Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Zaostao reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

3 of the links are the same and the first and last are well over 24 hours apart? Zaostao (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Blatant lie. User Zaostao knows full well that he made 3 reverts in his edit war, waited for 24 hours to pass, and resumed warring again. He also knows he's already been blocked once for edit warring on this page and multiple editors continued to warn him about his behavior for weeks before this report. He has removed at least one such warning from his talk page yesteday, see this diff. His edit warring on this page is a months-long attempt to whitewash the Jared Taylor page by distancing the subject of the article from the terms "white supremacism" and "white nationalism", despite all of it being extremely well-sourced and more experienced editors explaining to him, for months now, why his attempted POV edits run contrary to Wikipedia policy. He has not shown any sign of understanding this or slowing down his edit warring and this latest attempt is one of many. Rockypedia (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't edit the diffs like you did here without stating that you did as it makes comments made before you changed the diffs seem out of place. And again, there was no consensus on the BLP noticeboard to keep the contentious white supremacist label in the lede as it was, so a NPOV editor respecting BLP would have tried to reach consensus and not just reverted to reinsert the LABEL without in-text attribution. Also, this is more of the same of what Ryk72 stated at the bottom of the previous filing, a group of the same few editors collectively reverting in an attempt to WP:OWN an article—which is why I have said below that I think this BLP issue would benefit from mediation of some form. Zaostao (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a 3RR violation. However, Zaostao has constantly been edit warring on this page. He has been previously sanctioned for violating 3RR on this page, as well as violated 3RR on subsequent occasions ([8]). This user shows no signs of ceasing edit warring, despite multiple editors talking to them about this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't comment on the 3RR issue, but I will point out there was a discussion that I raised at WP:BLP/N with unclear consensus results regarding the lede wording, and the discussion continued with again unclear results on Talk:Jared Taylor. I will point out that this is not a clear case of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (as where we'd normally allow 3RR to be ignored) as the material in question, it seems all parties agree should be in the article, it's just a matter of where it is located, that still is a BLP issue but one that shouldn't be edit warred over. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Zaostao was blocked for edit warring on the lead of this article per 3RR back in July per this report. A report about similar warring early this September was declined, per the rationale "BLP issues are at play, multiple people are warring, and discussion is ongoing. The BLP noticeboard might be a more appropriate venue to help hash out the dispute." A follow-up did occur at BLPN, and can be seen here. It is not easy to tell if a consensus was reached about how to describe Jared Taylor in the lead. I personally don't think that Zaostao's edits are exempted from 3RR enforcement due to BLP, because that clause of 3RRNO is intended for removal of unsourced defamation, which this is not. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was going to report this myself because, as EdJohnston correctly summarized, this is a continuation of an edit war from before as well as the BLPN and ongoing talk page discussions. I agree with Ed vis-a-vis 3RRNO. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The first and last diffs are well over 24 hours apart. This is the continuation of a BLP issue which went to the BPL/N but was archived with unclear consensus about keeping the contentious labels in the lede without in-text attribution. Again, as I say below, I think the BLP issue needs mediation of some kind, but I'd be fine with imposing a 1RR restriction on myself on this article in the future to avoid needless side disputes like this. Zaostao (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
You are edit warring even if not doing >3 reverts in 24 hours. You're continuing the same disruptive behavior that resulted in your last block. This issue is not about defamatory content or some other BLP issue that is exempt from edit warring restrictions. This is widely sourced content that you happen to disagree with. Don't cry blp to justify this. I say this as some generally very accommodating to and hard line on blp concerns even for people I think are deplorable (e.g., on Roosh V). EvergreenFir (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This whole discussion has been about BLP, and there was a >100,000 byte discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this very same issue so it's hardly a CRYBLP example. Also, you were the editor who reported D.Creish for supposedly CRYBLP'ng on this very same article, which was not an example of CRYBLP. Zaostao (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
As PeterTheFourth states, this isn't a 3RR violation. I agree with Masem that this is a BLP issue that should be discussed and not edit warred over, which is why I respected 3RR despite the possible 3RRBLP exception and was actively discussing the issue on the talk page, but also why I objected to this edit which made "white supremacist" (the issue of discussion) into the foremost description of the subject, despite no consensus to make such a change and when there was a clearly ongoing discussion about the contentious label on the article's talk page. I believe this BLP issue would benefit from some form of mediation as the BLP/N discussion ended with one side not responding and, as Masem states, unclear consensus. Zaostao (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Guessing this is just gonna let sit until stale so it can be closed? I know this is contentious and I know it involves regular editors, but would like to see some resolution regardless of outcome. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:SheriffIsInTown (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2016 Uri attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:08, 26 September 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:29, 26 September 2016
  2. 20:38, 26 September 2016

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: Editor was aware of these 1RR restrictions and was at the forefront of getting them imposed on all Kashmir conflict related pages but not abiding by them himself Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, those two edits are different than the ones reported here. Secondly, I disagree with RP's description about 1RR there, it should take the same definition as 3RR. Your two reverts are not consecutive edits and WP:3RR does not say that it is fine to revert more than three times in 24 hours provided the content being reverted is different. To me, this looks like an attempt to game the system. RP and you would both do well by reading WP:3RR, The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. so if we put this same definition in the spectrum of 1RR, it should read like this, The 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules specifically describes 1RR as such that there is no ambiguity, The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". I am not sure what to call it if its not facilitating just one editor. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kautilya3: You violated 1RR with the two reverts. The only reason I'm not blocking you is because you relied on the advice of RegentsPark. However, that advice was incorrect. Therefore, you are warned that if you violate 1RR or 3RR in the future, you cannot claim you didn't know that the reverts do not have to be of the same material.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    Apologies. I was careless in my reply to Kautilya. Regardless, I think Sherriff has a point about 1RR not working and that needs some rethinking. I'm busy the rest of today (and most of tomorrow) but will definitely revisit the sanction later this week. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Crnibombarder reported by User:Galatz (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I didnt since I am late to the game here, but very actively discussed on his talk page [16]


There are a ton of other edit warring for unsourced content on FIBA Basketball World Cup and Basketball at the Summer Olympics. It is very clear that this new user is here solely to express his opinion without consideration for WP rules. He mostly has been edit warring with Anaxagoras13. - GalatzTalk 16:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: even after posting this and posting the warning on his talk page he is continuing to edit war on the page. - GalatzTalk 01:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to
  1. [17]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [18] "Undid revision 741292557 by Frietjes (talk) did not use IBID, no fix needed - STOP LOOK FOR UNNEEDED FIXES"
  2. [19] "Undid revision 741328729 by Frietjes (talk) again not IBID type to the point that they can be broken"
  3. [20] "Undid revision 741434720 by Frietjes (talk)"
  4. [21] "Undid revision 741435493 by Frietjes (talk) again per BRD you were reversed do not change until discussion is done"
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page



Counter report: CITEVAR, Canvassing, etc. =[edit]

Both Kintetsubuffalo and Frietjes were notified per WP:CITEVAR that they must discuss Cite changes before they are made not after. So Frietjes should be in violation at 1 edit

  1. 15:23, 26 September 2016 References § unexplained
  2. 15:49, 26 September 2016 fix WP:IBID (As point out in edit summary, talk page discussion & at WP:IBID talk page, not IBID)
  3. 20:15, 26 September 2016 fix WP:IBID-type citations per WP:ACCESSIBILITY (not in WP:accessibility)
  4. 13:43, 27 September 2016 the discussion is on the talk page, please participate (I was at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources)
  5. [24] again, the discussion is on the talk page (I was there trying to respond, edit conflict, plus she was bold and reverted; you know BRD)
CITEVAR warning

Per WP:CITEVAR: "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." per arbitration committee ruling in 2006. So, once informed like at the user Diffs #1, Frietjes should have gone to the talk page per CITEVAR. Kintetsubuffalo even claims she is "expert", so she should even need the warning.

Vote canvassing by Frietjes
Warning about vote cavassing
  • attacks me to attempt to force me to shut up over my block log: "Spshu, you are the last person to talk about edit-warring,..." "Stop being paranoid and get to the issue at hand." Deciding to attack and calling me a liar/paranoid.

I responded to show that I am not a liar. I move on back to the issue at hand in the same post. Then in his response mixes up what members of WP:Scouting did and what Frietjes did at this article. Attacks as if I OWN, which if I am it is an except via CITEVAR as the original author sets the stage for how cites are done (if done in non-error way, if this edit use "ibid", which it did not). Spshu (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

This scenario is a hopeless cause. This kind of retaliatory "discussion" and edit warring behavior has unfortunately become the norm for the defending editor, and it appears as if there's no intention of changing on their part. Given how long this behavior has been going on, I suggest that an admin consider an indefinite block. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 22:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]

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

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

Comments: The user has reverted the article four times in a matter of minutes Avaya1 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted 4 times. It was a straight up BLP violation. Avaya1 was putting in allegations about a person into an article basically to smear them. This person was mentioned in the presidential debate last night. So Avaya1 was violating BLP in order to push POV. Per WP:BLPCRIME: ""A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.""

BLP violations are generally exempted from the 3RR rule and I believed, in good faith, that this one was serious enough to have to remove it immediately (especially since there have been attempts to try and humiliate this person before). Of course I still believe that. Also, it's not like this information is of crucial importance. It's about something - an unfounded allegation - that happened... 18 years ago. Eighteen. Somehow, for the ten years of this article's previous existence NO ONE thought this was important enough to include in the article. But today, the day after this person gets mentioned in the presidential debate, Avaya1 (and one other editor) immediately rush to the article and start with the BLP smears. Apparently now this must absolutely be included! I mean, Avaya1 could have waited to get consensus, he could've initiated discussion on talk, he could've started an RfC, he could've taken it to WP:BLPN. Not like the article would suffer if he waited a day or two (it was just fine without it for ten years). But no, somehow the info had to be included immediately! So he edit warred. This is extremely disruptive behavior even if Avaya1 himself only tip-toed to the 3RR line and since apparently, he's been around, he should know better.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And ffs, somebody semi-protect the article already, there's already a bunch of IPs showing up to cause trouble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • It's a BLP matter, so it should qualify for the BLP exemption to 3RR. I'll note that political campaign often result in the use of sharp elbow around here, and anons are now getting into the reversion act (putting it back in). I figure once this is brought up here the BLP violation should be removed (if and until it's decided that it's not a BLP violation) and the article locked. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The article has been fully protected. There is no reason for VM to be blocked. Plus there was a reasonable case to be made that he was acting to protect the BLP. Dr. K. 05:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Smallbones and Dr.K. There is no violation here; VM's reverts fall squarely within the WP:3RRBLP provision (a reasonable, colorable, good-faith BLP concern prompting the removal (pending discussion) of text related to unsubstantiated criminal allegations). This report should be closed without action. Neutralitytalk 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Alicia Machado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741537143 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  2. 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741536849 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
  3. 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741534939 by Dr.K. (talk)"
  4. 03:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 741532178 by Cullen328 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alicia Machado . (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


BLP violations. Will not stop. Dr. K. 03:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 reported by User:Timothyjosephwood (Result: )[edit]

User being reported: WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Serial rapist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

Category:Sex trafficking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Castration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [41] [42] [43] [44]

Angel Makers of Nagyrév (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [45] [46] [47] [48]

Category:Forced prostitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs): [49] [50] [51] [52]

Category talk:Violence against men (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs): [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: DV talk, Category talk, NPOVN, Talk: Serial Rapist, RfC,ANI

User is on a month or so long war to remove a category from a dozen or so pages. These are the worst of the lot. After failing to get consensus in the first three discussions, they started an RfC to change the wording of the category, and then proceeded to continue to edit war. TimothyJosephWood 19:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Filing party is a tendentious editor who has obstinately refused to discuss or attempt to resolve the dispute. See Talk:Serial rapist#Taking it to talk for more. Contributor lied about reading sources and then proceeded to repeat himself with clear violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:ONUS. jps (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. User is too oblivious to realize I posted the references from the article. And yes, it is a content dispute, between them and about half a dozen other people over about a dozen articles. TimothyJosephWood 19:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Timothy, you might wish to state the user you are referring to - just in case threads get separated.
I'm one of the many editors reverted by jps. His response above is indicative of a pattern I believe intended to frustrate. Of all the above his argument that Castration is not necessarily gendered is the most incredible. Forced Prostitution, which lists "comfort gays" as one of only two subcategories, is also baffling. I find it difficult to compose rational responses to irrational claims, which may be the point. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that "he didn't do his book reports" is a novel mark of tendentiousness. Dumuzid (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
TIL "refusing to discuss" means discussing in six different threads in five different forums. The book report is a particular case of WP:IDHT that goes something like: I refuse to accept that Paris is the capital of France until I've been given a page number. The repetition goes something like: Paris is the capital of France. The strategy goes something like When I've refused to listen or offer new argument to the point where you give up, I'll do what I want. TimothyJosephWood 21:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The description at Category:Violence against men is such that it can be interpreted multiple ways. Neither TJW nor jps is wholly correct or incorrect. There's an obvious need for more discussion, but the edit warring is, I think, making them both too frustrated for that to be productive. This is clearly disruptive editing, but I don't think anyone has broken 3RR (I could be wrong).
Across the relevant pages (and category pages), my count for number of times adding this category: jps - 24, Volunteer Marek - 6, Rockypedia - 2; and number of times removing this category: James J. Lambden - 15, TJW - 9, Zaostao - 6, Arkon - 1. (linking to usernames of editors who have not yet participated in this discussion -- not that they need to)
Jps has the most (5 of them weren't technically reverts, since jps initiated the changes, but that's still 19). 24 (or 19) is a lot, but 15, 9, and even 6 are also awfully high numbers for reverts of the exact same non-vandalism edit. This doesn't even include edits at Category:Violence against men itself, which were over a different change (but indeed involved more edit warring, primarily between jps and JJL).
Suggestion for next steps:
  • A trout or shake of the head or "c'mon you should know better" or warning or whatnot for the involved edit warriors.
  • 2-week moratorium on adding/removing Category:Violence against men to any article, unless a clear consensus emerges from talk page discussions. WP:WRONGVERSIONs frozen (although I don't know that protection is necessary) whenever this thread is closed.
  • 2-week moratorium on edits to the category page text (i.e. full protect), unless a clear consensus emerges from talk page discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Several editors behaved badly, myself included. For any editor in your list ask yourself: if this editor hadn't participated at all would the problem still exist - the answer is yes in every case except jps. That indicates an editor problem not a mutual problem. I think your mutual solution is likely to solve the editor problem temporarily but a mutual solution is unnecessarily broad, and once protection expires we'll be right where we are now having the same conversation. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, obviously if the person who suggests/makes the change in the first place never did so, then there would be no possibility for edit warring. The problem for the purpose of this venue isn't the initial edit or its content (regardless of how someone might see it, or whether consensus supports it in the end, it was made in good faith and certainly wasn't vandalism). This venue is more about the disruption caused by edit warring -- and, specifically, stopping or avoiding that kind of disruption. And based on those numbers, if you did not participate (there are other mechanisms aside from edit warring to deal with a tendentious editor) it likewise would not have gone on to be so disruptive. I'm not trying to excuse Jps, I'm not saying it's your fault, that you're equally to blame, etc. I'm saying this wasn't a case of a vandal, and wasn't a case of a single person opposed by everyone else. It's a content dispute with people on both sides, and it took both sides to make it an edit war rather than go another route. Sometimes ending disruption calls for a block, and sometimes blocks can be avoided. What I suggested stops the disruption. Blocking Jps also stops disruption with a stronger admonishment, but also removes him from the active discussion, which is not the source of the disruption. For good measure, a caveat: I'm not an admin. I'm just giving my suggestion having seen the edit warring and having a pretty good sense of the content dispute, without being closely aligned with either side of the edit war.Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
First, I've been plenty productive in the interim, which seems to be true of most of those involved. Second, since the editor in question has, as far as I can tell, done nothing in the past few weeks besides work for this particular purpose, I see no reason to think they will stop. Third, since after eight reverts, they finally stopped warring on the cat itself, there is no reason to protect it. TimothyJosephWood 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly interested in commenting other than to say that it's quite clear that we have one user on a crusade. What is done about it, shrug. Arkon (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Rico Alvarez reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Yazidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rico Alvarez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 22:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 22:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 22:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 22:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC) to 22:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
    1. 22:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. notice of "No edit warring"
  2. 22:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yazidis. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The most recent edit on the article talk page was by me regarding a point over which Rico Alvarez has been edit warring. I never got a reply to my question. MPS1992 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor was also given a notice about their failure to use edit summaries [62], which they continued to ignore with their latest revert listed above. MPS1992 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Rico Alvarez seems to have an agenda & is not responsive to others. There is not a single edit summary for any of this editor's edits, including the 16 (as of this count) on Yazidis. This editor has removed valid categories from the page & has linked to the deleted Sharfadin article. I think that a temporary block to get this editor's attention & perhaps to respond is in order & long overdue. I am considering reverting the article to the last version previous to User:Rico Alvarez's edits.
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:PollyNYC reported by User:Softlavender (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64]
  2. [65] (logged out and followed logged in 10 minutes later with a non-RS ref [66])
  3. [67]
  4. [68]
  5. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]


Slightly slo-mo edit war by an SPA whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to post this misinformation on the Nisha Ganatra article. Ganatra directed only three out of the ten episodes of S1 of Transparent, and she was one of three consulting producers on S1 of Transparent.. Not sure why the SPA wants to post misinformation on Wikipedia, but they won't discuss, heed warnings, or take no for an answer. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: Don't know what prompted me to look at this when it came up in my watchlist, but I am so glad I did. The editing pattern and style from both users are the extremely similar to those from RebeccaTheAwesomeXD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who also socked under Red Plastic 12000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), RebeccaTheMegaAwesome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and June The Mega Wonderful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The mannerisms are way too coincidental. Wes Mouse  T@lk 02:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm only convinced of the two Pollys, as they are both exclusively Nisha Ganatra SPAs and have the same username and so this is a super-obvious no-brainer. If you think those others are related, you may have to actually file, as offhand I don't see anything that links them at all and they don't even seem to be American, as the Ganatra SPAs obviously are. Softlavender (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)