Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Demong reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page: The Satanic Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Demong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "There is plenty of discussion. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or *restores* material; if you think it should be restored, please comment on the Talk page."
20:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "removing instead of rewording, discussion on Talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Members do not necessarily identify as Satanists
- 1 The objection has nothing to do with public relations, it's about the question, and the fact that the answer is taken out of its context. Please address that on the Talk page, and stop unilaterally adding this. ("This edit has been debated at length" is m
- 2 please do not revert this edit; see Talk page
- 3 removing instead of rewording, discussion on Talk page
- 4 There is plenty of discussion. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or *restores* material; if you think it should be restored, please comment on the Talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Long, drawn-out "discussions" on:

Comments:

This article appears to be the target of wp:MEAT - see WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple

Discussion that Demong disagrees with are, well, irrelevant. i.e wp:Tendentious editing

User Demong repeatedly removes well-sourced content such as:

User Demong considers stating that the name "Greaves" and others are pseudonyms is not acceptable even though well-sourced and Greaves is open about it. That is also sourced.
- 1 Reverting this edit would be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and etiquette. Please comment on the Talk page instead.
- 2 This is unnecessary and vaguely negative. Many creators and performers use a pen- or stage-name; the article about them can list their given name, it is not mentioned whenever the name is, on other articles.
- 3 Please point to any other article that includes such a parenthetical note. I predict no such example exists.

Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are 4 edits over 3 days. Jim, I have to say I've not really understood some of your actions at this article. We had one SPA come in and start heavily editing the article with a particular point running through all of his edits: to remove the idea that TST=Satanism and/or a religion. When an editor (another SPA) contested some of those (this is back in November), providing clear reasons, you reverted with edit summary "unexplained content removal" rather than going with BRD (i.e. newly added material should be justified on the talk page and something like consensus emerge before restoring). You then, along with both of the other editors, violated 3RR on that day. Here we have 4 edits over 3 days contesting the same material, along with active talk page discussions, but it's still the other party's fault for challenging it? I'm not saying you're doing anything in bad faith here, but the initial POV-push and majority of MEAT puppetry is going on on the "other side". That's not to say there's no problem to see here, but that 3RR isn't one of them at this point. This page still desperately needs more voices, and not to block one side of a very MEATy dispute (the side that is challenging the changes). Update: Nevermind what I said about problems on either "side" -- there are clearly issues on all "sides" here, and there's it's a stretch to say there are more problems on one side... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. This situation is better suited for dispute resolution. clpo13_(talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merlin Immanuel reported by User:James Allison (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]
[3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

Merlin Immanuel repeatedly removed appropriate scholarly context to this article's topic and replaces it with close paraphrasing that violates the copyright of the denomination discussed in the article. They describe said context as "in grievance" or "hurting [...] belief[s]" [sic] and do not appear to understand WP's encyclopedic purpose or WP:NOTCENSORED. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. These reverts also happened six days ago. Consider dispute resolution if the talk page discussion is not proving fruitful. clpo13_(talk) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Julioxo reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to

00:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Venezuela. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has been conducting a slow-speed edit war at this article since January 10, repeatedly reverting to a much-outdated version from mid-December, and has failed to discuss any of their edits on this article's (nor any other) Talk page despite being reverted by multiple editors. ~~Though I have not reverted the editor myself,~~ their version contains factual errors (Julio Borges is no longer President of the Venezuelan National Assembly) and adds multiple photo galleries to what is already a bloated article. In any case, editor apparently refuses to accept the consensus version nor to make any effort to change consensus. General Ization ^Talk 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not sure why this editor is reverting to an older version that is out dated ...nor why they are adding 60 plus images. Editor is simply not here - despite many edit summaries to join talks the editor has not ONE time used talk pages...nor have they even tried to explain their edits with edit summaries. My guess is English is not their mother tong so they cant reply as they have no clue the problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted the editor's latest reversion, after they have (now twice) reverted since I placed a warning on their talk page, and once since they were notified of this report. General Ization ^Talk 22:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours To start. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:188.162.195.70 reported by User:Ssr (Result: Warned user(s))

