Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:TheTimesAreAChanging reported by User:Oneshotofwhiskey (Result: Page protected)

Page: Dinesh D'Souza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheTimesAreAChanging (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](corrected after another user pointed out it was inputed correctly)

The user then proceeded to follow me to a different article and begins to immediately revert my edits there several times! Clearly he's engaging in WP:WIKIHOUNDING

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

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

Comments:

The user is a classic case of WP:POINT. The warning above was the first of many, and I plead with him to either (A) cease the edit war and work things out with us, or (B) seek arbitration if he felt like he was being treated unfairly.

However, he promptly deleted any warning out of denial, most likely hoping to cover it the violation, trying to mislead admins by suggesting he was just 'removing vandalism' when there was none (he's clearly a seasoned editor who knows the difference between vandalism and contributions he doesn't agree with, etc):[12]

He also makes a personal threat in the subject-heading of one of his disruptive reverts, warning me: "You will learn to seek consensus for radical changes." If you look at my edit, I added a mere two words. My changes were FAR from 'radical'(whatever he meant by that).

This user has a history of edit-warring if you review his history carefully, He will often revert to million dollar phrases like WP:BOLD or WP:EXCEPTIONAL without fully taking the time to see what those mean and erroneously applies them as justifications of his reverts in his edit wars in what appears to be an attempt to give the illusion of authority.

The edit warring from this user is chronic and, as a case in point, when the user finally moved on from the page once the damage was already done he resumed an old rivarly and edit war on this page, with this edit:

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War&diff=prev&oldid=744418221

If you review the talk section of that page, in fact, you will find several instances of miserable editors accusing this disruptive user of edit warring and unilateral POV editing. Ironically, this user claims his edit war with me is over me daring to accuse a partisan political commentator of relying on conspiracy theories, claiming that to do so is outrageous, only for himself on this page to accuse his liberal-minded opponents as "Chomskyite conspiracy theorists".[13] Normally it wouldn't have enough merit by itself to mention here BUT considering that the editor is pontificating, it further calls his motives into question: I suspect this and other behaviors falls into cunning disruptive behavior by political editors guilty of WP:GAMING using a combination of false accusations and edit warring under a thin-veil of self-righteousness.

In many cases, the editor is prone to belittle others and assume bad faith in the service of emotional, coercive disruptive editing aimed at curbing the work of others:

(just read the angry rant in the subject heading here)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging&diff=prev&oldid=744099090

(RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!)

If need be, I can list more examples if that will help but you get the gist.

Sorry for the longwindedness of this report! I only mention ALL of this since it helps to establish motive and state of mind, demonstrated a clear pattern and behavioral mindset of the disruptive editor as one who likes to pick fights and bully other editors over content. That said, feel free to make fun of my verbose and rambling nature! (my wife does)LOL

For my part in all of this, I confess that in trying to run around and plug holes in this proverbial dam I may have also inadvertently violated the 3RR rule, though I haven't counted to be sure. In that event, though, I'm willing to face the consequences. But it wasn't for lack of trying to do my part to 'civilly' discourage this editor from his edit war and protect the benign contributions of others. IN any case, if I too get a time out, I accept that.

Thanks to the admins for their time!

(Nice job of not informing me of this thread. It is significant that you failed to do so, because I'm genuinely surprised you would show your face here.) Oneshotofwhiskey should remember the old adage: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he is WP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets of WP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with his mugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting "conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yielded no consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. While other editors have reverted Oneshotofwhiskey's most blatantly POV semantic changes, it is true that only I have attempted to WP:ROLLBACK his edits in their entirety. Yet I believe his POV-pushing is so extreme it constitutes vandalism to a BLP—and that my reverts of his attack on Dinesh D'Souza are a justifiable response to said vandalism. Of course, Oneshotofwhiskey (and his IP friend that shows up within minutes of him being reverted to reinstate his changes) has tried to muddy the issues beyond the seemingly blatant vandalism to the lead, arguing that his unilateral deletion of thousands of bytes of material sourced to RS like Alan Dershowitz elevates our conflict to a genuine content dispute. I disagree: He has no consensus to justify large-scale deletion of long-standing material, he has refused to answer my inquiries on talk (still waiting!), and his assertion that Dershowitz's attributed statement constitutes original research is at best a misunderstanding he has refused to correct—at worst an intentionally deceitful edit summary providing only a smokescreen for his real motivation.

It is telling that Oneshotofwhiskey seeks to conflate the heated debate at Talk:Soviet–Afghan War with material he added not to a talk page, but to a BLP in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Say what you will about the content dispute at Soviet–Afghan War, but it's hard not to notice that it has not resulted in any massive edit war (despite the far greater significance and controversy surrounding the relevant issues); to the contrary, all of the participants have committed themselves not to make any changes until consensus has been achieved (and, yes, I am confident my latest edit is a significant step forward in that regard). Oneshotofwhiskey has been around for one month (or so he claims—this is belied by extensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy), and during that time has been constantly embroiled in edit wars (mostly at film-related articles like Ghostbusters (2016 film) and now D'Souza's documentaries, accusing others of "POV vandalism," ect.); despite my behavior in 2012, this is my first major edit war in four years: It's obvious that he's the problem here. Finally, Oneshotofwhiskey only brings up the fact that I accused SPECIFICO of hack editing because I have refrained from reciprocating his far more vituperative personal attacks (e.g., "Your excuses and spins about D'Souza's scam-artisty, journalistic fraud, and unfounded conspiracy theories betray your political agenda. It has no place here. Nor did your failed attempt at a SPI witch hunt that went no where, and was clearly in service of your agenda," "You claimed oh so arrogantly that you 'know a sock when you see it' and then tried to use that in service of an agenda to silence another editor. Apparently you/ew shouldn't trust your eyes and your credibility has suffered as a result of your penchance for false accusations," accusing me of "egomaniac paranoia"). I have insisted over and over again that Oneshotofwhiskey is the one making radical changes, so the onus is on him to achieve consensus per WP:BRD. If, however, he (or his IP friend) is able to force his changes through because no-one besides myself is prepared to get down in the mud with him—and the admins declare a pox on all houses—then Oneshotofwhiskey will have effectively made a mockery of Wikipedia policy. Lengthy discussions such as the one at Talk:Soviet–Afghan War are, in fact, how the sausage of consensus is made. I have no particular love for D'Souza (Oneshotofwhiskey's aspersions to the contrary are mere projection based on his own fierce antipathy towards the subject of the article), but neither the more blatant vandalism nor the mass deletions are the sort of minor changes best supplemented with additional material or little tweaks—they are WP:BOLD, they make WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims against a living person, and allowing them to stand with no consensus would violate every norm of how Wikipedia is supposed to function.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The fourth diff in the first group is by a different editor. The second group of 4 diffs seems to be a clear 3RR violation. Zero^talk 00:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

My bad user:Zero0000. I think I mistyped a character when I was forced to input that manually when my copy and paste failed on me (older computer, couldn't get the shortcut to work properly, etc.) Here WAS/IS the fourth edit I meant to include, etc.(corrected above) #[14]

Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that that "fourth revert" actually precedes the others, took place the day before, and was in response to somewhat different changes—some of which were discussed on the talk page and seem to have been resolved. Now, I certainly admit to violating 3RR at 2016: Obama's America, although without realizing it at the time: After Oneshotofwhiskey made 10 edits, I deleted one word he added ("conspiracy"), and this word then became the subject an edit war when (to my surprise) he insisted his language was appropriate. He re-added the word three times, and I deleted it three more times—under circumstances such as that, I would argue both editors should be punished or neither. I also believe that describing a living person as a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia's neutral voice is a BLP violation unless very strong sources are provided—something Oneshotofwhiskey refused to do.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: Oneshotofwhiskey has recently been blocked for 31 hours due to socking. If his sockpuppet IP is counted, he restored the word "conspiracy" four times. So, it's up to the admins to decide whether and how much to punish the two of us for our 3RR violations: Perhaps 31 hours is punishment enough, or perhaps his block should be extended; whether or not I deserve any leniency due to the underlying circumstances is something I am obviously too biased to argue. But there is no doubt that, as a strict matter of fact, both Oneshotofwhiskey and myself reverted more than three times.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The socking accusation was overturned on appeal, based on "misunderstandings." I can provide documentation if necessary based on email correspondence if that is appropriate or required. I will leave it at that regarding this other editor making it an issue here and have good faith that he was operating on a misunderstanding. As for the rest, the edit-warring is unjustified. Glad to see him finally admit to that. Onwards and upwards.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see the documentation. You submitted an unblock request through UTRS, which was then closed, and as I recall you were still blocked afterwards. There's nothing in your block log to support your claim: It looks like you were unblocked because your 31 hours was up. If it turns out you are lying about this, then your behavior borders on the pathological.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, your personal attacks speak volumes about your agenda and you know better than to do that. I was trying to be civil here. In fact, I made this twist of events public considering I have nothing to hide and to extend the olive branch. However, to address your 'concern': The admin who responded to my request in email said it was "easier to let the block expire" than to "go through the trouble to appeal that part of it." However, the part of the block that was overturned was the part where a valid check user was performed. It turns out that they simply took you at your word, which is not what they are supposed to do given I provided a sufficient rebuttal. Once that checkuser was actually performed, it became clear there was no link between my IP and the anon you confused with my edits. The appealing admin also conceded that there was "insufficient evidence to perform a valid behavioral investigation." It failed along the guidelines of WP:DUCK. They erred because they took what you said at face value. However, in their defense, since normally there is a high incidence of socking on these pages it is an easy mistake to make. That is why we have an appeals process. I was told, after all, it was at worst a slap of the wrist so to let it go in either case. That is all I wanted: I didn't care about the time-out. I just wanted them to acknowledge I hadn't done anything wrong. But in the interest of making peace, I was also advised to act in good faith and extend to you the benefit of the doubt. I was told that maybe you were operating under a misunderstanding. Fair enough. However, keep up the personal attacks and the smug attitude I can reconsider that generosity on my part. We can move forward OR you can continue your disruptiveness toward me. I've been trying my best to work things out with you on the talk pages, and I've conceded several of my positions already in the interest of compromise. The ball is now in your court. I have nothing left to say here on this matter. Good luck.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging is WP:NOTHERE -- a POV battleground editor who short-circuits into personal attacks and off-topic rants at the drop of a hat. A TBAN from American Politics is required to prevent further disruption. SPECIFICO talk 02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Glad this came up. "TheTimesAreAChanging" has also persistently personally attacked SPECIFICO who is a thoughtful editor who stays civil for the most part. As recently as this example [15], user "TheTimesAreAChanging" attacked SPECIFICO for his name, making fun of him for picking a name that "sounds like a robot", and other mean-spirited digs. I mention this as yet another example of the bad faith, edit-warring disruptive mindset he is bringing this, not just to me, but against others on the pages that some of us are humbly trying to constructively edit. Again, this disruptive editor can not have it both ways. He clearly is versed in the rules of wiki and will lecture us at end about perceived violations against him, but then commits the same behavior with below-the-belt personal attacks like the "robot" insult. Clearly he knows better but is projecting. To whomever reads this, thanx again for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I was criticizing SPECIFICO's edit summary—"Restored well-sourced NPOV noteworthy. Use talk if you disagree. The criterion for article content is noteworthiness, not notability of each detail. The content is widely reported by RS as cited."—which was clearly intended to conceal, rather than reveal, his actual reason for reinstating your mass deletion. As I noted: "His edit summaries [are] so vaguely written and acronym-heavy it is impossible to guess what the underlying issues might be."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. This page has been fully protected for one week due to content-related disputes. TheTimesAreAChanging and Oneshotofwhiskey: You are both in violation of 3RR over this article, and what makes it even more of an issue is the fact that it is currently under discretionary sanctions by the arbitration committee. But because neither one of you have edited the article after being warned of the discretionary sanctions imposed on the article, no blocks will be imposed at this time. You both are on a final warning basis. You two are to discuss the issues on the article's talk page and in a civil manner. Failure to do so, or engaging in further edits without consensus will result in discretionary sanctions. Please work this out peacefully between you two. I wish you both the best of luck :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see much good behavior from either of these editors and I don't see either of them contributing to the quality of the Dinesh D'Souza but rather just pushing opposing viewpoints without end. I recommend indefinite topic bans for both of them from any articles that concern Dinesh D'Souza. Zero^talk 06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Zero0000: totally agree. A couple of TBans should sort out this kind of tendentious editing: particularly when both parties refuse to cooperate and use our procedures as weapons to win editing disputes. _Muffled ^Pocketed 06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is fair that you are grading me based upon a curve against the other user. Other than this report, I have not used procedure like this elsewhere. I'm certainly not using it as a weapon. There was an edit war. What was I supposed to do? It's better to "report, and not retaliate." As for the rest, if the only solution to resolve this is to topic ban us both, then so be it if it is for the greater good of the article and Wikipedia. However, if you thoughtfully look at my edits, I've been trying my best to resolve this peacefully with the editor. If it is too late for that, then so be it. Thank you for your input.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

My edits have been entirely in the form of rollbacks to the previously-accepted version. I have never edited the article before and have added no original material of my own. Nor have I ranted at length regarding my personal feelings about D'Souza—unlike Oneshotofwhiskey, who states his goal is to expose "the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)." Believe it or not, I have no particular interest in or love for D'Souza: I just had the page on my Watchlist, along with nearly 2,000 others.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

EC: In fact, I added Dinesh D'Souza to my Watchlist fairly recently, after watching last summer's D'Souza-Cenk Uygur Politicon debate. The debate piqued my curiosity about what Wikipedia had to say about him, and I noticed some POV material I meant to return to, but never did. (The material in question was added by SkepticAnonymous sockpuppet Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz; I still suspect that Oneshotofwhiskey is another SA sock, checkuser notwithstanding, because of many similarities between Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz and Oneshotofwhiskey—such as their shared interest in Ghostbusters (2016 film) and D'Souza, and the fact that after the former was banned the latter continued making the same arguments in his place on the D'Souza talk page).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

There he goes again. I never said anywhere "my goal is to expose D'Souza." Perhaps I lost my temper after he attacked me with false allegations, hence that statement from me regarding what I saw as a partisan defense of D'Souza's corruption, who is in fact a felon who went to jail for serious charges. However, despite my personal feelings about that and my own political biases, I have no agenda to expose any politician. I simply didn't agree with this editor's constant reverts of my contributions to the page, most of which were neutral, mild and well-sourced. In fact, I don't want to continue this debate further. I only jumped in since the editor is trying to put words in my mouth and make claims about me that are simply untrue. The admin made a great suggestion here and I'm trying to follow it. I wish he would do the same and start using good faith.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

P.S. As for his allegation that I am a sock of a formerly banned member, this was already resolved in an SPI where I was cleared of this (false) accusation and where "TheTimesAreAChanging" was admonished for how he handled it. Bringing it up here again is an unnecessary distraction and borders on a personal attack. This report is already long enough. Can we just let it be and let the admins sort it out without more mudslinging and emoting?Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Oneshotofwhiskey: You need to understand that proper dispute resolution requires teamwork, collaboration, and consensus. You need to discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page and patiently work with one another and work towards an agreement and solution together. The article in dispute is under discretionary sanctions, meaning that sanctions can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator to stop disruption to the project. I'm a relatively new administrator; I haven't imposed a discretionary sanction before, and I'd really really like to keep it that way :-). If nothing comes of an attempt at a peaceful discussion on the article's talk page, then you're obviously free to follow the dispute resolution guidelines and go through the proper channels to get assistance with resolving the issue. I highly encourage you to please please move on from this with a positive mindset and with expanding the Encyclopedia with the highest quality content possible as your top priority. If you do this, everything will naturally fall into place and things will be absolutely fine! :-)

TheTimesAreAChanging: If you have evidence of sock puppetry, you need to file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations with that evidence. Making accusations of sockpuppetry in a discussion outside of an SPI report is generally disruptive... I mean, what good does it do, right? Pointing fingers and saying "I think he's a sock" is only going to make a dispute worse and make an angry and frustrated editor even more angry and frustrated. That just makes things harder, man! :-) Remember that we want to try and do everything possible to lead other editors to a civil and peaceful resolution to their disagreements, and we need to assume good faith if we don't have satisfactory evidence to prove otherwise. It sounds to me like you noticed a current event occurring that involved the article subject and added the article to your watchlist with due diligence in mind, and you probably now feel that you're plopped in the middle of a dispute that you didn't intend to be so involved in. I totally get that; I've been there, dude. Just understand that repeatedly reverting content-related issues (especially to an article under discretionary sanctions) will generally get you sucked into the dispute spotlight, which is a drag to be in. Lets move on from this with a fresh perspective and a positive learning experience, and lets work the problem out on the article's talk page :-)

Both of you have been notified of the discretionary sanctions imposed on this article, you've both been formally warned to discuss any content disputes on the article's talk page or use the proper channels (with evidence) to report policy violations, and you've both been told to seek proper dispute resolution before making further edits or reverts. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. I'm going to close this thread as "Page protected". Please follow my advice, and please work things out properly and peacefully :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For those who are looking for an explanation behind my closure of this thread and the decision I reached regarding administrative action, I explained in-depth on my user talk page in a response to someone's message here. Please feel free to reach out to me if anybody has additional questions or concerns :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with Oshwah's closure of this report. Complaints at AN3 need to be brief and usually they need to be handled quickly. Long posts full of recriminations make it difficult to see what the underlying problems might be. If issues remain, anyone dissatisfied with this closure might raise them at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Orchomen reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page

The Thundermans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Orchomen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744686012 by MPFitz1968 (talk)"
2. 20:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744685235 by Amaury (talk)"
3. 20:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744684799 by Callmemirela (talk ) have you actually looked at what you're reverting?"
4. 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Callmemirela (talk) to last revision by Orchomen. (TW)"
5. 20:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744684469 by Callmemirela (talk)"
6. 20:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744684215 by Amaury (talk)"
7. 20:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744683741 by Callmemirela (talk)"
8. 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744644842 by Amaury (talk)this is just grammar.."
9. 15:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Amaury (talk) to last revision by Orchomen. (TW)"
10. 15:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744638476 by Amaury (talk)not a sock"
11. 12:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See also related ANI report, and various user talk page discussions: User talk:IJBall, User talk:Amaury, and User talk:Oshwah. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yup. This user is just a troll, and IJBall and myself very strongly suspect they're a sock puppet, but we—or, rather, IJBall—can't really pinpoint who they're a sock puppet of. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

 Whose sock is it anyway? GAB^gab 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Warned)

Page

Racism in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JoetheMoe25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744730868 by Callmemirela (talk)The New Left censorship has got to end"
2. 02:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744728105 by Callmemirela (talk)New source included."
3. 02:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744726592 by Zero0000 (talk)Then I'll just move it down. I had originally put it as the second sentence. Personally I don't care where it is positioned, so long as it's in"
4. 00:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744690820 by Malik Shabazz (talk)"
5. 20:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744505661 by Malik Shabazz (talk) Your name gives away your bias."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [16]
2. [17]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [18]
2. [19]

Comments:

• Please see WP:AN/I#Repeated personal attacks from JoetheMoe25. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

• User:JoetheMoe25 has already been blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for personal attacks and harassment, and that is the only thing preventing them from receiving an edit-warring block from me. Therefore, JoetheMoe25 is Warned that any further edit-warring may be met with a block, whether or not a violation of 3RR is involved. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:117.199.86.130 reported by User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Wikimandia (Result:protected for 3 days)

Page: Mosul offensive (2016) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.199.86.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP is reverting all changes from the battle, which BEGAN today. He bizarrely deems today's updates (after the assault action began) unimportant. Article has since been split off (see talk page) into other article, Battle of Mosul (2016), and he is continuously reverting to previous version that removes all links to the split off article etc. I already reverted him several times but he will not allow new information on this page. Single purpose IP with no talk page. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I fully protected the page, and the IP is already engaged in the talk page discussion, please continue.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Jamesmiko reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warning, Protection)

Page

Atlanta United FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jamesmiko (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 07:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) to 07:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 07:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "This admin needs to recuse himself for applying mere opinion. He's threatening me arbitrarily and w/o reaching consensus. There was no admin process reached for this edit, nor any final consensus on colors. I have appealed to other admins for unfair use"
   2. 07:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "For the legal use of Atlanta United FC's colors, see: http://atlpartners.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/AtlantaUnited_BrandGuide_151203.pdf. This outlines the only formal use of team colors, regardless of interpretive and non-binding guidelines"
2. 06:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "reverted the inappropriate use of team colors and incorrect interpretation of WP rules"
3. 06:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Players and staff */"
4. 02:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744436951 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Atlanta United FC. (TW)"
2. 05:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */ RPP"
3. 06:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Atlanta United FC. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Attempted to explain why the colour scheme was wrong at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jamesmiko&diff=743771139&oldid=743141632 and the editor has attempted to seek intervention from other editors rather than discuss. This culminated in the edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw their conversation with Rob on Rob's talk page. They obviously have no interest in discussing the matter on why their version is incorrect and just want to keep edit warring. You're trying to keep colors in compliance, so you're fine. They're not, and if they're not going to understand, then a temporary block is definitely needed to hopefully get the point across. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Result: User:Jamesmiko is warned for edit warring. The article has been placed under three days of full protection by User:Ymblanter. Per the discussion at User talk:BU Rob13#Atlanta United FC, User:Jamesmiko seems to be determined to ignore the mandate of MOS:CONTRAST when choosing colors for table headers. He did break 3RR while trying to enforce his own choice of colors. Regardless of the binding status of the CONTRAST guideline, we do enforce the WP:Edit warring rules here. If Jamesmiko continues to revert against consensus when protection expires he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Protection policy #Content disputes, "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies" The version protected violates our accessibility policy, specifically WP:COLOUR. Please don't force our visually impaired readers to suffer three more days of this nonsense; change Atlanta United FC to a version that complies with WCAG AAA standard. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Vinstreak reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 54 hours)

Page

Parkland High School (Pennsylvania) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vinstreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[20]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744892608 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
2. 22:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744891936 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk)"
3. 22:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744891626 by Meters (talk)"
4. 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744891303 by Meters (talk)"
5. 22:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744890893 by Meters (talk)"
6. 22:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744865924 by Widefox (talk)"
7. 22:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744840549 by John from Idegon (talk) http://pittesc.weebly.com/board-members.html"
8. 19:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744836671 by John from Idegon (talk)"
9. 18:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "added additional bios"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[21]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[22]

Comments:

Edit-warring to include a non-notable person. GAB^gab 02:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

And continuing the edit war with [23] Meters (talk) 02:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 54 hours Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2604:2000:614a:2b00:d0e8:3fbe:1f4:7dbc reported by User:Cotton2 (Result: Semi)

Page: Andrew Miller (baseball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2604:2000:614a:2b00:d0e8:3fbe:1f4:7dbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:05, 18 October 2016‎‎
2. 07:02, 18 October 2016‎ "Was not on postseason roster"
3. 07:34, 18 October 2016‎‎ "Undid revision 744945232 by Cotton2 (talk) No, the rule is if you didn't make the playoff roster, you don't get listed."
4. 08:14, 18 October 2016‎‎ "Undid revision 744949915 by Cotton2 (talk) see the hidden notes on Barry Zito and Brian Wilson. It's been discussed so many times on WT:Baseball"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:
Removing edits, no source stating player not World series champ. No consensus in referenced talk pages. Cotton2 (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You can keep putting your head in the sand all you want, that's what the consensus is on WT:Baseball. You can't even get the times of my edits right. 2604:2000:614A:2B00:D0E8:3FBE:1F4:7DBC (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two weeks by User:Enigmaman. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bocaj12 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:24 hours )

Page

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bocaj12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745001087 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) You seem to have mistaken your opinion for a fact. Evolution vs ID is controversial and an unbiased article should not take sides"
2. 18:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745000781 by Doug Weller (talk) So what?"
3. Left out this one. 15 18:43[26]
4. 18:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744992259 by Dave souza (talk) Perhaps so, but controversial elsewhere."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism ‎ . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I must say, I had no idea such a rule existed, and Mr Weller's message only showed up after my third revert. If I had known about the rule, I would have complied with it. Sorry about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocaj12 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Bocaj12 that was your 4th revert, I left one out. You continued to revert after I warned you. If you undo that revert you probably won't be blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I did not see your message until the page refreshed after my revert, and did not revert anything after you thereby brought the rule to my attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocaj12 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

You have now reverted a 5th time [27] Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Bocaj12 has been repeatedly urged here and on their own page to self-revert after being informed of the rule, but have not. Their last revert was finally reverted by someone else about five minutes ago, so I would say they had plenty of time. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC).Bishonen | talk 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BoBoMisiu reported by User:Blueboar (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Papal ban of Freemasonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BoBoMisiu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]
7. [35] At this point (Oct. 10) User:BoBoMisiu was blocked for 24 hours] by User:Vanamonde. Upon expiration of the block he continued to edit war:
8. [36]
9. [37]
10. [38]
11. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:BoBoMisiu#Notice of continued edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry#POV and OR - footnote to the footnote

Comments:
While BoBoMisiu is engaging in discussion on the talk page, it is purely in defense of his preferred version of the text. He does not seem willing to listen to the comments of others, nor to show a willingness to reach compromise language. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)}}

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 23:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

User:75.120.252.74 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )

Page

The Voice (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

75.120.252.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "THIS IS A CLUTTER FREE WAY OF SEEING WHICH COACHES COACHED WHAT SEASONS!"
2. 00:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745047563 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
3. 00:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Every other international version of the show has this table showing what judges judged which seasons, there is no reason why we shouldn't have one as well."
4. 10:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744905628 by Musicedit98 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User seems to not be here for constructive reasons, and instead, seems to be here to promote their own edits. User was warned on their user page, and still refuses to refrain from edit-warring on the topic. It was decided upon to not use the coaches' table, and instead, use a coaches' gallery. But this IP is refusing to accept this. Option was also discussed, previously, on page's talk page. livelikemusic talk! 00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Froglich reported by User:FNAS (Result: )

Page: Dreams from My Real Father (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
How to Read Donald Duck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Froglich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Dreams from My Real Father:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Long history of vandalism at How to Read Donald Duck, which Froglich turned into a pamphlet for his own views on Chilean history:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48] (see also [49])

More generally, I believe this user has a problem with assessing the reliability of sources. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film (3rd nomination), where Froglich knows better than the "anencephalics who presently dictate academia" and his history of pushing climate change denial (see user talk page, under "Commie Chameleons").

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] (not by me)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. Having read Froglich's talk page, I conclude that his standard response to anything he doesn't agree with is verbal abuse (e.g. [51]), not any constructive attempt at a resolution. An admin has already concluded that ([52]) that 'this user has had way, way too many "final warnings" already' for making personal attacks on other editors.

FNAS (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)