort fails, try the airport and transit wikiprojects for advice, or even RFC. I would discourage quick Twinkle reverts. I would close this report as technically failing 3RR and no 3RR warning. A non-standard resolution would be to also suggest a talk page discussion with each editor writing three sample versions, which would encourage them to think about alternatives. Vanguard10 23:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kishfan reported by User:HFM Expert (Result: )

    Page: Playback singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kishfan (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. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]
    4. [67]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

    Comments:
    I have reported the ip and his editor for sock puppetry. I did not involve in any sort of edit war. I have only reverted the obvious vandalism which is not edit war. This user HFM Expert has a history of sock puppetry and edit war here [70] and was also blocked.Kishfan (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, evidence is clearly there of you engaging in disruptive editing and continually reverting edits, you have therefore violated the three revert rule in the process. This was the reason that a edit warring investigation was opened against you. Also, kindly do not go around making baseless accusations against other users whether it is me or anyone else, as this is also an offence that can result in you getting blocked. HFM Expert (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=839903289"