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=prev&oldid=820401250

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Astra_Linux&diff=next&oldid=820745383

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (see summaries)

Comments:

The anonymous user 188.162.195.70 is trying to insert unsourced and dubious content and resists by multiple undos. Argues at edit summaries. --ssr (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warned The IP editor was not notified of Wikipedia's edit warring policies before this report was made. I've warned them and I'll give some advice regarding original research. Please update this discussion if they continue reverting. clpo13_(talk) 23:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! ~~The content the user tries to insert needs to be removed. Can I do that? It is now present at the article.~~ --ssr (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made further analysis and have a brief question regarding removal of a problematic paragraph: Talk:Astra_Linux#GPL. --ssr (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see, the IP editor have added further texts both at talk page and here, breaking talk formatting. Please give advice what to do. --ssr (talk) 04:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an "anonymous" user who added information about misleading licensing claims by astra linux. I'm not reverting or inserting unclaimed information. The information is being reverted immediately by people associated with the Astra Linux organization. I'm an Open Source engineer and a licensing specialist. I have no account on wikipedia. I did provide 3 links to confirm the text I was trying to attach. One of the links from astra linux site - an official statement of the company about its licensing restrictions. It's an authoritive source. The other two links are from wikipedia itself - about GPL licensing and from gnu.org site about gpl licensing. I guess all three links are authoritive. From my text it is transparent and clear, that Astra Linux violates the GPL licensed software it's using. The three links if you open and read them just prove that. What is the reason of removing my edit? It is correct and have authoritive links attached! I can see a violation and misuse of wikipedia here by some editors one of whom claims to be a russian government representative on wikipedia (astra associate itself with russian gov) and the other one is an editor with a couple reverts from astra linux wiki page, made long time ago, again from the part concerning violations. He should be an astra linux employee I guess. To me it seems that the company behind Astra Linux does it best to hide its violations, since I've demonstrated an authoritive sources and a factual text about violations and got back nothing except blind removals. No forums, no guesses. Exact statements with urls to sources! This case should be reported to senior wikipedia editors. The current wikipedia article about Astra Linux is MISLEADING. The licensing violation information should get back188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ssr stop breaking formating back!! I accedentally break formatting having no experience with wikipedia. I fixed that immediately after your notice. Why you keep breaking it again? Why are you misleading the discussion from the original topic on violations? What are your points to the actual discussion? 188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not do anything, you should read manual before trying to make complex actions on Wikipedia. --ssr (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did not plan to get involved in any kind of wars here. I've made a quick authorative edit to help the community out. Editing wikipedia and getting into discussions here is not my job. I do not care about the company behind Astra Linux either. As I said, I'm an Open Source developer and a licensing specialists and I care about intellectual rights of Open Source developers and Open Source Community. When I see a violation and a misleading information on wiki - I do an edit. I hope senior members would get to manage this case further. Without me. Here is the original text and original links attached to the Astra Linux wiki page that SHOULD be discussed HERE. Thank you. "The legal question concerning the licensing enforced by JSC "NPO RusBITEch" (http://www.astra-linux.com/license-se.html) looks at least suspective and should be further investigated. The company is using Free and Open Source Software (from Linux Kernel to LibreOffice) in Astra Linux distribution that is licensed by respective authors with different licences, including GPL^[1]. The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is a widely used free software license, which guarantees end users the freedom to run, study, share and modify the software. But the above link from Astra Linux official site has an explicit statement, that customers are not allowed to distribute, modify or resell software, or even install additional copies. That is the direct violation of at least the GPL license. JSC "NPO RusBITEch" has indeed a right to distribute its own fully commercial software with closed source but in this case it should respect the licences of the Open Source libraries they are using, some of them my prohibit inclusion in commercial software. Moreover any derivatives or modifications to Open Source Software requires the distributor to provide the source code of those modifications to requesting clients, and there is no way that the distributor can enforce any of the statements from the above link to this modified or derived software. That means that the company cannot make any modifications to existing Open Source Software and then distribute the OS package with the above Astra Linux license statement. That is exactly what gnu.org site says on it licensing page^[2]" 188.162.195.70 (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - You "did not plan to get involved in any kind of wars here" but that's what you have yourself started. I am awaiting for admins to give advice about what to do. --ssr (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        An admin already has, but since you seem to need more clarification: we do not place blocks without prior warning except in extreme cases of vandalism or disruption. This by no means fits that description. @Ssr: I'm going to have to ask you to cool off on this user quite a bit. We are not going to attract new editors by biting their heads off when they're simply trying to help. How about leaving your axe at the door, and perhaps trying to help this editor learn how to improve their use of our site's tools and familiarization with policy? Think back to your first edit ever here and remember just how you would feel if someone had been this abrasive to you the first time you made a mistake. I'm not absolving any wrongdoing or edit-warring, but I am stating that this really isn't so serious that tempers need to flare about it like this. We all appear to be working towards the same goal, so let's try and work together a bit more. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for the comment! Maybe I was misunderstood (I'm trying to be as brief as I can) but I'm not trying to get the user blocked. I only try to keep the article in compliance with Wikipedia rules, that's all I ask help for. As for now, the article is OK (I only talk about possible removing of a 2-sentence paragraph, if it's possible, because it's unsourced). I also propose to talk further on the talk page of the article (as soon as it's kept in normal state without non-encyclopedic WP:OR). --ssr (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        The policy No Original Research does not apply to talk pages. I would kindly ask you to renew your knowledge of Wikipedia policies. I would also suggest to furter respect the diversity value - that is about different people from different countries and cultures expressing their contributions and feelings in different ways, working towards the same goal, as was mentioned by the senior staff member. And the original article is not OK according to wikipedia policy since it already has an original research there: "JSC "NPO RusBITEch" complies with all the requirements of the GPL license". Who's cite is that, what sources does confirm that? Please add the corresponding sources to the articles or remove that line out there. I'm against removing the whole section since I'm sure there will be non-original research content there soon after the involved parties perfrom investigation on subject. Non-complying the policy of wikipedia by the editor (SORRY ABOUT THAT) does not automatically make the company compliant to GPL licensing ;-) So there is no point to remove the whole section, since it starts the discussion on the subject here and would allow further editors or license owners investigate and attract authoritive non-original sources here. You might want to copy this discussion to the Astra Linux talk page. That is what talk pages are supposed to hold - exactly these type of conversations. Posting it here just not to break the logic of discussion. Thank you and bye. 188.162.195.70 (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

User:Trevor800 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Bill Goldberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trevor800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "I SAID STOP FUCKING CHANGING MYFUCKING EDIT SHITFACE ORELSE I BLOCK YOU FROM EDITING SHITFACE YOU FUCKING JERK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "STOP FUCKING CHANGING !!!!!!!!!"
23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "EVERYBODY STOP SAYING THAT HE IS NOT INDUCTED TO THW HALL OF FAME PLEASE"
22:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "He is A WWE Hall of Famer Dummy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Bill Goldberg. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

23:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Hall of Fame */ new section"

Comments:

User continues to edit war their preferred version; also appears to be resorting to making personal attacks when they don't get their way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked this user 24 hours for the abusive edit summaries before seeing this report. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marking this report as blocked. clpo13_(talk) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gilligphantom reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820875196 by SounderBruce (talk)"
03:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820875112 by SounderBruce (talk)"
03:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820870093 by SounderBruce (talk) Your info is NOT correct. STOP editing this before I get moderators involved."
02:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Fleet */ Source used was not a reliable source and contained incorrect info. Please do not edit further until new buses come in May 2018."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cherriots. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User talk:SounderBruce#Cherriots
Edit summaries

Comments:

Editor asserts that their un-cited information should be used instead of cited (but somewhat outdated, allegedly) information from an official source. Also discussed on my talk page. Sounder Bruce 04:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't this be a cut and dry case of Original research? Sounder Bruce 06:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SounderBruce reported by User:Gilligphantom (Result: Declined – malformed report)

He keeps editing wrong information on en.wikipedia.org/Cherriots and keeps reverting in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilligphantom (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 January 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. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Postcard Cathy reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Both blocked for 3RR violations)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts

04:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820883995 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
04:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820883486 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
04:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820883054 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
04:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820880646 by ScrapIronIV School’s website indicates that degree is awarded at Walsh School. Subcategory fits."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

04:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thad McIntosh Guyer. (TW)"
04:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thad McIntosh Guyer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Refusal to discuss issues per WP:NONDEF; tried to engage, without any constructive response - simply reverting Scr★pIron^IV 04:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added the link of the diff, before this edit war. Lorstaking (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both editors blocked for violating the three-revert rule. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikidave2009 reported by User:Alwaysfairmind (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

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

00:17, 02 April 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

08:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "" Tagged as Single Purpose Account
17:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "" Raised possible conflict of interest concerns
23:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "" Started discussion on article talk page
10:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Posted on User Wikidave2009's talk page, warned and asked to stop removing content

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

23:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC) "" Article Talk page section added. User Wikidave2009 has not participated

Comments:

User Wikidave2009's contributions since 2009 have all been edits on the National Iranian American Council and its president Trita Parsi. These edits include repeated removal of credible sources in reliable outlets by prominent authors and experts. Without engaging on the talk page or providing evidence, User Wikidave2009 claims sources are not reliable and keeps repeatedly deleting well-sourced material despite attempts by several editors to create and recreate that section. User Wikidave2009's account appears to be single purpose and the continued attempt to remove unfavorable content additionally raises conflict of interest concerns. Attempts have been made both on the user's talk page and the article talk page to stop the user from removing content and engage in a discussion if the user is concerned about a particular source, but user has not responded to any of such requests. Alwaysf (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Wikidave2009 has never been warned for 3RR or edit warring, but I'm about to fix that. I considered indefinite ECP as neither user is extended confirmed and the article hasn't been substantively edited by an EC user for almost a year, but decided on two weeks of full protection instead. Stop edit warring and start discussing. Katie^talk 16:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:MSAlter reported by User:Hevernon (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff] [8]
[diff] [9]
[diff] [10]
[diff] [11]
[diff] [12]

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

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

Comments:
Reported because i can't see it ceasing. Also look back to edits from around 10th of January for indication of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hevernon (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Locked three days by Oshwah. Katie^talk 15:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:139.167.63.87 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: blocked for 31 hours )

Page: Kafir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 139.167.63.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

14:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC) - removal of sourced content which was reverted by 3 different editors.

Diffs of the user's reverts

Post report:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

14:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Kafir. (TW)"
14:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kaffir. (TW)"
14:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Violation of WP:3RR, personal attacks in summaries ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Doug Weller talk 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhiteGuy1850 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Finns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) / Mongolian spot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (see below)

User being reported: WhiteGuy1850 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Finns."
20:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Finns."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

16:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Swedish-speaking Finns */ *"Swedish-speaking Finns" (which isn't what they call themselves; their endonym "Finlandssvenskar" means "Finland-Swedes", reflecting their own views on their ethnicity...) should be mentioned in the article as being a *native"

Comments:

Editor repeatedly, and deliberately, gaming the 3RR-system by waiting out the 24 hours, and then reverting again . In spite of being told by multiple editors why their edits are wrong, and also being given a warning for disruptive editing, with a clear and unambigious explanation for why. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can add Mongolian spot to that: repeated addition of unsourced/improperly sourced material in spite of being reverted by multiple editos. Which together with the loads of other warnings on their talk page, including for repeated addition of unsourced potentially contorversial material on BLPs, makes me suspect a WP:CIR problem. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for a clear cut violation of 3RR at Mongolian spot. There's definitely an edit war going on at Finns as well, though Velivieras shares some blame for continuing that one, with a lot of back and forth between the two over the past few days without much discussion from either party until today. @WhiteGuy1850: once your block expires, you should explain your position on Talk:Finns instead of continuing to edit war. Other editors have contested your edits. clpo13_(talk) 00:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lacypaperclip reported by User:Chetsford (Result: Warned user(s))

