[go: nahoru, domu]
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 Damolat (talk | contribs) at 23:12, 24 September 2017 (→‎User:Damolat and User:Oluwa2Chainz reported by user:Biografer). 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:Cameronbrooks reported by User:Kingofaces43 (Result: Blocked for 72 hours, then unblocked )

    (non-admin closure) Closing as filer since the issue seems to have sorted itself out for now, and admin discussion here has settled. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: Morgellons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cameronbrooks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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]

    Comments:
    Not involved in the article myself, but it's pretty clear this new editor is trying to push in content while not listening to other editors trying to correct their behavior. Based on the few talk page comments and edit summaries, it looks like this editor is WP:NOTHERE and acting in a WP:RGW manner with their edit warring. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) They have also left warning templates on several editors' talk pages and tried to open an arbitration case and request for comment and ignored explanations of wikipedia procedure. Natureium (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is clear upon reading the sources that there is obvious guarding of the page to fit a certain Bias. This falls against wikiepdia guidelinesCameronbrooks (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion has been moved to the talk page and will resolve from there.Cameronbrooks (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Cameron, this discussion has not moved to the Talk page. it is still here and you need to deal with it. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Cameronbrooks engages in discussion about the matter at the talk page and does not revert the article further, then there is no administrative action that needs to be taken. Further, their last edit to the article was at 15:34 UTC, an hour and a half before this report was filed. I'm inclined to say no administrative action is needed right now, but I'm also going to wait and see what happens next. —C.Fred (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • C.Fred Thank you, we are on the exact same page. I am trying to resolve this through the proper channels and I appreciate your input in such matters and welcome any suggestions.Cameronbrooks (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can see, the first two reverts were an attempt to fix the issue. The content added was removed saying it wasn't properly sourced, so the revert was legit attempts to address the issue raised rather than a pure revert. If the actions continue thats a different story, but hopefully it is something fixed in the talk page now. Hard to say proof of pattern since the user is new, but a simple warning should have sufficed here to inform them of the policy. - GalatzTalk 17:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: the user had disengaged from the edit war before this report was opened. Their last revert of the article was at 15:34; a while later after the unusual Arbcom request was filed, another admin advised them to start a discussion, which they were trying to do. I don't think that a block for edit warring is justified here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, they said it to EdJohnston on their talk page per Ivan's diff, and they said it to C.Fred immediately above. Including Ivan and me, that's 4 admins who think waiting and seeing is better. I've unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They were warned at "15:19" and continued to edit war at "15:34"
    They continued with the filling of an arbcom case at 17:16 after their last comment on their talk page at 16:54.
    They continue to promote the use of a non review that do not discuss the condition in question such as this [8] at 17:31.[9] after MEDRS was explained to them at "15:40". But sure, no worries about unblocking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there might be some confusion about how many times he was warned because his talk page originally was redirecting to another user's talk page. He was warned by me and someone else at the same time on User talk:Brmoon4267, and then multiple times on his own talk page, but he also templated Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, and myself more than once. He was told several times in edit summaries and on his talk page to stop. His reversions weren't an accident. Natureium (talk) 19:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, he clearly reverted once even after the first templated warning explaining what edit warring is, clearly violated 3RR, and was clearly being disruptive with his templates thrown at you all. But he's new, he can't really be blamed for the talk page redirect, he stopped edit warring, told two different admins he wouldn't revert anymore, hasn't reverted after those assurances, and those two admins felt a block at this time wasn't necessary. So a 3 day edit warring block over-ruling them wasn't necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: 2 weeks)

    Page: Arabs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [10]


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11] 04:31 21 Sept. The pertinent section is the re-removal of the giraffe image at the top of the diff; all four of these edits remove it.
    2. [12] 10:16 21 Sept.
    3. [13] 18:18 21 Sept.
    4. [14] 00:41 22 Sept, hence 3RR violation.

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nope; just as last time, I have never known Tarook97 to be convinced of anything on a talk page, no other editor appears to support their position, and the bits of policy they cite don't actually support their edits.

    Comments:

    Tarook97 is just back from a week's block, their third edit warring block, for a previous 3RR violation. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits were per WP:STACKING. The policy WP:STACKING does not support my edits of reverting obvious stack-ups? The article is at its limit of images without restoring to a gallery. Sufficient images of prominent examples for the subsection are already given, but Pinkbeast insists on adding superfluous images that result in stack-ups. I suggested proposing adding a gallery in the talk section and placing the image there. Tarook97 (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:95.145.130.78 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: no block, but warnings given.)

    This has gone on long enough, You both disagree with each other so move on - There's plenty of other places to edit here and I'm sure all of this energy here could be better spent on improving articles. –Davey2010Talk 23:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page: World Enough and Time (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: List of kidnappings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Maltese spring hunting referendum, 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Maltese European Union membership referendum, 2003 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Maltese constitutional referendum, 1964 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Maltese Council of Government referendum, 1870 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Maltese United Kingdom integration referendum, 1956 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 95.145.130.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. See editor's contribution history for a list of all reverts; they all appear in their most recent history. Also see the history pages of the above linked pages for a more detailed view.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:
    This editor may not have violated 3RR, but they seem to have a massive edit-warring complex and attitude across a multitude of articles. At first, I was only involved with them on the Doctor Who article, before I noticed that their issues with warring with other editors instead of discussing was varied across the multiple pages linked. They then posted an attack on my user talk page, where I noted to them that they had been warned by another editor to seek some form of dispute resolution. See that most recent link for further attacks from the editor. These are only attacks directed towards me; I know not what other attacks they have directed towards other editors that they've been involved with. Pinging Number 57 and NZ Footballs Conscience as interested editors as well. -- AlexTW 01:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment IP User just didn't agree with my revert of their first edit on the kidnapping page and admittedly I only said the revert was for "removal of content" which is normally fine but they wanted an explanation of why, so I gave links to Wikipedia pages. I do find the users message to be on the attack from what they have left on my talk page and looking at their edit history it appears they are quite combative if someone disagrees with them. Personally I'm ok with the user, but they just need to speak to other users in a more polite way rather than assume offence for something another user has done. NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 01:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the use who made the spurious RFPP to try to "win" a content dispute is trying to game the system via different means now. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As can be seen, the anonymous editor has no defense for their actions of edit-warring, and would rather attack the contributions and attempts of dispute resolution from other editors. They are clearly unaware of the WP:EW policy. -- AlexTW 02:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even after this report, they continue to revert, now having reverted 4 times on the same article. -- AlexTW 02:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they reverted three times--as many times as you. And your "however" was, I'm afraid, still improper. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion for that is on the talk page, if you disagree with it, not here. That does not excuse the edit-warring. The initial edit is typically included, so four is correct. -- AlexTW 02:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, what do I know. Remember, Alex, edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet more attempts to game the system from this user. Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. My initial edit did not do that. I have not seen a single good faith edit from this user in this interaction. I think their conduct is highly problematic. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you view the history of the articles, the editor still have a chronic edit-warring complex, no matter if their edits were correct or not. They would rather war then start a civil discussion themselves. -- AlexTW 02:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I would rather people did not undo my basic common sense edits for no reason, and did not make a series of personal attacks against me and edit war to force them into talk pages, and did not repeatedly post messages to my talk page after being asked not to, and did not game the system by make spurious RFPPs. There is no chance of civil discussion with an editor who has an attitude like this.95.145.130.78 (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I dunno about the rest, but the attitude there - that you don't edit other people's talk page comments - is ubiquitous. Please don't do it. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone reverts your edit, it's up to you to find out why and start a talk page discussion on it. Even if you believe it's basic common sense, you may not have used an edit summary to explain this. Notices on your talk page such as the edit-warring one, {{Please see}}, and the template alerting you of this discussion, they are all necessary. I requested page protection because I believed you were disruptive. You did not provide any discussions or solid reasoning. And you have now been warned by multiple editors against edit-warring, modifying other's comments and your attitude. Perhaps that's a hint. -- AlexTW 02:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone reverts your edit, it's up to you to find out why - no. See WP:REVEXP. Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Try to remain available for dialogue, especially in the half-day or so after reverting. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.
    I requested page protection because I believed you were disruptive. - then you must lack the judgement to discriminate between productive edits and disruptive edits. Or, you knew the request was spurious and you were trying to game the system. Either way, it's not good.
    You did not provide any discussions or solid reasoning. except I did. Why lie? After your gaming of the system, personal attacks against me, refusal to leave my talk page alone and aggressive responses here, I think this is making it ever clearer who is acting with disruptive intent here. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 03:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sitting here, enjoying my holiday. I have no time for attackers and edit-warring kids with attitude. I'll leave it up to the admins. Do try to defend your warring on the other half-dozen pages too. -- AlexTW
    Well, the admin says "If someone reverts your edit, it's up to you to find out why" is nonsense. Your first revert was unexplained and unwarranted (your argument is lousy), and since I don't see anyone going over 3R, I'm going to close this. Next time, please remember that a. TW and rollback edits need to be explained in an edit summary and b. editors can be blocked for edit warring even if they're not at 3R. Enjoy. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they want to be right. Crazy, I know, I don't have that at all, and neither do you, I hope. But then, in some of those cases they are right, and I don't see where they've broken 3RR. But if you want to make this case stick, you shouldn't be the first to revert using TW, which functions like rollback and is guided by the same principles: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." Drmies (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that their edit was solely a removal of content without an edit-summary, I believed that there was no legitimate reason for the edit. Hence the legit revert using Twinkle. -- AlexTW 02:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should have asked why I made the edit, if you didn't understand it. And where, then, was the appropriate edit summary? Why did you not feel like being courteous enough to explain what you were doing? 95.145.130.78 (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave a reason for my revert. Read up on Twinkle. You did not give a reason for your edit, or for your edit-warring. -- AlexTW 03:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    AlexTheWhovian, that explanation is not acceptable. IP, please mind your manners; your antagonism is going to get you blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not give a reason for your revert. Your edit summary was "Reverted to revision 800124302 by 81.107.151.3 (talk). (TW))". Why are you lying, again? 95.145.130.78 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way Drmies, antagonism? I made a necessary, indeed essential edit, to make an article syntactically correct. I do not think that is being antagonistic. On the other hand, the user who undid that edit to make the article ungrammatical, filed a spurious RFPP, filed this spurious claim of four reverts, posted to my talk page repeatedly after being asked not to, lied about me and basically went to extraordinary lengths to keep a clear syntactical error in the article was being highly antagonistic. I certainly hope their antagonism will get them blocked. 95.145.130.78 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the editor cannot see anything wrong with their edits, especially when they continue to revert again, this time not from me but from another editor, going so far as to summarize the other editor as "trolling and/or vandalism". This is clearly unacceptable. Thoughts on their continued war, Drmies? Their continued antagonistic replies can be seen at the talk page of the Doctor Who article as well. -- AlexTW 23:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL and User:ZaperaWiki44 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Stale)

    Page
    List of largest stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Joey P. - THE OFFICIAL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User being reported
    ZaperaWiki44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 05:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC) to 06:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
      1. 05:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "@Moxy please leave the page as it was before locking it"
      2. 06:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "Removing 1 260 for RW Cephei for the umpteenth time, comes from an old uncited version of this article"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC) to 04:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
      1. 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC) "please sort by lowest radius"
      2. 00:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "I will talk to you at my talk page."
      3. 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC) ""
      4. 04:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "/* List */"
    3. 04:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC) "The ref says 600 - 1 100 for V382 Carinae"
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 08:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC) to 10:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
      1. 08:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "Remove LL Pegasi (Lombaert give a radius of 608 R☉ and all stars are sorted by the lowest given radius)"
      2. 10:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "fix margin of error abuse for AH Scorpii"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 11:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC) to 13:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      1. 11:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 801402000 by ZaperaWiki44 (talk): Stop removing stars size that are in given citation (Levesque 2005). (TW)"
      2. 11:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC) "Anyway, I will take care this page."
      3. 13:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC) "De beck 2010"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of largest stars. (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    endless edit war for over a month ......Moxy (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 reported by User:Anastan (Result: )

    Page
    Dimitrios Baltzis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801917462 by Anastan (talk) again see http://www.dimitriosbaltzis.com/about"
    2. 19:18, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "again, remove section copied verbatim, restore tags--this was clearly explained already"
    3. 13:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 801872671 by Bandzimir (talk)"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 12:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC) to 12:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
      1. 12:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "non notable doctor; no signifiicant coverage by [[WP::RELIABLE]] sources"
      2. 12:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Research focus */ rv section; nearly verbatim copyright violation of the subject's website bio at http://www.dimitriosbaltzis.com/about"
      3. 12:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "and the rest closely parallels text from his website"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 18:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Questions */ new section"
    2. 19:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Questions */"
    Comments:

    IP reverts without even reading the article Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As it looks like, you are very versed in wikipedia guidelines, so it would be vise to log back in into your account. If its not blocked or banned. Content was changed and sourced from multiple different sources, while direct medical terms, of source, must be used as they are. Before you revert again (7th, or 8th time now) you should read the article, and stop biting the newcomers. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Already send email to contact from website to give free usage of content for Wikipedia, so that will be solved soon, although its not the same as it is from website. That still does not solve the problem of your edit warring. And i was not referring to me, but to that other editor who created article. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the WP:SPA. That account was not bitten, but properly informed of copyright violation policy. As for permission for free usage, and as I explained at the article's talk page, a subject's website can not be used as a main source for an article here, as it doesn't meet WP:RELIABLE. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about?? We have SEVEN more references next to the site. And much much more on google. Did you even look at articles you edit war over? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at it very well. We're not discussing the references, for the moment, but the fact that almost all the content was copied from the subject's website--the addition of other references does nothing to mitigate that. I'm not sure how many times this needs to be explained nor how the removal of copyright violation text is considered edit warring--it is edit warring to restore such content, which probably needs to be rev/deleted by an administrator. As for notability and paucity of Google hits from reliable sources, that's a separate discussion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just received reply! website is now FREE TO USE, person change it. NO COPYRIGHT over website anymore. So revert yourself once again, please, as now its ok to use that. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good. And surely it's clear by now--since I've explained this several times--that the doctor's website can not be used as the major source for the article. I suggest waiting for further feedback from experienced editors and administrators. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We have SEVEN more sources next to that one. So please, revert yourself, as article is now free to use, and you edit warring is now even more problematic. So revert yourself, and only then we can wait other editors, and move to talk page. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 20:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is 2601, away from home and signed in. I've reverted an edit above, where Anastan appeared to give the impression that the content under discussion was free use when this began. It was not. The report was invalid from the start, which is why I opened a thread at ANI re: the article and this user. JNW (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:175.141.234.117 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Protected)

    Constantly edit wars on Rojak article:

    Page protected Semi-protected for one month, offensive content redacted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moshe Avigdor reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Stale )

    Page: Justin McCarthy (American historian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Moshe Avigdor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [17]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

    Comments:
    Moshe arrives after three other "new users" were changing information[24][25][26] and reverts Ninetoyadome. Moshe appears to think posting on the talk page gives them license to continue their reverting of other editors. Please note, Moshe is also edit-warring on the Heath W. Lowry ‎ article. Also note, once Moshe was reverted, two "new users" reverted me on two articles.[27][28] Seeing how I seriously doubt this is a coincidence, I will be filing an SPI.

    Also, Moshe appears to be here to remove pro-Armenian content as he has put it.[29] Along with a battleground comments.[30] --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Kansas Bear that this guy is a sockpuppet of Finley22 Waterman [31]. This user kept calling information they disagreed with as "formating" or claiming they are duplicates. The user constantly reverted anti-Turkic sections, calling the Armenian Genocide a WW1 massacre and removing criticism of Justin Mccarthy and Heath Lowry. Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale I don't think there's an immediate case to block right now - file a SPI and see what that does. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction

    Recently, I undertook a major edit of the above page, adding a subsection about the above philosophical distinction according to Lama Tsongkhapa. Another user user:Joshua_Jonathan repeatedly interrupted my extensive edit, then repeatedly added disruptive citation needed tags on various parts of the article. Making it clear he didn't agree with the position I was citing, I provided a huge stream of references starting in 100 CE all the way through to 1997 CE. As a new user, I felt compelled to find references and include quotes and passages to support every little detail of the arguments Tsongkhapa presents. As a new user, I also made some blatant and silly mistakes...

    I understand that no one owns the content or pages here. I understand they are always subject to change. I also understand that editors, when in dispute, are supposed to discuss and reach a consensus. That doesn't seem to be what's happening here.

    When I finally reached a stopping point, Joshua_Jonathan began making dramatic and undue edits to the page, along with some incredibly brilliant works of synthesis and paring down of the material. When I asked him to slow down, he said that he wouldn't. He went on to make round after round of HUGE DELETIONS on the page, which I reverted or fixed, prompting him to discuss the particulars of WHY it was included in the first place and how we might par the material down to make it more readable. He has been completely unresponsive to my requests. Please help! Dienekles (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Dienekles has made four reverts in a row, while negating (ah! What's in a word!) the "in use" tag at top of the page, and multiple warnings. This has been preceded by WP:OWN and WP:ICANTHEARYOU from his side.
    • The edits of User:Dienekles at Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction have been extensively discussed at Talk:Svatantrika-Prasaṅgika distinction#Recent changes. Strong objections have been voiced against his "flooding of the article with more text referenced to historical religious sources which are are not independent" diff; other editors have also commented diff diff; to no avail.
    • Dienekles has received multiple hints and warnings with regards to his editing-behavior at the article in question diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff
    • At 05:08 WET I placed the "In use" tag at top of the article diff and started editing.
    • Despite this, at 05:24 Dienekles started ediiting too diff
    • 07:11 first revert by Dienekles diff
    • At 07.19 I warned him at his talkpage that the page was in use diff
    • At 07:20, I reverted his revert first time diff: "note the tag at top, and stay away"
    • At 07:22, second revert by Dienekles diff
    • At 07:23 I gave him a formal warning at his talkpage diff
    • At 07:41, I opened a new thread at the talkpage regarding the editing by Dienekles, despite the "in use" tag diff
    • At 07:45, second revert by me, after tryng to understand what exactly he had been doing diff: "what a mess..."
    • At 07:53 third revert by Dienekles diff
    • Meanwhile, at 07:53 I'd restarted editing at a next section diff, apparently unaware of his third revert
    • At 07:54 I gave him a level 4 warning at his talkpage diff
    • 08:04, fourth revert by Dienekles diff

    Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    While it is true that I have overdone it in the department of using quotes, it is also true that I was forced to extensively quote because of the behavior of user:Joshua_Jonathan in the overuse of "citation needed" tags. Again, editing the article in good faith, attempting to show the difference between two extremely subtle philosophical viewpoints in the realm of religion always raises eyebrows. I have repeatedly stated that I am open to discussion, debate, and consensus making. I have conceded two or three points and won two or three points... if you take a look at the talk page. user:Joshua_Jonathan has simply lost patience with the discussion and wants to hijack the article by using a "in use" tag. I see this as aggressive and inappropriate. We should take these large edits point by point, discuss, form a consensus, and then par things down for the reader appropriately. For your humble consideration... Kind Regards Dienekles (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Damolat and User:Oluwa2Chainz reported by user:Biografer

    Both are violating edit warring/3RR policies. User Damolat got numerous warnings. Continues.--Biografer (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies for breaching the 3RR policy. Damolat seems to be adamant in adding the promotional edit hence my continuous reverts. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That wont be for me to decide, but both of you should take Wikibreak. :) Even though that I am not an admin, the rule clearly states:

    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

    --Biografer (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oluwa2Chainz: While you didn't broke it yet, its evidently close. So I don't know what would admins think, but from my perspective when the whole recent changes is full of reverts by one user (and they are only a second apart), something is totally wrong.--Biografer (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oluwa2Chainz: The use of rollback in this case is inappropriate. Please read over WP:ROLLBACK. Specifically: Editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war. Please be more careful and explain your reversions when it is not obvious vandalism. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biografer: This is not promotional material. This is an Encyclopedic discography of the artist, hence provides value as a reference to prove that the artist has truly produced those songs. Also it is legitimate information for users to see the entire discography of the artist. The action by ::@Oluwa2Chainz: appears to be Self appointed toxic gatekeeping and goes against the premise of Wikipedia as an open web and contribution platform. If this is promotional material, then it can be argued that all references to external websites from wikipedia that provides value information is also promotional material. 01:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Damolat: Point number one: Please sign your posts not only with your timestamp but also your signature, otherwise no one will know that this is you. If your doing it deliberately (like you have something to hide or something), you might get a tiny blog for not providing correct signature. At least, next time, if you don't have time, let the bot do it for you. In order to do it, you put nothing after punctuation mark, and the bot will auto sign it for you. Its called SignBot. Point number two: The material that you provided shouldn't go as a reference but more as external link. Another thing to mention: The list of songs that he wrote is already provided in the Discography section, therefore, no need for a ref there. :)--Biografer (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally, @Biografer: you should've check what kind of link Damolat is inserting and the pattern of his edits before you conclude your case on @Oluwa2Chainz:.
    In the last 48 hours, Damolat added the spam link of his website MyMusic.com.ng in over 40 articles indiscriminately everywhere, like where more reliable citations exist such as this, this one and this one; as well as places where there's claim which was cited in another source but he injected his link like here, thus separating claim with its source.
    Before Damolat started this spamming he created questionable article for his non notable spam link. The article here: MyMusic.com.ng. He made 90% of all its revisions, this can be verified in its history.
    Damolat is obvious spammer. All his edits are on 3 things: 1. Creating and gate keeping article about his website MyMusic.com.ng. 2. Adding the spam link to articles and 3. Reverting whenever his spam was detected and removed. He have near zero edit all over Wikipedia apart from these three above, clear case of WP:SPA.
    On Wikipedia there's NO rule that cannot be ignored in improving and maintaining Wikipedia; and maintaining here unambiguously include reverting spammers like Demolat and his link. User Oluwa2Chainz didn't deserve this hasty accusations of edit war, if he's not praised for his boldness.
    It will be better for you @Biografer: to assume more good faith and also make thorough checks and look into edits pattern before hasty report of edit war, otherwise you're giving more leverage to spammers and vandals to continue their overt and subtle disruptions and discouraging good editors from confronting them. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ammarpad: For one, I thorough checked @Damolat: additions and yes, I saw him spamming this link to every possible article (hence the reporting). Now, I didn't report @Oluwa2Chainz: because I have bad faith against him. Please forgive me if it sounded like it. I reported both because both were causing some disruption for the project. One, Damolat was spamming the link, while the other instead of seeking dispute resolution decided to revert all the edits, and therefore possibly breaching 3RR with his boldness. While I do praise bold editors (heck, I do bold edits myself), I don't view Oluwa2Chainz reverts as bold. That doesn't mean that I agree with what Damolat did. And as for otherwise you're giving more leverage to spammers and vandals to continue their overt and subtle disruptions and discouraging good editors from confronting them., didn't you saw that I reported both? I reported both of them, not because I had bad faith against any of them, is because I wasn't sure who is to blame in such situation. And I assumed good faith admins would solve it quicker with my report. I apologize if my bold reporting was worse then bold reverts of user Oluwa2Chainz. :)--Biografer (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Damolat won't stop adding spam links on articles. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oluwa2Chainz: Where exactly have you seen him doing it after I reported him? Or is there an anonymous account that I am not aware of?--Biografer (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Good job trying to keep Wikipedia sane and organised. I honestly wasn't aware such edits will be considered as and amounted to spamming. However, lets be careful not to hide under the guise of anonymity to resort to unfair name calling. For example, I will like to know what action warrants being called a Vandal. Cheers. Damolat (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:95.145.130.78 reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: Two IPs blocked, SPI filed)

    Page
    Oakwood, London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    95.145.130.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 12:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 802172208 by MarnetteD (talk) no it isn't"
    2. 11:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 802161171 by Philafrenzy (talk) WP:IG. I already linked to it. Have you read it? Have you understood it?"
    3. 10:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 802156108 by MarkSewath (talk) rv now-blocked troll"
    4. 09:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 802144381 by Philafrenzy (talk) no, if an article violates the image guidelines, then correcting that makes it better after."
    5. Consecutive edits made from 00:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) to 00:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
      1. 00:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Gallery */ violates image guidelines"
      2. 00:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Amenities */ not useful"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 12:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Oakwood, London. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is continuously edit warring at Oakwood, London and has violated WP:3RR and has been blocked before because of the same reason. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    In response to WP:AIV listing on this, I just re-blocked this editor for 2 weeks to stop the incessant edit warring. This looks like a possible sock here. This IP has only been in use since September 19, but hit the ground running with knowledge of Wikipedia policies to justify some of their edits. Please have a look at their filter log, in addition to their edits. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Maile66: This IP is a possible sockpuppet of 45.116.181.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and I am going to investigate if there anymore possible sockpuppets before compiling the final report for a sockpuppet investigation. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pkbwcgs: Per your request on my talk page, I have removed their talk page access for personal attacks on other editors. It would probably take some drilling down on this. And anyone who sees something familiar in the pattern. But where another IP has the same pattern, there is a possibility of a sock master somewhere. — Maile (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maile66: I have opened up yet another sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/45.116.181.127 relating to this IP. If you can find anymore possible sockpuppets of this IP then please list them at this sockpuppet investigation. I'm sure there is something fishy going on and I am concerned whether a block user is handling all these IPs. I have been checking 45.116.181.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 95.145.130.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for the past half hour and I haven't found any evidence but I know if there is a user handling all these accounts and I will watch out for this. Today, I have opened up two sockpuppet investigations so far. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pkbwcgs: I posted over there as well. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sitush reported by User:Matttoms (Result: Declined)

    Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Sitush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Thomas_Christians&oldid=801701194

    User:Sitush keeps removing genetic information noting that genetic information regarding Indians have no place in wikipedia articles, however listed for every other ethnic group. Genetics are very pertinent to understanding the diverse origins of an ethnic group and are very valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattoms (talk • contribs)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=802249580"