Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive288

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Accurate Nuanced Clear reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Sydney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  2. 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  3. 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored - so far a majority of two people agree this is within wikipedia guidelines. SEE TALK PAGE for extensive explanation"
  4. 09:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671354759 by AussieLegend"
  5. 14:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Please see discussion on talk page. I've written - no one has responded. They need to justify DESTRUCTION. This edit is backed up by two people. Contribute something CONSTRUCTIVE - this is not an exclusive club"

Diff of edit warring warning: [2] with clarification.[3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [4]

Extended discussion. Click to view.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments:
This is an edit-warring report, not a report of a 3RR breach. Accurate Nuanced Clear made a number of edits to Sydney that were opposed by another editor who cited WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in his reversion. Accurate Nuanced Clear almost immediately reverted with no explanation.[5] The other editor subsequently reverted again, this time explaining in his edit summary "not at all deserving of its own section, unencyclopedic, undue weight, news style writing".[6] Accurate Nuanced Clear's almost immediate response was to again revert without explanation.[7] HappyWaldo reverted again several hours later, this time explaining "goes against dozens of wiki policies and guidelines, eg WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:BALASPS. sydney has seen many controversial laws implemented over its 200+ year history. none of them need this kind of coverage" in his edit summary.[8] Some time later Accurate Nuanced Clear again reverted. It was only then that Accurate Nuanced Clear started to discuss, first at HappyWaldo's talk page with what seems more an attack than a serious attempt at resolution,[9] and then at Talk:Sydney#Inclusion of information on lockout laws in the section 'Entertainment'. The subsequent discussion at Talk:Sydney demonstrates clear opposition to Accurate Nuanced Clear's edits in their current form. Upon discovering this I reverted to the status quo and left a warning on Accurate Nuanced Clear's talk page, with clarification, about edit-warring. However, Accurate Nuanced Clear posted to my talk page and then reverted at Sydney without waiting for a reply.[10] He did not bother to further particpate in the discussion at Talk:Sydney despite there being several comments since his last post.[11] I asked Accurate Nuanced Clear to revert his last change but he did not, and went silent. Another editor reverted Accurate Nuanced Clear's edits with another request to discuss but instead, Accurate Nuanced Clear reverted yet again.[12] Accurate Nuanced Clear does not seem interested in coming to consensus on the issue, only to insert his edits as he wants to, edit-warring if he deems it necessary. --AussieLegend () 14:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I should probably add that Accurate Nuanced Clear's edit summaries are less than accurate:

  • "Restored - so far a majority of two people agree this is within wikipedia guidelines. SEE TALK PAGE for extensive explanation."[13] - No editor has "agree[d] this is within wikipedia guidelines", much less two.
  • "Reverted page to STATUS QUO - Please refer to REVERT policy: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting". I SEEK MEDIATION of this dispute !"[14] - The edit was not a reversion to the status quo at all, it was a reversion to his preferred version.
  • "Please see discussion on talk page. I've written - no one has responded. They need to justify DESTRUCTION. This edit is backed up by two people. Contribute something CONSTRUCTIVE - this is not an exclusive club"[15] - In fact three editors have responded to the discussion and nobody has supported his edits. --AussieLegend () 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Accurate Nuanced Clear has significantly changed his post after I replied to it, I'm moving my response here so it's clear that I replied to this version and not the changed version.

You eventually explained on the talk page why you think the content should be included but despite the fact that two editors have publicly stated that they do not support the edits as they stand, you haven't responded to their concerns. HappyWaldo suggested "It might merit a sentence somewhere in the article, not an entire section with a ridiculously specific and overlong title" and Winner 42 suggested creating a crime section and adding a note there, since this is already in Crime in Sydney but you've been too busy reverting, twice since Winner 42 made his suggestion. Your invitation to HappyWaldo to propose a solution seems to demonstrate that you haven't even read the comments. That another editor didn't revert you is not an indication of support. Nihiltres simply fixed a number of citations,[16] and made no comment at all. I can't see any other editor making edits other than reversions of your content, and there are three of them. Of course nothing justifies your persistent edit-warring with multiple editors. --AussieLegend () 15:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Accuarate Nuanced Clear's claim that I destroyed his headline below is bogus. He did that himself, in this edit, and in the following edit he called me "AussieLoser",[17] which is clearly inappropriate. --AussieLegend () 15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)



ANCs response:

1) The fact that I changed my post "after" you replied to it has no meaning whatsoever. It is my HABIT to improve the clarity of my writing. Anyone can check for themselves and see the CONTENT is little changed. I think this 'observation' of your says alot about the filters you are using in this discussion .

2) I COMPLETELY took notice of HappyWaldo's concerns - indeed, I answered them DIRECTLY in the talkpage, under each of the three policies he cited. The fact you have not seen that show that you CLEARLY have not properly looked into this.

. 3) I cannot see any statement by Winner42 on the talk page or my page. More importantly, the Lockout has a VERY DIRECT and in fact QUITE LARGE affect on the ENTERTAINMENT in Sydney. Hence the reason it deserves a mention. It may be a LAW, but it has only an indirect link to CRIMINALITY. This law affects ALL (innocent) people who are considering going out in Sydney. Indeed, it is not actually possible to be a criminal under this law unless you are a venue or staff of such. It is 10 x more related to ENTERTAINMENT in SYDNEY than it is to LAWS in Sydney. This to me is blindingly obvious. . 4) I think it's commonsense that if someone LEAVES CONTENT IN TACT and goes to the trouble of IMPROVING it, that is tacit support for inclusion. I feel you are biased in your approach to this. The amount of time you've spent on it is telling. As for me, I'm off ! I don't have time for this minutae. If it's so important to you to censor the information about the lockout in Sydney - feel free. I'm sure all the international readers of WP will thankyou for the lack of vital information about the city when they travel there and find their schedules thrown into chaos by the ignorance you helped create with your VERY enthusiastic censorship. Again: STATE YOUR POLITICAL INTEREST IN THIS! BYE BYE ! Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk)

Response by Accurate Nuanced Clear

(including reinstatement of headline destroyed by AussieLegend)

1)This is quite an unbalanced representation. HappyWaldo completely failed to engage in an attempt to reach consensus, and simply DELETED my work with short comments in the summary. By contrast I started the consensus-building process by offering a thorough explanation of why I thought the section was worthy for inclusion in the the talk page for "Sydney": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sydney#Inclusion_of_information_on_lockout_laws_in_the_section_.27Entertainment.27

I have SINCE DIRECTLY invited CONSENSUS-BUILDING (see pt 5)

2)Just because I did not start the consensus-building process immediately should not damn me. I haven't contributed to WP for A LONG time, so am unfamiliar with the myriad of secondary and tertiary rules. Is there a rule that you must immediately justify a reversal of DELETION of your contribution?

3)As far as I'm aware, the rules also say that reversions should ONLY be done if really necessary.

POLICY QUOTES: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen."

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement."

"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. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony"

4)AussieLegend has made false claims and accusations:

a) AussieLegend above claimed that my statement that the new section was within WP guidelines was false.
But when I said the changes were backed by two editors I was referring to myself and to the other editor (‎Nihiltres) who did NOT delete the material about the lockout but simply improved it, which is clearly tacit approval for the INCLUSION of the information.

b) AussieLegend said: "The subsequent discussion at Talk:Sydney demonstrates clear opposition to Accurate Nuanced Clear's edits in their current form"

This is another misrepresentation. Here is the reality:

  • Two editors support the CONTENT - myself and Nihiltres ~ so far
  • ONE editor opposes the CONTENT - HappyWaldo, who reverted on that basis
  • TWO editors reverted for the ADMINSTRATIVE (non-content) reason that the content was the subject of an edit war - AussieLegend (who is now admitting he ALSO opposes the content), and User666777, who has chimed in after a two-year absence from WP

The fact is, HappyWaldo is equally engaged in an edit war if we are to follow AussieLegend's standards.

5)

In addition I have now included an invitation to HappyWaldo to try to reach consensus, which I've included on the Sydney talk page and on his:

Dear HappyWaldo, considering that the lockout laws ARE now a major feature of the night-time ENTERTAINMENT situation in Sydney, since they entirely GOVERN *ALL* situations in which locals and internationals engage in entertainment in the traditional entertainment districts of Sydney, what is your proposal for at least MENTIONING the basics of it?

6)

One reason I haven't  partly because of frustration at overzealous, aggressive, combatitive editing I encountered last time I was here - now YEARS ago.

It seems to me WP is in danger of becoming an exclusive cabal, as stated here: http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853 and https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3cxedn/i_am_steve_huffman_the_new_ceo_of_reddit_ama/cszx5hr Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk)



7) Personal attacks? No: demand for accountability. I want to know what possible conflicts of interests exist with these editors. Sockpuppeting has long been a problem on WP

I want HappyWaldo to state any connections with political parties in NSW, the hospitality industry, the liquor industry, the tourism industry or any other industry. I want AussieLegend to state any friendly connections with HappyWaldo. I want User666777 to state how he found out about the changes to the page 'Sydney' and why he chose, after an absence of two years, to make the deletion of this section his sudden interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talkcontribs) 15:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • It's considered to be very poor form to significantly alter your posts after somebody has already replied to them.[18][19] --AussieLegend () 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sedo121212 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: More popular than Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sedo121212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26] (also see above diff on user's talk page talking about the content)

Comments:

This user wants to add some content to the article that nobody else is really sure is relevant. A conversation is developing, but the editor appears to be logging out and reverting anyway (last diff is an IP but edit summary matches behaviour of the others). As I have reverted once on this debate, and was responsible to getting it to good article status, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED in this debate and request another admin handle this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:109.151.114.1 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
109.151.114.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
  2. 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
  3. 15:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
  4. 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction"
  2. 15:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. (TW)"
  3. 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Talk:Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction#Removal of HDD glitch section
  2. 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "So, IP-- I see you've reverted it again in spite of the discussion here. What's your reasoning?" (BlusterBlaster)
Comments:

User:Evropariver reported by User:Athenean (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, across numerous talkpages.

Comments: This user is pushing a bizarre creationist/Ancient Egyptian POV throughout the encyclopedia. While technically not in breach of 3RR, he has edit-warred across the encyclopedia. As of this writing, in the last 12 hours or so I am counting: One rv at Mathematics [32], 2 rv at Chemistry [33], 2 rv at Writing [34], 1 rv at Ancient History [35], 1 rv at Dinosaur [36], 2 rv at Herodicus [37], 2 rv at Biology [38], 2 rv at City [39], 2 rv at Human [40], 1 rv at Civilization [41]. Together with the 3 reverts at Earth, this is whopping 19 reverts in the last 12 hours alone. He has been repeatedly warned on his talkpage but continues to edit-war. Several users have told him his conduct is problematic [42] but he refuses to listen, maintaining he is "right" and everybody else wrong. Athenean (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note, he has been reverted by many other users, due to his clumsy and crude POV-pushing. Characteristic of his mentality is the fact that instead of trying to defend his actions, he has gone on the offensive by filing a copycat report. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. Large number of reverts across multiple articles. He seems to have distinctive personal opinions that he is willing to edit war about. If your own opinion is out of the mainstream (or at least, differs from the established content in that specific article) you are well advised to get consensus before changing it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Athenean reported by User:Evropariver (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [44] (source falsification)
  2. [45] (source falsification)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes. Comments: This user is damaging sourced content based on his biased Greek POV throughout the encyclopedia. He also did source falsification in the 2 reverts above, the rest of his reverts in a number of articles was removal of reliably-sourced content and addition of POV images. On the talk page one can not maintain a debate with him, he says that the whole articles on sciences must emphasize only on Ancient Greece, despite on stronger contributions by much earlier civilisations acknowledged by primnary sources(Aristotle) and secondary sources(Oxfor University Press) and keeps damaging the content. He says that I should listen to him(agree with the extreme view), otherwise if I disagree he rejects to discuss and repeats that I must listen to him and he is right, then as part of his manipulations lies that I personally attack him. In fact, he personally attacked me, calling me as "being from a country with a much less interesting and much shorter history, with far fewer contributions to human civilization (to put it mildly), than his own." [47], finally he acted the Greatest of all and said that "because I pretend not to listen to him, it means that interacting with me is a total waste of time"[48] While technically not in breach of 3RR, he has edit-warred across the encyclopedia. In the last 24 hours or so I am counting: 2rv at Biology [49], where he made source falsifications with the source I added, 1 rv at Demeter [50], 1 rv at Hermes [51], 1 rv at Herodicus [52], 1 rv at Weight [53], 1 rv at History of medicine [54], 1 rv at Civilisation [55], 2 rv at Human [56], 2 rv at City [57], pushing 2 pictures of his city Athens and deleting others, 2 rv at Writing [58], 1 rv at Medicine [59] this were 17 reverts today alone. --Evropariver (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • This is yet another example of this user's tendentious behaviour. He creates this disruptive tit-for-tat report which indicates no understanding of the disruption he has caused pushing his peculiar creationist POV on Dinosaurs and his peculiar Egyptians-came-first POV which he tried to impose on a wide swath of articles through relentless edit-warring against multiple editors using OR, ethnicity-based attacks and dubious sources which have found no support from the wikiprojects he tried to contact. Not only that but he has also been warned on his talkpage for copyright violations on multiple articles. Seldom have I seen such a path of edit-warring disruption from a single user on so many articles. This user needs to be blocked asap to prevent further disruption. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You mean that I must not be active, I am not, compared to the most active users, but to such users is attributed most of the contribution in Wikipedia, so your example is totally wrong. The statement about disruption is the "reverse" of the truth, the two users, the reported and the commenting, keep damaging well-sourced content just because are two and more in number, they both maintain the same agenda and work in team, combined have much of reverts. Unlike them, that I used personal attacks is a regular lie, my statement in the project should just be checked.Evropariver (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have trouble stating accurate facts? Are the two Greek users the only ones who keep reverting you? Has any other user agreed with your disruptive edits? How many users other than the two Greek users have reverted you? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unlike them, that I used personal attacks is a regular lie,: So you think you have not attacked the ethnicity of other editors when you open threads in Wikiprojects under the title "Alone against nationalists in edit war" and you comment On nationalist, by some Athenian(Greek) users, arrogantly falsificating the source I added,.... Have you forgotten so soon or do you have some other problem? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    • A third-party person form the project had a look on the case and said that "I did nothing wrong just cited the sourced info" [60] , so yes Dr.K, though reverted by others only you the two say that I am dispruptive, which is justification of your edits of nationalist bias which is not an offense but you are trying to claim it is to get me banned.--Evropariver (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why have you "forgotten" to add the rest of the comments of the "third-party person"?

    :Ummm... first: welcome. ;) Then: technically you did right. You cited a source correctly and gave the references. You did nothing wrong here. But! If someone claims things such as "Western biology begins in Egypt", my alert bells start to ring very loudly. Egypt is not "western"... Second, the author of the book you used claims that "Five thousand years ago Egyptian priests were already starting to gather a tremendous amount of medical data". You may wonder now: what's the problem? Well, 5000 years ago, that would mean at appr. 3000 BC.. Holla-yolla! At this time period the Egyptians had just invented their hieroglyphs and a first form of writing! There was no such things as "collecting medical data", because the only things the writers were allowed to write down, were economical events, religious festivals and the names of kings and noblemen. The first medical papyri (Papyrus Ebers, Papyrus Kahun, Papyrus Smith, Pap. Hearst and Pap. Berlin 3038) appear during the Middle Kingdom (app. 1940 BC.). Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • You are clearly trying to mislead here, aren't you? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Filer blocked 72 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Al_Khazar reported by User:J.K Nakkila (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: List of equipment of the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Al_Khazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [61] (other unrelated edits added to article since)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:
Long going edit war conserning the inclusion of Pantsir-S1 in the list. Other users on the talk page seemrd to agree about inclusion of the section that User:Al_Khazar keeps deleting from the list while User:Amakuha readds it. This was discussed on User:Al_Khazar talkpage, but User:Al_Khazar deleted it for whatever reason [68]. J.K Nakkila (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've recently come back from my one month Wikibreak, so please don't make this stituation look like an edit war and see what it truly is. The "other users on the talk page that seemrd to agree about the inclusion" is none other than User:Amakuha. The entire stituation can be summarized as two editors not knowing what WP:FRINGE is and attempting to create an edit war out of unconfirmable reports. Another important note I should add is that WP:BLANKING is not prohibited by Wikipedia's standards and indicates that I have already read your counterproductive complaints. Khazar (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked 1 week by Swarm (t c). —Darkwind (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. While this is not an ongoing, rapid edit war, it is certainly a long-running one. I have read the discussion that has been going on since February, and while not an unreasonable debate in February, its revival in June appeared to satisfy most of the credible objections being presented (i.e., multiple sources were eventually provided which resulted in the other user who was objecting ceding that it qualified for inclusion); at some point Khazar simply kept beating the dead horse, and not hearing the good faith attempts to address his complaints. Ultimately, his main objection (as he stated above) was that the content in question was an "extreme" or "fringe" viewpoint that strictly required an exceptional amount of reliable sources. He was never unable to substantiate that claim at all and it appears to be totally baseless—I'm not sure how anyone can read WP:FRINGE and think that it applies to this content. This is either an indication of bad faith misrepresentation of policy, or evidence of a strong bias that has reached the point of disruption. Whichever it is, a longer disruptive editing block is warranted over the standard edit warring block. Regards, Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:109.151.114.1 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
109.151.114.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
  2. 21:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v, the exact same reason as before."
  3. 20:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. See Talk:Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction#Removal of HDD glitch section. Added manually by Bilorv at 21:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments:

The user was blocked yesterday for the exact same content dispute. A 24 hour block has not worked. They have not broken 3RR yet, but I see no point in reverting again just to watch them overstep an arbitrary boundary. They are clearly not going to help Wikipedia; they failed to discuss their edits, even after attempts to reason with them. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing to add: here is the previous report I made involving this user; they were blocked for 24 hours by Swarm. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing again: okay, this definitely oversteps 3RR. The IP has now made 6 reverts within the past 60 minutes (123456). I'll stop making updates now. I think the admin dealing with this will get the gist. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN talk to me 01:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Inependantyo reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Slavery among Native Americans in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Inependantyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 00:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Provided previously left out, but already cited, time period information"
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Added cited content, removal without also removing the rest of the material cited from the same publication is vandalism"
  2. 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Added already sourced content"
  3. 02:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Removal of half-fact. Leaving out parts of facts is irresponsible and leads to the confusion of the reader."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Slavery among Native Americans in the United States */ new section"
  2. 02:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page
  1. 01:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Slavery among Native Americans in the United States */ new section"
Comments:
  • Please review Inependantyo's edit history; the editor made a dozen reverts at Apache on 13 July, for which she/he was blocked 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week. Edit warring at Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. This is the second block in less than a week, for an account created on July 7. The user must be here on Wikipedia to impart great truths to the world and for WP:SOAPBOX reasons. Adding mentions of genocide and ethnic cleansing to the lead of Apache does fit that pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Arichuvadi reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Baahubali: The Beginning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arichuvadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 12:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC) to 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "lead section largely reduced and box office info added"
    2. 12:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Production */ alexa camera information is included in production, we dont have to include that in lead"
  2. 12:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "copy edit and thnx for the edit red pen of doom"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) to 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "reduced lead section"
    2. 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Production */"
    3. 12:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Production */"
    4. 12:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "copy edit"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC) to 12:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "references"
    2. 12:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "copy edit"
  5. 12:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Rv"
  6. 03:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Production */ please check main article"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 08:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC) to 08:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. 08:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "copy edit and typo"
    2. 08:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Rv low quality grammar and edits"
    3. 08:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Rv"
    4. 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Box office */ Rv"
    5. 08:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Overseas */ Rv"
    6. 08:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "references"
    7. 08:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Overseas */"
    8. 08:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Box office */ Rv amateur edits, poor grammar"
    9. 08:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Production */"
    10. 08:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "infobox"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Baahubali: The Beginning. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Rkorkayy (talk) to last revision by Nizil Shah. (TW)"
  2. 11:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Budget of Baahubali */"
Comments:

Being extremely disruptive, reverts to older versions of the article (in the process, many other good edits are undone) and refuses to co-operate. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Please take care not to edit war yourself, even when dealing with disruptive editors. Remember that 3RR applies to any reverts on an article within a 24 hour period, regardless of the content being reverted. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Marchoctober reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Both editors warned)[edit]

Page
Baahubali: The Beginning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Marchoctober (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671578582 by Kailash29792 (talk)Restoring Unexplained deletion of content, please see talk page"
@Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.
  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC) to 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.
    1. 16:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "restoring deleted sources by User:Kailash29792"
@Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.
    1. 16:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671577818 by Kailash29792 (talk) thats not an rfc to be followed, keeping information in the infobox is most common on wikipedia, continue as is and discuss on talk page"
@Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.
  1. 16:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671555611 by Kailash29792 (talk)restoring deleted information from infobox"
@Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.
  1. 17:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671427500 by Kailash29792 (talk) Please review the edit again you have deleted information not present in box office section."
@Kailash29792 this edit is restoring sourced information you deleted as seen in this diff below:
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

@Kailash29792 You have violated the rule see below

diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4
Diffs attempting to hide information which is well sourced @Kailash29792

  • diff ------> Deletes budget information from infobox of article
  • diff1
  • diff2
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


@Kailash29792
diffs
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:
@Kailash29792

Comments:

Making edits against consensus, and refuses to co-operate. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


@Kailash29792 Edits are not against consensus !! The discussion started only today and you are already talking about me going against consensus? How can consensus be obtained within a day ? Also you deleted well sourced information from the article and started this section on talk page to hide the information, you have to first attain consensus to remove the well sourced information and not to add which was already present on the article, pretty much every movie/film has the budget information in the lead and infobox you are trying to go hard against normal way of wikipedia to hide information.

Please see inline responses for other questions he raised.

Marchoctober (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Both editors are warned for violating 3RR. This usually results in an automatic block but I am going to choose to refrain in hopes that you will both cease reverting in order to avoid being blocked. Feel free to ping me if either party reverts again. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DharmoRakshati reported by User:Ogress (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Rajiv Malhotra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DharmoRakshati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Discuss this in the talk page.. Wiki main page is not for this kind of discussion. I request all to refrain from vandalizing this page further before reaching any consensus."
  2. 06:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 671520835 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) Then let wiki remain as it is till we reach a consensus at discussions page."
  3. 05:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "biased view, sources simply citing a self published report in violation of WP:NEWSORG"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Despite being a brand new user, they discussed this on my page and threatened me with "escalation" while also stating something so blatantly untrue about consensus the page had to be locked down: diff. I believe this is a blatant sock.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* WP:NEWSORG */ comment"
  2. 21:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Potential material for plagiarism section */ cite"
  3. 21:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* The Plagiarism Controversy section over which Edit warring took place on the main article */ note"
Comments:

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Callanecc for one week. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jobas reported by User:Calm321 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
Mia Khalifa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jobas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts and edit-warring
  1. [69]
  2. [70]
  3. [71]
  4. [72]
  5. [73]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [74]
  2. [75]
Comments:

user:Jobas keeps on reverting sourced materials on the Mia Khalifa page. He has not as of yet engaged in talk page discussions and has been reverting any attempt to state the religious identity of the person in question. The controversial nature of the figure warrants details into her religious identity and the reasons have been stated here [76]. Wikipedia is not the place for religiously motivated censorship of this nature. Calm321 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

there is no edit war going here he only picking my edits. The reference of [77] AND [78] of 15.7 it didn't arrived to the level of The three-revert rule (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.). and the same of [79] (the edit was in 2 july) and [80] and [81] (the edit in 3.7), the user is trying here and in Arabic wiki here which was refused, he try to pushing and including irrelevnt information (already included once) in this article espeacially that this figure is a porn star and stated that she is not practicing so pushing her religion in evey place in inside the article has no sense.--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Swarm we ♥ our hive 04:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:12.180.133.18 reported by User:Nixie9 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)[edit]

Page: R. H. Quaytman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 12.180.133.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [82] Jul-15 08:38
  2. [83] Jul-15 07:36
  3. [84] Jul-14 11:52

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:
Anon abandoned discussion, in which he made progress, and has unilaterally deleted and reverted 3x within 24 hours.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixie9 (talkcontribs)

Nixie9 has non-legitimately reverted my constructive, reasoned edits. I have explained my edits on R. H. Quaytman's talk page. Here is a list of three reverts by Nixie9, who has also falsely accused me of having bad intent. If you read my comments on the talk page, you will see that my edits (such as trimming unnecessary information about her child, and deleting illegitimate sources like a Facebook picture link, a *comment* on a blog, and links to other Wikipedia articles) are legitimate and improve R. H. Quaytman's article.
1. 13:10, 14 July 2015‎
2. 15:58, 14 July 2015‎
3. 12:31, 15 July 2015‎
--12.180.133.18 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Anon's legitimate edits were accepted, and amusingly, in the 3 diffs above, he includes my small change implementing the edits he argued for. However, Anon has repeatedly implemented/reverted additional, personal bias edits, deleting the relevant and well sourced content under discussion. Nixie9 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The following is false about my edits: "personal bias edits, deleting the relevant and well sourced content" 12.180.133.18 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. There is no such thing as "unilaterally" edit warring; there are always at least two parties involved. @Nixie9: you reverted as many times as the anonymous editor did, so if we're going to call hir behavior edit warring, then yours was as well. —Darkwind (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Raw-WikiEditor reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Declined )[edit]

Page
Gampalagudem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Raw-WikiEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "this is a village page not a constituency page"
  2. 18:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC) ""Vin09" u say there are no temples, no theaters, no schools and these are errors? and u want other websites as reference? I live here. I respect if you some data, not removing it."
  3. 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC) ""Vin09" stop acting like a fool. Add data if possible but don't spoil this page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Gampalagudem. (TW)"
  2. 18:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gampalagudem. (TW)"
  3. 08:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gampalagudem. (TW)"
  4. 09:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Final warning */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I have revoked my case yesterday after User:Philg88 suggestion. But the user continues to give me unnecessary warnings, those do not have any reason. The user continues to add WP:POV and reverts my edits at Gampalagudem. Gave final warning directly for adding sourced info and removing junk like theatres etc., by me. Today the user referred to Tiruvuru and warned of WP:OR, but no where there exist such thing, as no such edit was made by me in the last 27 days at Tiruvuru page. Check warnings. I've clearly mentioned on his talk page about his errors and even the admin also assisted, he tries to blame me at User_talk:Philg88#Hi_Phil... Need intervention.--Vin09 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I will deal with the matter on Raw-WikiEditor's talk page.  Philg88 talk 11:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Wiki hamze reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wiki hamze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "2 years ago, readers accepted to remove name of a unheard, new and rare religion which is put among top well-know 3 religions. even nobody has heard it self!"
  2. 17:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "you have not proposed an logical argument to put your rare and strange belief among major 3 ones. second, Mormonism is not a branch of Christianity, they have new prophet, just study a little."
  3. 16:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC) ""first, 4-5 milion is a threshold that you defined, why that? second, it is totally wrong, at least I know that mormonism has more population, third, I am sure that 99% of earth's population has not heard Bahai"
  4. 11:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "I wondered how someone put a tiny unheard religious among top 3. You should have a good excuse to put it there, otherwise a lot of others deserve to be there."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Abrahamic religions."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Bahai, again */"
Comments:

They are removing certain content against consensus, the same content had been discussed earlier on the article's talk page and this user was a part of the discussion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jackson's The Daddy reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Alastair Cook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jackson's The Daddy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Outside cricket */"
  2. 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Outside cricket */"
  3. 22:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Outside cricket */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC) to 22:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
    1. 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Outside cricket */"
    2. 22:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Outside cricket */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 22:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alastair Cook. (TW)"
  3. 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alastair Cook. (TW)"
  4. 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alastair Cook. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated addition of POV edits, including the wholly inappropriate line "He has bravely slaughtered defenceless animals and posed proudly next to his victims." Only sourced to the Daily Mail, which isn't a reliable source, and they've made 0 attempts to respond, rather they've just reverted again and again. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Obvious BLP violation. NeilN talk to me 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Buswkycaveshottest reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Warned user)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 12:18, 9 July 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:37, 16 July 2015
  2. 16:48, 16 July 2015
  3. 17:43, 16 July 2015
  4. 21:01, 16 July 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:27, 16 July 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:31, 16 July 2015

Comments: User:Buswkycaveshottest ist likely a sock of User:115ash


  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Alessandro, those are three reverts, not four, as consecutive reverts (your first and second diff) count as one. (Also, please use UTC times or — simpler — don't indicate times at all, as your local times can be quite confusing for people in other timezones.) That said, the user is certainly edit warring and ignoring consensus. They have already been urged to join the existing talkpage discussion — hopefully, they will. Bishonen | talk 07:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC). Sorry, I misspoke; I meant to say, your first diff wasn't a revert. The "previous version reverted to" that you give isn't something the user reverted to — indeed it's your version. So, only three reverts. But edit warring, yes. Bishonen | talk 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

User:Scytsari reported by User:Vanjagenije (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Tajiks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Scytsari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Take it to the talk page until a consensus is reached please. I believe he is an automated bot - no way he is reverting 1 second after me."
  2. 20:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Take it to the talk page until a consensus is reached please."
  3. 20:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Take it to the talk page or some other forum with your nationalistic agenda."
  4. 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Tired of these vandals/sockpuppets with nationalistic agendas, these people were all persian/tajik - common sense dictates such as well as academia"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tajiks. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this exact issue (Talk:Tajiks#Who should be included in the infobox and why. Scytsari is not participating, and those who do participate tend to agree that those images added by Scytsari should be removed. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User openly says that he is not interested to discuss the issue on the talk page: [87]. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
  • @Jeppiz: Your comment is very bad-faith. Scytsari made four reverts, while I made just three. WP:3rr allows three reverts. How can that be "equally intense". Even more important, I am the one who initiated a civil, argumented discussion on the talk page [92], while Scytsari openly says he does not want to take part in the discussion [93]. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Vanjagenije: Actually, I think your action is even worse. Scytsari is an inexperienced user who fell into your trap. You were obviously baiting Scytsari; you revert three times in three minutes(!) ([94], [95], [96]) and two minutes after your third revert you're here filing a report. I've never seen so obvious baiting, and it's completely unworthy of an experienced user. Extreme edit warring, baiting an inexperienced user and deliberately gaming the system. I definitely think you should be blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. After his first revert, I left him ameesage on his talk page informing him about the 3 revert rule [97]. So, he knew that he might be blocked, yet he reverted three more times. He may be inexipienced, I agree, but he at least knows to read. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I leave it for the reviewing admin to decide. You were edit warring and you tried to game the system. That's contrary to the spirit of 3RR, and of Wikipedie. I would have reported you both had you not already reported Scytsari. Nothing more to add in this discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Although I have fully protected the article (again), reviewing admins may still want to hand out block(s). --NeilN talk to me 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm of the belief that Vanjagenije has his hands clean here. He did not violate 3RR; he was only acting according to the consensus reached on the the talk page - something which Scytsari did not participate it in as of late, despite his saying 'take it to the talk page'. Oops, I didn't see his posts on the talk page. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Elspamo4 is the user who started the edit war by reverting as soon as the page protection was listed and has performed the same edit four times in a week themselves.Jeppiz (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protectedDarkwind (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cthornley85 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page
19 Kids and Counting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cthornley85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Duggar family */"
  3. 01:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Duggar family */"
  4. 20:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC) ""
  5. 17:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Duggar family */Keep my edit there."
  6. 19:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Duggar family */Doesnt need to be said exactly right. Keep it how I edited."
  7. 15:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Duggar family */"
  8. 06:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 19 Kids and Counting. (TW)"
  2. 02:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */ comment"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Clearly edit warring. However, this is a new user (account is a week old), and almost all the edits are on the Duggar page. It might have helped if one of the reverting editors had left a better edit summary explaining why the earlier version was better (grammatically, more specific, etc.) This editor might not even be aware of the 3RR rule (although now that General Ization (the real one) has informed them of it, they have no further excuse). I think this problem might go away now that the editor has been informed. If not a slight block might make it more effective. Onel5969 TT me 03:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid the editor still doesn't understand. Their response to this report was misplaced here and would indicate that they have missed the point. I agree that – possibly – better edit summaries by reverting editors (me included, though well past 3RR by then) might have helped. General Ization Talk 03:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Also please note that their most recent reversion was almost an hour after my 3RR warning on their Talk page and 20 minutes after my more detailed explanation of the original reason why their edit was being reverted, so I'm not sure being better informed is really the problem here. General Ization Talk 03:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You could well be right, General Ization. But they are clearly confused. They responded to Musdan77's non-constructive notice on their own talk page, then respond to the edit warring in the wrong place. I just put a message on their talk page to reiterate your comment. Perhaps that will help. Onel5969 TT me 03:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. Well they haven't edit warred but they have replied a couple of times since the above comments and it appears they really don't understand the problem at hand. It looks like it was explained thoroughly and in detail to them and if they can't understand the problem, there's not much choice besides a preventative block. However, given the fact that they've decided to quit the project in response to the complaints against them, there doesn't appear to be a need. If they do in fact return, and continue the edit war, please do reactivate this report, file a new one, or get in contact with me so we can address it. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Swarm. Shame really, General Ization really did give it a nice shot to politely explain things. Onel5969 TT me 13:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. Agreed there's nothing to do here for now. General Ization Talk 15:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:202.86.32.122 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page
Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
202.86.32.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 672072530 by Glen (talk)His listed official page is on Twitter. If twitter is ok then so is facebook."
  2. 02:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism 671950778 by Agtx (talk)"
  3. 04:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid repeated vandalism 671946873 by Aladdin Sane (talk)"
  4. 03:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 671944656 by Aladdin Sane (talk)"
  5. 02:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 671936990 by Ebyabe (talk) Longterm Link Removed by Vandal."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "/* July 2015 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:56, 18 July 2015 (UTC) "/* Fansite */ new section"
Comments:

User has been warned about adding link to Facebook fan group and invited to comment on talk page, but continues to add link without discussion. Calls other users "vandals" for removing the link. agtx 02:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:JJMC89 reporte