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (all of the following time-stamped during the 15-hour period between 0702 and 2244 on 17 January 2017)

[14] – reverted edit of Artrainschool with edit summary “Please respect the instructions on the big blue and white box.”
[15] – reverted edit by Artrainschool involving the addition of a source from Time Inc.'s Uncut with edit summary "removed reference to an unreliable website which is a blog, it ks a serios blp to use a blog as a reference on a blp article, re inserting this prveviously removed blp vio" - in this revert Lacy seems to be invoking WP:NOT3RR, however, that shouldn't apply - the article was written by the editor of Uncut [16] per WP:NEWSBLOG and did not deal with biographical data (the text in question was "Uncut named the group's album Simultonality in their "Best albums of 2017".")
[17] – undid insertion of an article on Uncut by Artrainschool (the same article and supporting text as above)
[18] - undid insertion of an article on Uncut by Artrainschool (the same article and supporting text as above)
[19] – reverted an edit by Artrainschool (the addition of a source from NPR [20]) with edit summary “you have made 3 in use violations today, please self revert the three or more of todays violation. You made at least 4 to 5 violations yesterday. If you do not self-revert these (in use) violations, I will take this to ANI”
[21] – undid Artrainschool’s [22] insertion of a New York Times source with edit summary “only one review per person will be used”

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The 3RR noticeboard notice is differed here: [23]. I also believe Lacypaperclip was aware of the 3RR rule as she templated Artrainschool’s user talk page with a 3RR template [24]. I also left a note on Lacy’s talk page [25] that said “we obviously need to be a little sensitive about the volume of reverts going on” which I believe she read since she hatted it. [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I posted a general appeal for discussion on the article’s Talk page [27].

Comments:
I'm relatively uninvolved in this article other than in a cursory fashion. I approved it through AfC, made a few edits to it yesterday, and then registered a !vote at its AfD. The sweeping changes that have gone on today, though, have resulted in a somewhat neat and concise article converted from Prose to a bullet-point list and makes it a bit difficult for uninvolved editors to properly evaluate at AfD; the continuation of these huge edits/reverts makes it doubly difficult to follow. I believe Artrainschool may have also committed 3RR as well but haven't had a chance to closely review the edit history yet, as it's become very long. Will try to get to it. Best - Chetsford (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Lacypaperclip has filed an SPI against me. Out of respect for her filing, and to prevent escalation or cross-pollination of these issues, I'm not going to post further here and will probably not check it again, however, please ping me if my attention is needed. Chetsford (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update @Chetsford:, SPI closed with no evidence. Looking at the issue in question here, I would say WP:GF on all sides, with some WP:BLP issues arising during a large edit. I would therefore air towards leninecy. However, ~~raising~~ filing the SPI does seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 02:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, in Lacypaperclip's defense, I didn't mean to imply she had filed it in retaliation as the timestamps seem to indicate we were working on each of these reports within minutes of each other. I was only noting that as a reason it would be best for me to withdraw here; that is, to avoid escalation since I'm no longer an uninvoloved party (having initially been an uninvolved third-party in this 3RR filing). Chetsford (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lacypaperclip, adding an in use tag does not give you ownership of article content while you edit. You also have no posts on the talk page. Care to comment? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lacypaperclip's SPI filing against Chetsford was declined which I think was a correct judgment on the quality of the evidence. The sequence of events narrated in the SPI does raise some questions about Lacypaperclip's behavior, which we might look into here if it was very blatant. But since the reverting at Natural Information Society has not continued in the last 12 hours there is less need for blocks or protection to stop the edit war. I've notified User:Artrainschool that they were mentioned in this report. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, NeilN, TonyBalonni, Primefac My response to all these baseless allegations was posted by me at 23:43 UTC time. I looked over the history for this page, and I cannot see any history for ten minute period that seems to be maybe be hidden so only admins may see it. Surely someone would not blank anything out. I would ask for an investigation as to why my defense post was either deleted or perhaps removed by accident. Thank you. Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's convenience, here is my defense post that was posted here by me @ 23:43 UTC time:

"This vague edit warring report filed by Chetsford, was filed in retaliatory fashion AFTER he found out that an SPI report had been filed regarding him. Chetsford somehow found out the report had been filed with a no ping filter at SPI. I suspect that since he likely did not find the report via a ping, the other possible way he found out is he has been WP:WIKISTALKING and WP:WIKIHOUNDING me via obsessively punching refresh on my special contributions page, since the day I published the article James D. Zirin via my role as a AFC reviewer. The Zirin article was a draft at AFC, which he had previously declined to published. At that time he began a campaign of harassment towards me, ultimately perhaps caused him to retailiate by filing a vague edit warring report against me. By the way I only made 2 reverts. He mentions in the report that also said another editor editing the same article may also be guilty of edit warring, but he had not really looked over that editor's history or something like that. Very vague indeed. O, btw, that other editor was one of the possible multiple accounts he possibly may be controlling and using in an abusive manner. But I digress. Pinging editors that have been working to squash these multiple accounts and the harassment, WP:WIKISTALKING, and WP:WIKIHOUNDING that I have been enduring. NeilN, Primefac, TonyBallioni " Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warned please don’t engage in edit warring behavior whether or not it is within 3RR. Since the reverts have stopped, I’m closing with a warning not to do so in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment Coincidentally there also there seemed to be some strange phenomenon that occurred at wikipedia's servers. Was there a lightening storm there? I only ask because my lengthy evidence report at the infamous SPI reporting Chetsford seemed to also disappear for a chunk of time. Then later the CU closed the report as closed with a snarky comment of poorly prepared or something to that effect. And CU said no evidence. There was plenty of evidence, but the same sort of unusual circumstances occurred at SPI as did here. Assuming AGF, I hope all these "mix-ups" can be sussed out. Happy Thursday to all! Lacypaperclip (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Talk:Mexico national football team (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

05:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018 */ admits to not knowning what the editor is doing"
Consecutive edits made from 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC) to 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
1. 03:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 821048165 by Eggishorn (talk) When it concerns Mexico's national football team there is only one reference to such a tern and that is the redirect from the mistrnslated original ar"
2. 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "consensus has been attempted and it has been twarted. This needs to be reviewd=ed tby WP"
03:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 821039592 by Eggishorn (talk) Is it proper to impose English grammar on the Spanish language?"
01:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 821024758 by Eggishorn (talk) Mexican is a nationality not a coun try."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Mexico national football team. (TW)"
03:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Talk:Mexico national football team. (TW)"
03:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Mexico national football team. (TW)"
04:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

00:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2018 */ Responded to edit request (EPH)"

Comments:

See also this diff. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Needs to be pointed to WP:CIR NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seanbonner reported by User:Demong (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Satanic_Temple&oldid=821102318

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (sort of, closely related topic):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Satanic_Temple#Another_dispute

Comments:

I am unsure of this report for two reasons. One is that I failed to figure out whether the wholesale addition of information counts as a revert. The closest thing I found on the WP:3RR article was "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule...", which seems to apply. The other is that there hasn't been discussion of this particular topic on the Talk page, but there has been a lot of discussion about many other topics and edits, and the same user has exhibited similar POV-pushing, edit warring, and ownership behavior.

I realize this report will also result in the scrutiny of my own behavior, which will probably discover that I am both talkative and a "Serial Tweaker", but not (I hope) that I am guilty of bad faith or other wrongdoing. — Demong _talk 00:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Demong and Seanbonner: Both of you have a nice little edit war going on. So to stop it, I can either block both of you or you can agree not to edit the article for four days (you can use the talk page). Your choice? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:FkpCascais reported by User:SilentResident (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

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

Comments:

I am not sure why this editor is trying to insert unsourced and irrelevant information to the article, but they have insisted on their disruption. Despite my 3RR warning, they are keeping with their edit warrings and have already restored the disputed information 5 times in a row, in less than 24 hours, in violation of Wikipedia's 3RR rules. Admin attention is appreciated. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 00:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Declined At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Athos NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

[2] ttps://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

[1]

[2]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards