Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive310

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Observer900 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page
New Buckenham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Observer900 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "Re-insertion of detailed and factually corrected Planned Town summary."
  2. 10:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Notes */"
  3. 10:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "Re-inserted correct description- analysis of 1597 map & others & consecutive OS sheets since + over 50 yrs local knowledge + Parish boundary alignment."
  4. 20:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "Detailed edits & added detail based on research of local maps and decades of local knowledge."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on New Buckenham. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Note edit warring, but comprehensively demonstrating WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT in respect to other editors' advice. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned This is a new editor. A level 3 warning for unsourced content is NOT the same as a notice for violating 3RR. He's now been warned appropriately. If he reverts again, he has no excuse. Katietalk 18:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Cadet kid123 reported by User:Praetorian65 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Community Cadet Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cadet kid123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 703962309

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:40, 10 March 2016 "Change it to show EQUIVALANCY. The ranks are BASED on the parent services but don't follow the same structure. The previous table expected an experience 15yr old SCC able cadet to have equal power/authority to a 12yr old ACF/ATC cadet???? (talk)"

16:19, 12 March 2016 "(Undid revision 709598385 by Praetorian65 (talk) This shows EQUIVALENCY of the CADET FORCES, not the PARENT SERVICES.) (talk)"

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

  1. 21:56, 11 March 2016‎ (UTC)

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

  1. 21:56, 11 March 2016‎ (UTC) Added note to user talk page requesting the change not be reverted again without citations
  2. 16:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Added an explanation of the original page made
  3. 20:11, 12 March 2016‎ (UTC) Added a note on reverting the change

Comments:
The user has added a table of showing equivalent ranks in the cadet forces where the equivalency has no basis in fact and has no citations. The table was edited by myself to reflect the table used by the parent services. The original table had no basis in fact and was based on the opinion of the user who created it. The user then edited the page to reinsert it, without including citations. I reverted the change and placed a message on their user talk page explaining why and asking them not to revert the change again without citations, as it is definitely not factual information. The user ignored this and reverted the change again anyway. I have reverted their change and will now cease doing so to avoid further warring. I have added another request for the user to engage on the article top page and on their user talk page, however the original messages were ignored. Praetorian65 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Cadet kid123 and User:Praetorian65 are both warned for edit warring. Either one may be blocked the next time they revert this article, unless they have previously got consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:131.247.224.73 reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Block, Semi)[edit]

Page: Jake McGee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 131.247.224.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Comments: User refuses to get the point, and has been hostile toward myself and other editors. Previously active using IPs 70.193.224.196 and 173.65.98.185. Page was protected from March 5-12 because of editor's disruptive actions. Trut-h-urts man (TC) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Anonymous editor now appears to be using 2607:FE50:0:8213:C91A:A97A:CFA:35A8 to try and circumvent 3RR. Trut-h-urts man (TC) 22:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Herakliu reported by User:Zoupan (Result: Warned)[edit]

Use Talk:Origin of the Albanians for any further discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Herakliu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


User insists on returning "In the 7th century AD, there is a reference to the "Ducagini de Arbania" on a Bosnian manuscript; the clan of the Dukagjini were engaged in a quarrel with the Byzantine Empire after stirring up a revolt in Bosnia." to the article, when this has been refuted on the talk page (see main discussion here). The faulty assertion was removed on 1 January 2016, an IP reverted it, but was reverted by another user, the article being stable until the coming of Herakliu, who sneak-added it on 10 March. The user refuses to acknowledge that the "Ducagini" were first mentioned in 1281, and Albania in the 11th century, and that the faulty assertion has its origin in an alleged 14th-century manuscript which lists a number of South Slavic princes, none of whom existed (one lived for over 200 years). The manuscript is not used in scholarship.--Zoupan 07:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

Comments:


To the attention of the administrators or mods, Zoupan's and Alexikoua's reverts are plain and simple unencyclopedic, based on mere personal opinions and dislike of the state of facts. Zoupan said the source was refuted but I can't see any refusal from his side except that of "It can't be put", that is hardly an argument. The source is accepted by Makushev, Hammond and Gegaj therefore I really cannot understand how this cannot go in wikipedia. Herakliu (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain once again. Makushev (1837—1883) published a transcription of, according to him, a 14th-century manuscript. This "ancient manuscript" enumerates the South Slavic states and Albania (meaning, centuries before the actual first mentions of these!), "Bosnian kings" (none of which existed, one lives for over 200 years) and various fictitious tales. The manuscript is not used in historiography or scholarship. Do I really need to explain this? Gegaj only makes mention of the entry on "Ducagini d'Arbania", while Hammond, likewise, mentions it. It is nowhere stated that this was a historical fact. As explained here:
  • Memoirs of the American Folk-lore Society. 44. American Folk-lore Society. 1954. p. 64 (footnote 1). Gegaj writes further on this page that, according to the same source (published by Makushev), in the seventh century already the Dukagjini ("Dukagjini dAlbania") had fomented a revolt in Bosnia, particularly in Dubrovnik, but they had to retreat after a defeat, inflicted by the Bosnian lords. Indeed, it is in 1281 that Gin Tanusio (ducem Qinium Tanuschum) carries this title for the first time.

I really cannot understand how this would go in wikipedia.--Zoupan 10:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You are repeating again and again that the document is in 14th century, thing that doesn't minimally nick the sopposed validity of the same (in fact it is explained that it is a copy of a more ruined one). But apart from that, the datation of the source isn't even that relevant, because a chronolgy of events (with years!) is written in it. And it doesn't mention "Slavic States" but a single one, that is the (obviously the earlest) kingdom of Bossina. The 130 years thing (not 200, learn to count, or better learn to not falsify) can simply be explained as an error in writing 5 instead of 6 from the writer of the text (it's just really a single mistake because all the narration is coherent and realistic). The trivia about Gin Tanusio is irrelevant. And again for the last time, Makushev and Hammond agrees in the veridicity of the source! Herakliu (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Learn to identify Reliable Sources and stop adhering to pseudohistory.--Zoupan 12:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You are not saying anything relevant or useful. You made 4-5 desperate points, all of wich don't have any specific meaning or effects against the document. Herakliu (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
...right, like "can simply be explained as an error" and "coherent and realistic"? Haha, crazy.--Zoupan 14:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zoupan: I think you have another task other than arbitrarily decide wether a scholarly accepted source is valid or not: you can tell to every egyptologist that the Egyptian king lists are all wrong because they go as back as 30.000 years! (Though I advice you to not try it, because you could be laughed off). Or you could tell to archeologists that the ruins of Troy are not really those of Troy because in the poem of Iliad, Gods (!!!) are told to partecipate in a war! I could go on and on, but I think I clarified it enough to make even people with low IQ understand my point.
To have a tiny chronological mistake in a historical document is by no mean unheard of and to my knowledge not a sufficient argument to dismiss a source from being used. Herakliu (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Herakliu is warned. The next time they revert at Origin of the Albanians they may be blocked unless they first get consensus on the talk page. I'm also alerting Herakliu under WP:ARBEE WP:ARBMAC. From the pattern of their edits they may be a supporter of Albanian connections to various topics, such as Skopje. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: just wanted to note that the user petitions to continue, including some warmongering: the aformentioned user is of serbian ethnicity, a people that has a long history of historic bias and revisionism against its neighbours ... Given that I have complete reason to believe I am 100% right here, the serbian user won't let this legit source to be added to the aformentioned article because I understand serbian delicate feelings could be broken.--Zoupan 19:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Do you even know the meaning of the word warmongering? You don't need to be afraid though, I won't edit the page again until I've reached a consensus, even if I understand very well this could mean to try to reason with a person with limited logical skills. I suggest you to read again what I wrote 2 hours ago and to make the effort of your life in understanding it. Herakliu (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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

User:Kordestani reported by User:Tradedia (Result: Voluntary restriction)[edit]

Page: Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kordestani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR twice:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported has been placed on notice of the remedies in place. After a 1 week block for edit warring (that expired at the beginning of this month), and after being reported for breaking 1RR (and warned on March 3 by an admin who protected an article), this user found nothing better than to edit war some more on the module, breaking 1RR twice. Moreover, you can notice that a few days before he engaged in the 1RR violation, a warning template concerning "deletion of legitimate talk page comments" (from the article Talk:Iraqi Civil War (2014–present)) was left on his talk page by a user. Tradediatalk 11:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2602:306:3357:BA0:5CAA:B9AF:7C32:F625 reported by User:Omni Flames (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Hakuhō Shō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2602:306:3357:BA0:5CAA:B9AF:7C32:F625 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. [11]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
Comments:

The user also removed my warnings on their talk page, calling it "harassment" [20] [21]. They left no edit summary when reverting the edits. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears to be the same user, just IP-hopping about on the 2602:306:3357:ba0.x.x.x.x range;
These 3 IP's made 5 reverts to the same page within a 24 hour period. WHOIS shows them to simply be AT&T broadband static IP's. - theWOLFchild 23:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Found one more;
The contribs are worth noting. There have been no edits for several months, but if one person is using multiple addresses in this range to edit-war in hopes of avoiding 3RR (or sock/ban-evade), then we should keep an eye on them. - theWOLFchild 23:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh whoops, you're right. I only just noticed the edits came from 3 different IPs. I guess that means they're fully aware of 3RR, and are using socks to get around it. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The other 2 IPs have been given the 3RR notice. - theWOLFchild 23:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I found a prolific sock-puppeteer with an account in the 2602.306.x-range. Not sure if it's connected or not. (WHOIS won't work) Just thought I'd mention it... - theWOLFchild 23:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
That's because that account is not an IP.... -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Cute... - theWOLFchild 01:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked 2602:306:3357:BA0::/64 blocked 48 hours. This is one end user, one person, with an IPv6 address. The changing IPs aren't always in the end user's control, so don't read too much into that. Katietalk 05:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hatchmight reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page: 2014 Gaza war beach bombing incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hatchmight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] warned by another editor, promptly removed from talk page by Hatchmight.

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

Comments:
This editor is not allowed to edit IP related articles per WP:ARBPIA3#500/30. This has been explained to him repeatedly to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No More Mr Nice Guy (talkcontribs) 21:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


He escallated his simple edit-warring into pure vandalism via creation of User talk:No More Mr Nice Guy is a shit (no such username exists, and it's an attack on (one of?) the editors against whom he is edit-warring. He has made statements refusing to abide by or recognize the authority of WP:ARBPIA3, but instead had then went on a bot-like crusade to get around the spirit of the edit-count requirement. I blocked 31h as a start, but I'm not familiar with the standard practices of this article topic-area...other admins welcome to increase the block as appropriate. DMacks (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@DMacks: - perhaps this article should have a talk page header denoting the Arbcom sanctions to avoid future issues like? - theWOLFchild 21:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Good idea! Done. Though with the editor here, it likely would have no effect. DMacks (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
@DMacks: - That was quick, thanks. Now how about adding a template on the article page that shows the arbcom notice when the edit window is open? (like on the Arab–Israeli conflict page) - theWOLFchild 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You mean an WP:Edit notice? That's easy enough to add. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Didn't realize, thanks. On the Arab-Israeli page it looked like it was added as part of the protection template, so I figured I ask an admin. - theWOLFchild 21:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Now edit-notice'd as well. DMacks (talk) 21:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I've mass deleted this user's spamming and harassment. They've been on my radar from the start with the very aggressive editing and the clear indications that this is not their first account. I'm happy to let the existing block length stand for now, but I'm not optimistic that this user will change their ways. CT Cooper · talk 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Springee (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Ford Pinto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HughD (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. Material restored to section lead [28], and reverted when page lock was lifted [29]
  2. Restoring the Feb section title that was unilaterally changed by HughD [30], HughD changing section title [31]
  3. New content added here [32], Removal of some of that content [33], adding an attribution in order to downplay the content [34]
  4. Added content [35], adding attribution in order to downplay content [36]
  5. Added content [37], and again trying to down play the source [38]

Edit: Additional reversions after this warning

  1. Added material including statement "worst-case" [39], removed with claim not in source [40] (statement is in source, page 41, end of 2nd complete paragraph on page) Springee (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User if familiar with edit warring definition. Link to notice of this posting [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Once the article was locked HughD swamped the talk page with comments. [42]

Comments:
Due to HughD's previous 6RR, the article was locked for 3 days. [43]

Greglocock, a long term editor on the Pinto page has noted HughD's unwillingness to work with other editors. [44] "You seem to be polite but largely incapable of answering a straight question or making a coherent point. ", "'HughD' please do not interleave comments it is deprecated behavior and you can and will get pulled up for it, as I have in the past. I can rarely understand your logic at the best of times." The latter interleaving of another editor's comments after I asked HughD not to do the same thing 4 times (example [45]).

Hugh has made an enormous number of edits to the article in a short period of time. Common sense would suggest most could have been done in his sandbox then added to the article. Since March 2nd, including a 3 day window when no edits were allowed, the editor has added 255 edits. [46]

HughD has accused me of following him to articles [47]. HughD does not have a history of editing automotive related articles. I've been involved in the Pinto page since last year with most of my involvement starting in January of this year. After a recent editorial interaction on an ExxonMobil related page, HughD decided to follow me to the Ford Pinto article. This seems like the behavior of an editor who is looking for a fight rather than someone who wants to be left alone.

One needs only look at the difference in talk page etiquite and civility before and after HughD's arrival to understand how HughD's behavior towards other editors and their concerns is problematic. This problematic behavior is part of a pattern that can be seen in the editor's block history.

I would ask that the editor be topic blocked, narrowly defined to the Ford Pinto article for a period of time deemed appropriate.


Agree- topic blockThe fundamental issue is that “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” :- Alberto Brandolini . HughD makes many tens of edits in a day on a single article, and uses misleading edit summaries, so even tracking what is happening, never mind sorting it out, is a Sysiphean task. Greglocock (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I idly note that in 12 hours after the article was unlocked he made 60 edits to the article and its talk page. QED. Greglocock (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

HughD's talk page behavior continues to be WP:TEND and WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Tendentious Editing examples: Blocked more than once [48]. HughD's block log and his current topic ban make it clear this is a repeating problem.

Tendentious Editing: Disputes the reliability of apparently good sources [49]. HughD has been on a tear trying to discredit a peer reviewed source (article Lee and Ermann) which he claimed to have read but only objected to it after I included quotes and summaries. Examples of trying to negative attribution ("grad student" at the time) for the author in the article [50], [51]. On the talk page: [52] (note the edit summary, no error corrected, just added "Mulder & Scully"), [53] Repeated the "Mulder & Scully" comment. This is also an example of wilfully misrepresenting the arguments of others. This would be WP:IUC (incivility) giving the impression of a view which I do not hold.

Finally, the editor is showing behavior which tends to drive away other editors (Campaign to drive away productive contributors WP:DEPE). 200 edits in 5 days. Refuses to engaged in reasonable conversation on the talk page. It is having the intended effect. Note the comment of Greglocock above. I contacted 4 editors who were active on the talk page in February. 842U's reply is telling (my comment to him (same to all 4 editors) [54], his reply [55]). I believe a topic block is appropriate in this case. Springee (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 month. I suggest an RfC with one or more questions to resolve the items in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice try, but in 24 hours recently (1000 13 march-1000 14 march) HughD made 28 edits in article space and 29 in talk space, on this article about a 40 year old car. I see no sign that he is even attempting to modify his behavior. I assume he has some issues that are known to the admins so that they allow him to ride roughshod over the wider community, otherwise I find the lack of sanctions against him are inexplicable. Greglocock (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Hehpillerpro reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
8chan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Hehpillerpro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "If you have an issue, take it up with the administrators. Thank you."
  2. 16:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Please stop edit warring. Refer to WP:DONTREVERT. If you have an issue, discuss it rather than repeatedly reverting."
  3. 14:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Undoing and revising to ensure it meets the standards you've listed."
  4. 12:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Vandalism. Please do not remove verifiable information."
Comments:

This user is adding and re-adding completely inappropriate information (it's hardly relevant, not important/notable/mentionworthy, and almost definitely in violation of WP:BLP, and most likely intended to be promotional) backed only by unreliable sources. The editor accused me on my talk page of edit warring so I assume they know what edit warring even is; I responded with describing what's wrong with the content, they ignored all of it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, certainly aware of edit warring policy since they've trotted it out to warn others. Kuru (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:77.47.80.202 reported by User:Headbomb (Result: 48 hours 1 month)[edit]

Page: Course of Theoretical Physics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.47.80.202 (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. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
  5. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61] / [62] / [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Course_of_Theoretical_Physics#Even more deletions

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Comments:

Diffs of the reporting user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Course_of_Theoretical_Physics&diff=706202188&oldid=706194722
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Course_of_Theoretical_Physics&diff=710011971&oldid=709998985
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Course_of_Theoretical_Physics&diff=710046108&oldid=710044605
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Course_of_Theoretical_Physics&diff=710031966&oldid=710014092
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Course_of_Theoretical_Physics&diff=710042659&oldid=710041467 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Not all of those are mine, nor are they all from today. I engaged on the talk page, you didn't. We established consensus, it's against you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No, you did not establish any consensus. You have simply repeatedly reverted without bothering to explain why. 77.47.80.202 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear 3RR, was warned prior to last revert. Kuru (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
After digging through a trail of self-professed connections, this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Extended the block and blocked a few other lateral IPs. Kuru (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kordestani reported by User:Tradedia (Result: blocked indefinitely )[edit]

Page: Abu Khattab al-Kurdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kordestani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR 4 times:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See comment below

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and a template to that effect was inserted on the article's talk page by an admin on March 7. Also, the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. As a background, it should be said that all of this user's edits are POV pushing in favor of a specific ethnic group. One day after an edit warring complaint was closed by admin EdJohnston "with no block in exchange for a voluntary restriction", this user found nothing better than to edit war on an article, breaking 1RR 4 times. Tradediatalk 15:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly the editor has not taken this discussion seriously: [65] Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to be optimistic about User:Kordestani's future on Wikipedia. The area of the Syrian Civil War is under restrictions for a reason, and Kordestani seems unable or unwilling to follow them. For example, the repeated 1RR violations. He can't even stay within 3RR. See this edit summary: 'Kurds never support radical islamism. Everyone know that'. (The article has references which say that Abu Khattab al-Kurdi is Kurdish). The next level of escalation would be (a) a block of at least a month, or (b) a ban from the Syrian Civil war under WP:GS/SCW. The problem is that a ban would prevent him from editing in the area where he has knowledge. An indefinite block may be the best option. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest edit to Kurdistan Workers' Party @19:45. Getting slightly surreal. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:SocraticOath reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )[edit]

Page
Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SocraticOath (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 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC) to 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 14:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* 2000–09 */ Conflict with Steve Wynn shown here"
    2. 14:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Vs. Stephen Wynn: antitrust and corporate espionage */ ce"
    3. 14:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Vs. Baja California-development investors */ Lawsuit against law firm Morrison Cohen shown here."
    4. 15:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Vs. law firm Morrison Cohen */ Prior suit and counter-suit shown here."
    5. 15:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Real estate */ Trump's 2011 comments on bankruptcy shown here. Section re-titled for clarity."
    6. 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "/* Antitrust */ Suit by New York City shown here."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 06:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC) to 06:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    1. 06:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Rev good faith edit by VoltaireEditor2016. I appreciate your conservatism and risk-avoidance, but removing the section is pretty clearly not WP:BLP given verifiability and neutral wording. Talk page jury is out."
    2. 06:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Rev good faith edit by VoltaireEditor2016. I appreciate your conservatism and risk-avoidance, but removing the section is pretty clearly not WP:BLP given verifiability and neutral wording. WEIGHT is a question of NPOV, but verifiability's more important"
    3. 06:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Pritzger lawsuit shown here again. Notable, verifiable, WP:BLP / public figures. Neutrally worded."
  3. 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 709791780 by VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) Revert POV edit"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continual edit warring and readdition of contested content at the article, another editor involved as well (have submitted a 3RR report for them above). If no one blocked from these reports, article likely needs to be protected as this has been ongoing for the last few days. -- WV 16:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: Neither editor has been persuaded to stay away from the article since getting notification of the 3RR reports filed. My intuition tells me the disruption will not stop apart from an edit warring block or strong warning (or the article being fully protected). -- WV 16:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

To add to this note from WV, since this arbitration and notification, SocraticOath has and continues to make multiple major edits to the article in question, often reverting or altering longstanding consensus content without settled talk page consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&action=history User SocraticOath
The talk page supports my additions of notable, verifiable, WP:BLP / public figures-compliant, neutrally-worded, well-referenced material. The additions have been criticized for adding too much length to this article, which I proposed to mitigate by opening-up a new article to house the long list of facts. This mitigation was not accepted, but I think it would be good to review this decision because the talk page editors seem to agree that the lawsuits are notable. It is my feeling that if the list is too long, but is otherwise fully within Wikipedia's philosophy and policies, that is not an appropriate reason for deleting the content outright. SocraticOath (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Untrue. This talk page discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Lawsuit_vs._Ivana:_too_personal_for_Wikipedia.3F, of this edit by SocraticOath# 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 709791780 by VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) Revert POV edit" One user, User:Anythingyouwant was against the edit, claiming: "If it belongs in this BLP, it would be better in the section about his personal life, along with context."VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Following the advice of user Anythingyouwant, I have used the Personal Life section for the facts about the lawsuit vs. Ivana. Note that the comment was not in favor of deletion but of moving the information to a different section. There is no consensus against the inclusion of lawsuits here; on the contrary, the consensus is for including them per the Wikipedia guidelines. SocraticOath (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
So then you've just admitted that my edit that you revered multiple times without talk page justification or consensus was wholly justified. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that your deletion of the content is definitely not required by the policies and discussion, but I think it wouldn't have been exactly forbidden by the policies either. Still, in my opinion, the article is better with the content included, and I am glad to find a place in the article at which it is supported by talk page consensus. SocraticOath (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
SocraticOath is literally going through my edit history and reverting edits of unrelated articles I made months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_C._Miller&diff=prev&oldid=710064029 This is totally bizarre. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
VoltaireEditor2016, I was trying to find more out about you, as is expected for public things like Wikipedia. I was able to find two sources for the unsourced item on the article in question.SocraticOath (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Highfly scorpion reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: 2016 JNU sedition controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Highfly scorpion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]
  5. [71]
  6. [72]
  7. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
Warnings were given at User talk:Highfly scorpion diff, and subsequently removed by Hghfly scorpion diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Connor Machiavelli reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Alt-right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Connor Machiavelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reported by User:Doug Weller

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [76] ""That's POV, it's not unhelpful or "confusing". Anti-Semitism doesn't work for this part." at Today at 9:04 PM"
  2. [77] "No inclusion of white supremacism per Talk and WP:RSN." at Today at 7:55 PM
  3. [78] Rv. It's already included in article. Anti-Semitism is not a political ideology, nor is it exclusively right-wing. White supremacism being included for lead/beliefs was debated at WP:RSN, debate seemed inconclusive, which I see as a no for it." at Today at 7:45 PM
  4. [79] "Rv. Per Talk at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-right#Gamergate" at Today at 6:42 AM

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]] and other discussions.

Comments:
This is an editor who has received DS alerts for both GamerGate related issues and American politics and warnings for edit-warring at several articles. I do think there is a WP:CIR issue here, see Talk:Alt-right#Alfred Clark and my recent exchange with him at Talk:Richard B. Spencer. If I weren't an Arb I'd have taken this to AE. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt-right&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alt-right Somebody just look into this, he's wrong on what he's claiming about me. Connor Machiavelli (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts at 21:04, 19:55, 19:45, 06:42. I don't care who is wrong or right - resolve the dispute before repeatedly reverting the article to your preferred state. There are enough edit warring warnings on your talk page (pre-dating the latest), so I assume you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the policy. Kuru (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:45.33.81.117 reported by User:68.109.238.244 (Result: semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 45.33.81.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [82]
  2. [83]
  3. [84]
  4. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Almost the entire talk page is comprised of various discussions about this, and attempting to engage further is pointless since the IP editors, who are probably all Timothy Parker himself, never respond to anything.

Comments:

It may seem odd for me to say this but this article needs a longer lock than the one it was previously placed under. This person has made tons of counterproductive reverts while using edit summaries to engage in personal attacks rather than explanations, and if previous behavior indicates a pattern, they will probably be back with a different IP or new account soon. 68.109.238.244 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this (full disclosure: I was one of the people reverted). Include the following problematic edits removing the same content again: [87] [88] . So it's more like a 5RR violation or something by now. Please semiprotect the article as it seems the only way to get this user to actually discuss what it is they want. (Note that as best I can tell the edit summaries are sheer fantasy, as there isn't positive material being removed too, and if there is sourced positive material to be added back, the IP is free and welcome to do so....) SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I really hate to semi-protect a page when there is at least one productive IP editor, but since you asked and he has rotated IPs before; ironic protection applied. I don't see this as a BLP issue since the material is solidly sourced and neutrally stated. Kuru (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Can we re-open this and also block User:Arcenter? He's doing the same edits as the IP and was blocked earlier for the same nonsense. SnowFire (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that account earlier and assumed he might return to it if I applied semi-protection. I've restored the block on the account as he has clearly resumed the same edit war. Kuru (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I've actually just turned this block into an indef, given his past behavior. I hope this doesn't step on your toes too much. It's just that I don't think we'd get anything from him unless he was indef'd, as he'd likely just wait until his block was up. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - I was the admin that previously blocked Arcenter and protected the page, if anyone was wondering where I came into this. I did try warning Arcenter several times, including several warnings on transparency, all of which were outright ignored. I don't necessarily think that all of the IPs are Arcenter, but I do think that this is all coordinated. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Defenderofthruth reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: blocked sock)[edit]

Page: Sultanate of Rum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Xiongnu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


Previous version reverted to: multiple articles

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89], this is a revert of my edit on 30 Dec 2015
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]

At this time, Defender has not used the Sultanate of Rum talk page to explain his deletion of references/referenced information nor to gain consensus for changes made to the lead.

Xiongnu:

  1. [93]
  2. [94]

At no time did Defender use the talk page to explain why he was removing this reference.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95],[96],[97],[98],[99]

Comments:
This so-called "new user", Defenderofthruth, is actually the blocked user Yakbul. Yakbul's editing, prior to being blocked for disruptive editing, was primarily anti-Persian POV, which consisted of removing references/referenced information that contain the word Persia, Persian, Turco-Persian, Iranian, etc. Defenderthruth has continued this anti-Persian POV on Xiongnu(see above) and Sultanate of Rum(see above). In both cases, Xiongnu and Sultanate of Rum, Defender has not engaged on the talk page and has removed references or referenced information pertaining to Persian/Iranian wording. When Defender has decided to use the talk page, in a prior case concerning a discussion on Xiongnu(5 March 2016), it consists of childish trolling, "Kansas Bear what's wrong with writing from U of Manchester,it is a university with huge academic facilities, not like a small village in iran, are you jealous or something". Which would indicate Defender is incompetent or has failed geography, terribly.

When confronted about their removal of referenced information on Sultanate of Rum, respond with a personal attacks, "you racist ignorant", you trying to spread you ultranationalistic racist persian propaganda, and show the state as persian state.Probably,it hurts you really bad being ruled by Turkics under Seljuks than Akkoyuns than Qara Qoyuns than Safavids than Kadjars,i dont know how much you are paid by Khamanei but nice job bro.. The personal attacks are extremely indicative of user:Yakbul's mannerisms.

The edit warring over multiple articles are indicative of Yakbul's editing and now his sockpuppet Defenderofthruth. I believe it is time to "take off the kid gloves" and realize Yakbul and his sockpuppet Defenderofthruth are not here to build an encyclopedia, but here to right great wrongs as they see them. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. No comment on the edit warring, but this is clearly a sock of the still-blocked Yakbul. I must say that it's pretty odd to see someone editing from the University of Manchester with that curious grasp of grammar. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Kansas Bear reported by User:Defenderofthruth (Result: sock blocked)[edit]

Page: Great Seljuk Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sultanate of Rum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Xiongnu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Hi,

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [100], this is a revert of my edit 2 March 2016
  2. [101]

Kansas didn't accept to discuss the issue about Xiongnu on talk page and never answered back 1, and even continuosly reverted my edits which was including references from Harvard University Press and University of Bristol, multiple times without addressing it's substance.2.

In this case, i reported him to a mature user 3, named Oshwah and Oshwah accepted that my references were reliable. But Kansas continuosly reverted my changes, as i didn't want to involve a edit war i reported him 4 but got no answers back. Kansas even argued with other users to delete my references 5. But everybody except him accepted those references and decided to put into Xiongnu article which specifically needs additional citations for verification and just because Kansas didn't want to put in, those reliable resources stayed out from article.


In Seljukids case, unlike Kansas claims i moved my worries to talk page 6, and didn't get a proper answer but still got my edits reverted without any adress to substance of my changes.7 as you can see, Kansas writes "Turko-Persian" to the beggining of every state to make people feel that the empire was Turkish and Iranian but unlike this guy thinks those empires "contributed to Turco-Persian Tradition" this doesen't make them "Turco-Persian Empire", even his claim redirects us to Turco-Persian Tradition page because there is nothing called Turco-Persian Empire.

As a newbie, unfortunately, I also got disrespectful insults like "can you read?" by him, 8 which was a unpleasant behavior unlike mine.9--Defenderofthruth (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Defenderofthruth blocked in previous report as sock; the rest is moot. Kuru (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:2606:A000:410A:1900:EA98:3FE3:5958:AA8B reported by User:Reach Out to the Truth (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
The Last Airbender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2606:A000:410A:1900:EA98:3FE3:5958:AA8B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "The edit was not unexplained. No one has yet to make a valid argument for this section's purpose on this article. | Undid revision 710137695 by Lazylaces (talk)"
  2. 04:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC) "It's not about that article's existence. It's about its unnecessary inclusion in the article for this film. Calling TLA "whitewashed" is inapt. Many characters were cast outside of their race, not just non-white characters."
  3. 04:28, 15 March 2016‎ (UTC) "So, is there a "List of Indian-Washed Films" or "List of Iran-Washed Films" list we can add to the article? | Undid revision 710091885 by Reach Out to the Truth (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Last Airbender. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has attempted eight times to remove a "see also" link which is supported by sources. Warnings are ignored with no attempt at discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 22:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The first four were a 3RR, the last four are simply a running edit war where there should be a talk page discussion. Kuru (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Tyler Gonzalez reported by User:LM2000 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Lana (wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tyler Gonzalez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [103]
  2. [104]
  3. [105]
  4. [106]
  5. [107]
  6. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Comments: User has been blocked twice for edit warring over similar material on the same article.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months wL<speak·check> 20:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
    • Since I was involved in previous issues in regard to this, this action was challenged; now it's reversed. This user has been blocked twice by uninvolved admins, and the behavior seems so persistent, I saw it as blatant disruption that any other admin would agree as such. --wL<speak·check> 03:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
A breach of 3RR, but not sure about the escalation from 1 week to 3 months. Would 2 weeks be more appropriate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: User:WikiLeon has restored the seven days of full protection on Lana (wrestling) that were originally placed by User:Courcelles. I recommend that WikiLeon not take any further admin actions on the article, since he appears to be involved. The situation is now too confusing for me to consider blocking anyone, though the edits by User:Tyler Gonzalez are pushing the limits. That editor has been here nine months but has never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Because of this incident, I have relinquished my admin rights --wL<speak·check> 11:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Dcasey98 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: List of children's films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dcasey98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [110] ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [111] as 2601:243:400:ae4e:c198:4a6b:8a8f:4c13
  2. [112]
  3. [113]
  4. [114]
  5. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:

Fairly straightforward case. Dcasey98 has removed content five times (including reverting two editors and a cluebot five times) in the space of a few hours, solely on the basis that his disagrees with the source. I have explained that removing sourced content solely on the basis that you personally disagree with it is not acceptable but it has had no effect. Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 11:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:67.83.143.151 reported by User:Woovee (Result: Semi)[edit]

User being reported
67.83.143.151 (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. 19:40, 14 March 2016
  2. 17:10, 14 March 2016
  3. 05:41, 6 March 2016
  4. 05:25, 7 March 2016


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]


Talk:Bauhaus (band)

Comments:
All the users of this article told this ip to stop. This genre warrior was blocked last week but his diruptive edits are back. This user doesn't understand what is a consensus. Genre warring is a waste of time whereas we are here to build an encyclopedia. Can this Bauhaus (band) article be protected from ips.


Comments:

  • Note that the IP User:67.83.143.15 hasn't edited anywhere on WP for two days. And that, although there maybe no clear blue line for edit-warrring, it is tendentious to say the least if you have to include two month-old edits just to "make up the numbers." Suggest this report be closed immediately as stale. Also suggest that the reporting user is warned for making bad-faith reports. This is clearly a content dispute and on another board WP:BOOMERANG would doubtless apply.Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
This was reported at 00:10, 16 March 2016] only 28 hours after it happened. I only demand this Bauhaus (band) article to be semi-protected from ip. This ip was blocked last week for the same problem on this article. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, If I am bad faith, why did the administrator block this ip for edit warring last week, read the result here. 5 users have reverted his edits, he hasn't got any consensus... Woovee (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that. But it is erroneous to think that becasue an IP was blocked last week, it is automatically wrong this week. That is why we- including you- WP:AGF. The point is that "only 28 hours" is far too long a period after the edits have ceased: any action now would be WP:PUNITIVE. Hence, this report was stale before it was even lodged, and wasting everyone's time. No worries. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I concur with Woovee and respectfully ask how he could be in bad faith? The genre warrior in question was blocked for 48 hours due to repeated disruptive edits, genre warring and numerous personal attacks on other editors. As soon as the block was removed, they went right back and started making the exact same disruptive genre-warring edits, and refused to examine the guidelines for consensus. So how can it be that Woovee is wrong for thus suggesting a more protective solution?Greg Fasolino (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. The statements by the IP editor since their last block don't inspire confidence. (There is no hint of being open to any negotiation; they are simply right about everything). The essay at WP:Genre warrior explains some of the problems with editors who seem to be here only to change music genres. The change the IP is requesting can be made just as soon as they get a talk page consensus in their favor. EdJohnston (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Bellatrix2017 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Sock blocked)[edit]

Page
List of children's films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported