Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive328

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


Comments:
User was warned last week and the page was locked, as soon as the page lock expired he immediately comes back and begins his reverting without attempting to discuss [7]. In what to me appears to be an attempt to avoid the admin realizing he reverted an older edit rather than the more recent one. - GalatzTalk 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I get some a proove to show this

Evidence for incorporating SFRY team records in this article:

Claim: For FIBA records and statistics, Serbia is (indirectly) the only sucessor of SFRY. A successor's records should incorporate the records of succeeded teams. Source: Pages stating "Year of affiliation: 1936" for Serbia on FIBA World Championship 2006 site [4] Source: A FIBA news item stating "The Basketball Federation of Serbia will retain the place of the former Basketball Federation of Serbia and Montenegro as a FIBA member." [5] Source: Listings of "Participation" and "Achievements in FIBA competition" for Serbia (or Serbia&Montenegro) on FIBA World Championship 2006 site stating "SERBIA & MONTENEGRO (SCG) 13th appearance (3 consecutive)". [6] (moved to #2.1) Claim: International news organizations represent Serbia as successor to the previous Yugoslavia federations Source: Listing of international competition history of Serbia National Team on EuroBasket.com references complete statistics, starting at 1950 through 2006: [7] Source: InsideHoops.com combines records for SFR Yugoslavia 3 and 2 FR Yugoslavia championships (Total 5) [8] Source: InsideHoops.com article: "It was Yugoslavia (now known as Serbia & Montenegro) who defeated the USA Senior squad and eliminated it from medal contention at the 2002 FIBA World Championship..." [9] Source: CBC article: victory over defending champion Serbia and Montenegro.....which won the gold medal in 2002 as Yugoslavia, but only one player from that team was back to defend the title. [10] Source: Inq7 article: "The third world championship in 1959 was won by Brazil; the fourth in 1963, also won by Brazil; the fifth in 1967 by the Soviet Union; the sixth in 1970 by Yugoslavia; the seventh in 1974 by the Soviet Union; the eighth in 1978 by Yugoslavia; the ninth in 1982 by the Soviet Union; the 10th in 1986 by the US; the 11th in 1990 by Yugoslavia; the 12th in 1994 by the US; the 13th in 1998 by Yugoslavia; the 14th in 2002 by Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia); and the 15th in 2006 by Spain." [11] Source: ABC sport (.au) "In late matches, Spain ousted defending champion Serbia and Montenegro" [12] Source: Radio New Zealand "Spain beat defending champions Serbia and Montenegro" [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crnibombarder (talkcontribs) 17:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 days. Continuation of an edit war that has already led to protection of the article. A large fraction of all his edits seem to be reverts. This user has also removed posts by others at Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Partyclams reported by User:Yoshiman6464 (Result: )[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [8] — Removed information from the Juanita Broaddrick article because her twitter account is "unverified".
  2. [9] — Removed information again, falsely claiming that "Broaddrick's Twitter account authenticity has been called into question as it's unverified"
  3. [10] — Repeating the false claim: "That may be so, but Broaddrick's Twitter account's verifiability has been specifically been called into question and cannot be confirmed at this time", even though the information was presented with reliable sources.
  4. [11] — No comment.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Comments:
Yoshiman6464 insists on citing Tweets associated with an unverified Twitter account that is now being questioned for its authenticity. Partyclams (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't citing directly to her tweets, I was citing reports that discuss these tweets, such as the Washington Post and Politico. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Igaalbania reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Igaalbania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:44, 7 October 2016 "" (Please note: This revert was made while this report was still ongoing.)
  2. 18:38, 7 October 2016 "" (Please note: This revert was made while this report was still ongoing.)
  3. Consecutive edits made from 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) to 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
    3. 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
  4. 19:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) to 18:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 17:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
    2. 17:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
    4. 18:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ottoman Albania */"
    5. 18:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Republic and monarchy */"
    6. 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* World War II */"
    7. 18:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Communist Albania */"
    8. 18:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Ottoman Albania */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC) to 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */ Mother Teresa was 100% Albanian, her dad was an Albanian businessman and part of the league of Prizren, and yes she is again 100% albanian!!!"
    2. 16:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Middle Ages */"
    3. 17:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* History */"
    4. 17:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
    5. 17:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
    6. 17:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Antiquity */"
    7. 17:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* National parks and World Heritage Sites */"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 15:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC) to 16:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 15:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
    2. 15:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
    4. 16:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
    5. 16:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    6. 16:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    7. 16:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Demographics */"
    8. 16:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Language */"
    9. 16:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */"
    10. 16:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Climate */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Albania. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Mother Teresa */ reply"
Comments:

Disruption. Longterm edit-warring adding picture of Mother Theresa to the article without consensus. Also removes pictures of Enver Hoja without consensus. Does not participate on talk. Will not stop. Editor has been blocked before for disruptive editing. Dr. K. 18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 month. The user reverts constantly but has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wash whites separately reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Jesse Watters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wash whites separately (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • [13] — This was the status quo when the article was page-protected from anon IPs. The disputed section at this point used the neutral subhead "Criticism"


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14] — Revision as of 15:46, 8 October 2016, in which the editor changed the neutral term to the loaded "Racist behavior"
  2. [15] — Revision as of 17:09, 8 October 2016, in which after a reversion to the status quo, "Criticism," he again used loaded, non-neutral language, "Racism controversy"
  3. [16] — Revision as of 17:22, 8 October 2016
  4. [17] — Revision as of 17:35, 8 October 2016
  5. [18] — Latest revision as of 00:27, 9 October 2016. After a second, uninvolved editor restored the section subhead to the status quo "Criticism", Wash whites separately edit-warred again to make the subhead a slightly better yet still non-consensus version. Even without this fifth revert, however, he has defiantly made four — essentially saying the 3RR rule doesn't apply to himself. And as WP:CSECTION notes, "Criticism" is standard and "Controversy" should not be used except in rare situations that do not apply here. "Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jesse Watters#Edit-warring

Comments:

In order not to do a fourth revert myself, I've left the article at his latest edit. He is behaving emotionally and uncivilly, with one edit-summary reading, "Fixed the grammar so the domineering princess can understand the sentence" [20]

It's worth noting that the emotional response came after he referred to my edit as "horrific" and also made threats against me. Even after I conceded to him about the grammar of the writing, he still decided to nitpick and report me because of the title of the section. He's just as emotional as anyone else, pursuing petty conflicts to the greatest lengths, all with a touch of condescension. —Wash whites separately (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is my edit summary, which refered not to his edit or him as horrific, but to "horrific grammar" that as, phrased, called Chinese Americans "things": [21]. In any case, it doesn't mitigate his edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. User has been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Woovee reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Neo-psychedelia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Woovee (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]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

  • User wants to add this sentence: "Others who embraced neo-psychedelia include Siouxsie and the Banshees [1] and The Glove [2]."
The issue here is one of WP:ONUS and WP:LAUNDRYLIST. I placed {{elucidate}} next to the text and argued my case on talk page, writing that indiscriminate namedrops of random artists is laundry list trivia that could potentially be stretched to infinity, and that the info is better located at List of neo-psychedelia artists. I suggested that if he wants those bands to be acknowledged, then he should find a source that discusses the subject as more than a passing mention (i.e. something in the vein of "[X] was a major figure of neo-psychedelia who influenced many artists of the genre").
He responded by citing WP:OWNER and WP:RS, but not before engaging in an edit war over the "abusive" tag I had placed. After giving a 3RR warning, he began removing other sourced content from the article, which looks to me like WP:DISRUPTPOINT.

Reply from User:Woovee:

1) I added completely new content yesterday.
"Journalist David Stubbs remarked that Siouxsie and the Banshees's music in 1982 had got "neo-psychedelic flourishes" with "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[8] Critic Ira Robbins stated that The Glove integrated neo-psychedelic elements in their work in 1983.[9]
I have put another source and 2 very different sentences. Each time, I've changed and improved my edits. I wp:STICKTOSOURCE, I used wp:RSs and there is no wp:OR.
2) This report is bizarre because the plaintiff has done 4RR which I didn't.
Here's his 4RR, he should have never reported someone while doing this:
  1. [29] 18:51, 5 October 2016 in which the plaintiff completely erased my first edit with 2 reliable sources
  2. [30] 13:45, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff again reverted my edit
  3. [31] 23:29, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff accepted one of the revious source and a new one while adding an abusive tag, which is his new tactics
  4. [32] 23:50, 6 October 2016 same rv than above
  5. [33] 13:01, 7 October 2016 same rv than above
  6. [34] 17:22, 7 October 2016 same rv than below
So, his report is abusive, and inappropriate. Woovee (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – One week. This looks like a two-person edit war. Try to get agreement on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Portal:Current events/2016 October 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:8800:FF04:C00:90C:69BD:1C86:33F1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743357845 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)for the reason you just gave which can only serve to push bias here now I see your goal and you too are a bias pusher"
  2. 08:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743356027 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Current_events#Reverts.2Fedits.2Freverts..."
  3. 07:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743354420 by Shearonink (talk)I have answered your question over on talk and as for the other it is not political it is a hack/theft/crime and only for that is it in the portal"
  4. 07:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743351932 by Shearonink (talk)this is not a newspaper and that is just bias pushing political spin"
  5. 06:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743333428 by FallingGravity (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Portal:Current events/2016 October 7. (TW)"
  2. 08:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */ Self-revert, please."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User was advised repeatedly to open a discussion on the talk page, but instead simply engaged in a stale revert-war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:3RR 86.22.8.235 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Earl King reported by User:Ladislav Mecir (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Blockchain (database) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]
  4. [39]
  5. [40]
  6. [41]
  7. [42]
  8. [43]
  9. [44]
  10. [45]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [46]
  2. [47]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [48]
  2. [49]
  3. [50]
  4. [51]

Comments:
The above warning diffs provide information on nonconstructive edits on these Wikipedia pages: Blockchain (database), Bitcoin, and 1,000,000 socks for Paul Wolfowitz Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – the reverts at Blockchain (database) are stale (October 6). Nothing at the other two articles needs admin attention. There are lots of people expressing opinions at Talk:Blockchain (database) which means that a good discussion should be possible. I hope you guys are aware you can make binding decisions using a WP:Request for comment. If instead you just continue to revert it won't have any useful results. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Travis505 reported by User:KGirlTrucker81 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
War on Terror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Travis505 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  2. 16:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Wrong information"
  3. 16:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Please explain to me why it's so important that you have to be the leader of everyone?"
  4. 16:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "The information is wrong the US is not the leader of NATO and they never will be so I will continue to correct the wrong information being spread about NATO."
  5. 16:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  6. 15:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "We are all leaders in this war not just the US, this is a global war against the terrorists and we all take part and no one is in charge of this war we are all against them. This article had incorrect information once again"
  7. 13:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "The US is not the only leading force in the war on terror it's not your war we are all fighting this war together."
  8. 11:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Everyone plays a part the point of NATO is there is no leader all I'm doing is stating the fact, US is not in charge of NATO, the closest thing to a leader there is the Secretary General who is Norwegian not American."
  9. 11:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "This article wrongly states the US as leader of NATO, NATO is a joint coalition with no fixed leader so again I am fixing the article and removing the misinformed information that US is the leader of NATO."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  • Warning of edit warring [52]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  • Talk page discussion to attempt to resolve issue [53]
Comments:

Claims that the user falsely adding leader among many countries. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 15:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Note also the vandalism and sockpuppetry: [54][55][56][57][58]. GABgab 16:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week. Article semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Chanbaek461 reported by User:Junior5a (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Park Chanyeol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Chanbaek461 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743442116 by Junior5a (talk) This is not vandalism its the truth you can look it up"
  2. 17:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743440451 by Junior5a (talk)"
  3. 17:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743436427 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
  5. 17:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  7. 16:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Park Chanyeol. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editing warring and Vandalism, Other editors was trying undo it ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 17:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Widr (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Etsybetsy (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [59]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]
  4. [63]

Note: he was recently warned for making even a single revert to the article without getting concensus on talk first: [64].


— Explanation of the wording as instructed by subst:

As mentioned, Xenophrenic (and I) were warned for making even a single revert to the article before getting concensus on talk, at September 1: [65]. At that point I actually already had concensus: [66], [67].

I get clearer concensus again: [68], [69] and make a tiny change to the Amherst portion by adding two testimonies verified by all our sources and the words "a month before" which is obviously quite important: [70].

Now Xenophrenic reverts that, removing the testimonies for the millionth time and changes massive portions of the article completely chaotically and gets into an edit war with yet another editor, totaling 4 against him now. His argument is that it's a WP:NOTAVOTE. People are at arms about his behavior but it just keeps getting passed over.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]


Section of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – These diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If someone opened an RfC with specific statements we could get a reading on what wording actually has consensus. It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired of going in circles and will try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Ed, of course these diffs do not show a 3RR violation. They don't even show disruptive edit warring on my part. What do the above diffs show in this malformed report? The diff of the "previous version reverted to" is just an unhelpful link to the current article. The diff to an "attempt to resolve the dispute" is instead just an unhelpful link to the whole article Talk page. The 4 "diffs of the user's reverts" are instead just article improvement edits, mostly consisting of uncontroversial new content and reliable sources. Any other Admin might assume good faith and mistake this grossly malformed report as merely new user lack of competence, but Admin Ed Johnston should know better. Ed has been handling this matter for a while now, and knows this report is just the latest in a string of attempts by the single purpose Etsybetsy account to substitute baseless drama-board sanction requests in place of actual collaboration and discussion on article improvement.
While I appreciate Ed's efforts to appear impartial while addressing edit warring complaints here, I feel Ed's use of wording which paints both parties as equally culpable (i.e.; "It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired...") is unhelpful. Such language only encourages Etsybetsy's poor behavior. This AN3 report alleges that I reverted after being warned not to, but Ed is fully aware that it was actually Etsybetsy who reverted. Ed gave Etsy a chance, "there may still be time for you to undo your change, to avoid a block", which Etsy declined. Ed patiently listened to Etsy's faulty claim to consensus (which Etsy has again echoed just above in this report), and again Ed gave Etsy a chance, "Your above argument looks to be full of synthesis. I recommend you undo your contested change until a clear thread of support appears on the talk page." Again Etsy declined. Whether Ed then grew too irritated with the situation to continue, or simply lost track of it, Ed didn't comment further. I left Etsy's problematic, non-consensus edit in the article and patiently waited a full 2 weeks. With no further response from Etsy, or from Ed, I have resumed article improvement editing. Ed, you suggest (again) that we should be following the steps of Dispute Resolution, but you must know that cannot be done in a vacuum. Two to Tango, and all that. As you know, I took the initiative to open the Talk page discussion, which Etsy has abandoned in favor of revert-warring instead. I also offered to initiate an RfC for Etsy, but that was rejected, with no alternative proposal offered by Etsy. Arbitration and Third Opinion steps aren't applicable here. I'd like to initiate a Moderated Discussion, but that, too, is no longer applicable because there must first be significant discussion. The content Etsy is presently revert warring out of the article (Canadian schools; Mandan tribes; copy editing) is new content being deleted without any discussion. Suggestions? Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Aṭlas reported by User:Duedemagistris (Result: )[edit]

Hi, just wanted to alert other editors to potential problem with User:Aṭlas reverting edits on MoorsDuedemagistris (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no potential problem with Atlas reverting edits. You made some rather poorly explained deletions, you were reverted. Then you added an explanation on the talk page. This is an ordinary content dispute following the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that Duedemagistris has accused Atlas of vandalism, clearly unreasonably. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Dr Lecter reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: List of UFC champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr Lecter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First version Latest correct version (a title bout occurred in the meanwhile)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1 As an IP.
  2. 2 Now as a registered user (he confirmed that on edit summary)
  3. 3 After my second (and final) revert, he engaged in an edit war with another user as seen on the next diffs.
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] User warned by the other user he engaged in an edit war. My warning is there as well. He was warned previously via edit summary.


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

Comments:
User was warned several times, but refuses to provide reliable source to his edits. I've explained it already to him and he does not seem to understand. If he receives any kind of punishment, I'd recommend page protection as well. He just became a registered user, so he could go back again to unregistered edits and keep that situation going. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


@Dr Lecter I have legitimate argument and have provided a primary source to back myself up, while only receiving secondary sources / speculation as counter evidence. I have been warned several times to provide a source which I have done. My reporters have ignored the source, and continued reporting me for the same reason, while not providing a source of their own - making their reports illegitimate. I do not deserve to be punished — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Lecter (talkcontribs) 05:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe there's a clear "Interim champion: Jon Jones" below Daniel Cormier here: http://www.ufc.com/fighters. Sorry bud, you did not provide a single reliable source because there is none. I'm afraid you're completely wrong in this one. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Dr Lecter: We actually prefer secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources, and that does not excuse you from the three-revert rule. It's not about punishment, you are being disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Torah28 reported by User:Dane2007 (Result: Blocked at SPI)[edit]

Page
Saoirse Ronan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Torah28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC) to 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 12:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 13:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Paragraph one"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 12:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) to 12:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 12:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Film */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 11:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC) to 11:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 11:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 11:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Saoirse Ronan."
  2. 21:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Talk page thread
Comments:

User was warned by NeilN at this previous report and continues to engage in the behavior. -- Dane2007 talk 21:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Kates87 has begun editing the article now, with the same changes being made by Torah28. Their first two edits ever, in fact. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Bastun is making false accusations. I was merely correcting Ronan's ethnicity which is 'Irish-American', not Irish and American, her residence which is NYC, and some punctuation. Kates87 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Opened a Sockpuppet investigation on this. Behavioral evidence suggests otherwise in my opinion as well based on specific edits and timing.  It looks like a duck to me.-- Dane2007 talk 21:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Couiros22 reported by Jimfbleak (Result: no violation)[edit]

Couiros22 [contributions] has been systematically restoring individual country categories across many bird articles, despite this being against a previously established consensus, and removing categories he/she doesn't like, specifically Category:Birds of Europe. He/she just keeps reverting and has broken WP:3RR at least Aleutian tern, history, probably others by now, and seems unwilling to discuss or stop this disruption discussion. I'm too close to this to take admin action myself, and I'm reluctant to see any editor blocked, but there must be some way of getting this editor to engage with other editors and not just attempt to impose his/her own views without consensus. Apologies if I've not formatted this correctly, I don't think I've ever posted here before Jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

No breach of 3RR has yet occurred, as far as I can see. On Aleutian tern they reverted twice yesterday. That said, they are certainly not showing a good attitude to collaborative editing and if this pattern continues then sanctions may occur. I will leave a note on their talkpage and advise them to read WP:BRD. Can I also suggest that you (Jimfbleak) avoid using rollback to revert non-vandalism. (This revert required an edit summary.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently been updating geographical categories on many bird articles, mainly for the following reasons:

- Bird species are usually classified according to their geographical area by simply indicating the name of the continent(s) on which they are found (e.g. "Birds of Africa", "birds of North America" etc.) ; which can however be rather approximate and misleading and I think it would be wiser to include more refined geographical sub-categories in order to reflect the geographical area of repartition.

e.g. The stilt and the buff-headed sandpipers only occur in Alaska and Canada's far north; which is why I suggested to refine the classification data by replacing "Birds of North America" (very approximate and misleading, given it may suggest that the species occurs throughout the whole continent) by "Birds of Alaska" and "Birds of Canada" which would be much more precise and less misleading.

- Most academic bird list inventories generally indicate a bird's range of presence by only quoting the birds' breeding range (where they spend most of the year), the non-breeding range either mentioned separately or ignored (cf. IOC World Bird List). Likewise, I think only the breeding range should be taken into account on Wikipedia and that birds' wintering ranges could be categorized separately (e.g. "Wintering birds of Australia").

To elicit both examples, the Aleutian tern was up until now categorized as "Birds of North America" and "Birds of Europe" - yet according to every major ornithological reference, the species only occurs in northwestern coastal areas of the continent - and nearly none of them indicate its breeding presence in Europe throughout the year. Hence, wouldn't the terms "Birds of the Aleutian Islands" and "birds of Alaska" be a much more suitable and valid categorization?

At present, Jimfbleak seems unwilling to follow any further pragmatic discussion, deems that geographical subcategories (e.g. 'birds of Tibet', 'birds of Manchuria', 'birds of Alaska' etc.) as "unneeded" and has accused me of edit warring and having an « agenda »...

Therefore I would like to address and politely request other users' opinion regarding this problematic. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This board is not the place to discuss content issues. You can use the article's talk page, or for broad discussion try the relevant WikiProject. Jimfbleak may be aware of previous discussions where consensus was established. Consensus can change of course, but the onus is on you to demonstate this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Eichenwalde reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Eichenwalde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "You are edit-warring over an unsourced edit. Unsourced edits Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.""
  2. 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "No it isn't. It has to be in the source to be called "sourced". However the source never mention any "Islamic extremism motive"(which by the way is a religious belief anyway). Never mentioned in source even once."
  3. 11:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "No "Islamic extremism motive" is mentioned in sources, Islamic extremism is a religious belief. Regardless, it is entirely unsourced."
  4. 11:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "No "Islamic extremism motive" is mentioned in attacks, Islamic extremism is a religious belief. Regardless, it is entirely unsourced."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The article is limited to 1rr however the user has reverted 2 or 3 times, They've been given an edit warring notice which has been ignored, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I just left a notice about the 1RR restriction. They haven't reverted since receiving the original warning. There's only been two reverts so far. The first was just removal of sources and the second was reverting him/herself. APK whisper in my ear 13:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I thought there was a notice but had no idea where to find it and don't really know what the best course of action is either, They did self rv but then self reverted straight after anyway so didn't think it was worth mentioning, Anyway they would've known about the 1rr because it's a massive box as soon as you edit so you can't exactly miss it but regardless if an admin believes this is non-actionable for now then I have no objections to that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that, but thanks for informing. But, multiple editors one after one have reverted me as well. Is that fair that you are able to tag-team against someone? I wasn't born yesterday and I'm not going to cower. Besides I've already started a discussion, no one responded. If you really care to "discuss", do discuss. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eichenwalde: - Go to Talk:November 2015 Paris attacks and read the archives (on the right hand side). You'll see this has been discussed. When multiple editors are reverting you, examine why they might be doing that instead of assuming it's a tag-team against you. Lastly, your tone seems very pointed. You're new here. Relax, be a little more friendly and people will probably respond to you a lot better. Cheers. APK whisper in my ear 13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No one's tag teaming - You've been reverted by 3 editors and carried on reverting anyway, It's great you've started a discussion but you should'e started it the moment you were reverted, The article isn't placed on 1RR for the sake of it - You ignored it and up until now was unwilling to discuss it and had it not been for this report you would'e carried on reverting. –Davey2010Talk 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly what is called tag-teaming - one after another reverting. I know this is a tactic. As I said, I wasn't born yesterday hoss. It seems the "editors" haven't used common sense and what Islamic extremism actually means. In fact they haven't even checked whether it's really sourced. NO SOURCE SAYS "Islamic extremism was a motive". And even the article makes itself clear that there was more than one motive. Therefore classifying it as a motive is contrary to reality and completely unsourced. Instead of telling me I'm pointed and to relax, do it yourself first and don't act like you own this site. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh and I started the discussion before you even complained about me dave. Don't dare to make false allegations. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eichenwalde: - administrator's note: Please self-revert now that you understand that you're limited to a single revert. If you do not, you will be blocked for edit-warring. Self-reversion in such a situation is an acknowledgement that you're willing to work within community norms and a declaration of good faith, and will allow a more collegial discussion. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not happening. I don't want to edit-war. But I fear this is an obvious tactic on other's part to do what they wish to. Had the editors been not tag-teaming, I would have. But this is obviously a tag-team tactic. Eichenwalde (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Acroterion (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:BoBoMisiu reported by User:KrakatoaKatie (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [74]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77]
  4. [78]
  5. [79]
  6. [80]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry#Mentioning Propaganda Due

Comments:
I came to this via an RFPP report. We have a slow-motion edit war here over the last week or so regarding a specific phrase. It's pretty cut and dried, but BoBoMisiu states on the article talk page that he's not edit warring, but contributing content. After the 3RR warning, he reverted twice. A long-term editor like BoBoMisiu should know better.

I have a viewpoint about Freemasonry, so I decline to act myself. I'm bringing it here for another admin to review. Katietalk 15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Pretty clear cut violation, reverts were performed after a warning, and the user is experienced. There is no excuse here. Vanamonde (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:PogingJuan (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page
Rodrigo Duterte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743590212 by Trivolution (talk)see talk"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 15:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC) to 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    1. 15:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "revert pro-Duterte changes"
    2. 15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy and criticism */ restore "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject." Do not remove without consensus"
    3. 15:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* First days */ remove speech "name" invented by Wikipedia editor"
  3. 22:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Mayor of Davao City */ copyvio"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Rodrigo Duterte. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

We have always believed in WP:NPOV style of editing, but this user, I think, does not imply on it. He keeps on removing others' contributions showing the positive doings of the politician, although supported by reliable sources, and keeps on only contributing the negative ones, so that the general public, specially foreigners, can think of the politician as so bad. I think, he/she is one-sided and worthy of being punished, in accordance with the Wikipedia:Five pillars. ~Manila's PogingJuan 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – You've listed only three reverts, one of which is removing a copyright violation. Such removals are exempted by WP:3RRNO. To resolve content disputes we recommend WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

User:John from Idegon reported by User:Zlassiter (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Kalamazoo Foundation for Excellence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John from Idegon (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743567402
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743568661
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743570558
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743571498
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence&oldid=743572660



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kalamazoo_Foundation_for_Excellence

Comments:
User keeps deleting and reverting content in violation of Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material... requested user instead post request citation of sources or constructively contribute instead user just keeps reverting and making hostile comments such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zlassiter&oldid=743572278

  • I'm not removing the same content, I was removing several different instences of unreferenced, somewhat promotional content and several different instences of SYNTH or OR. I had started a discussion on the article talk page, which the other editor did not respond to until after he templated me for edit warring, prior to even 2RR on any one piece of content. A third editor, Meters has also reverted the same SYNTH. If a block is forthcoming it should be for the other editor, who despite having been here for nearly two years, is not signing their comments. John from Idegon (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I forgot to add four tildes after a comment... I don't believe thats a tannable offense but shows your hostility to me. If I get banned for forgetting four tildes, lets ban you for your typo on 'thanks' Zlassiter (talk) 07:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Serious WP:OWN issues too. I made some MOS corrections to the article which he is now reverting and Meters is restoring. John from Idegon (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Zlassiter: I'm seriously contemplating some WP:BOOMERANG if this doesn't settle down very quickly. Ks0stm (TCGE) 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm going to bed.....I'll look in in the morning. Can't imagine anything that would be pressing in the meantime. John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2)@John from Idegon: WP:3RR doesn't distinguish between removing the same or different material, it's just more than three distinct sets of reverting. If you did revert there one more time for any reason I'd have to block you, and I know some admins would say I should now.
  • @Zlassiter: This and this would be counted as the same revert (sequential edits are counted as a single revert), not reverts 2 and 3. While this can be counted as a revert, it could be counted as a bold edit instead. Now, that decision could be considered WP:Wikilawyering, but not nearly as bad a case of wikilawyering as citing this essay to try to justify citing sources that don't actually say the things they're being cited for. In fact, that behavior and expecting other people to get better sources are regarded as disruptive. WP:Verifiability (which is an policy representing both traditional and current site-wide consensus, not an essay representing the opinions of a few selected users from a decade ago) plainly states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
  • I'm inclined to just warn both of you to stop and especially warn Zlassiter to listen to John and Meters about sourcing and quit WP:OWNing the article like it's a source of income. Still, I'm not closing this myself because I could see how other admins might feel differently one way or another. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Zlassiter: Hannah Apps isn't "many people," stop with the weasel words. That's been explained to you enough that I shouldn't have to have put it that bluntly, and you should be able to figure out how to rephrase that sentence to be neutral by yourself. Also, that isn't the only material being reverted. You need to stop pluralizing every thing. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Also this should be looked at by admin.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meters#Recent conversation on a user's talk page regarding this. instead of trying to reach consensus subject seems to be reaching out to friends to get an AFD done on an article subject that clearly doesn't meet the requirements for deletion. Also some AGF violations. Zlassiter (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing untoward there. John from Idegon and I are both very active editors, and we have significant overlap on school articles, so we sometimes bounce ideas off of each other. That's why I initially thought his posting on my page had to do with the Crystal Springs high school article. He didn't ask me to look at Kalamazoo Foundation for Excellence and he didn't raise the possibility of an AFD on my page until after the article showed up on my recent changes patrol and I had edited the article and commented on the talk page. As for the suggestion of a WP:CRYSTAL AFD, the article is a bit early, but I think it would certainly be argued that the subject is notable even if the plans don't work out. If it went to AFD it would probably either survive, or be userfied until the outcome of the plan is clarified. Meters (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • This is not a very clean 3RR case. The talk page thread was opened at 7:00 by John from Idegon, not Zlassiter, and at 7:05 Zlassiter responded but did not address the valid concerns of improperly supported material, OR and SYNTH. John from Idegon's last edit to the article was at 7:06. At 7:20 the 3RR case was opened, but not until 7:22 was John from Idegon given a 3RR warning. So, a 3RR case was opened without any attempt to discuss the issues, before the editor was warned, and despite the fact that the editor in question was attempting to discuss the issues and was no longer editing the article. Meters (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined - This report is not in proper form and the above links are versions, not diffs. It is still unclear if there was any 3RR violation. Both Zlassiter and John from Idegon are advised to read the above statement by admin User:Ian.thomson: "I'm inclined to just warn both of you to stop and especially warn Zlassiter to listen to John and Meters about sourcing and quit WP:OWNing the article like it's a source of income. " John from Idegon was trying to enforce our article standards but may have got close to 3RR while doing so. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:83.86.176.99 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Stand development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
83.86.176.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Re-adding unsourced personal experience spam and forcing me to violate 3RR. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring and adding original research. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Template:2016 Summer Olympics Argentina women's field hockey team roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 17:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Excuse me, if you want to have roster tables resembling to the other team-based sports, you might as well start setting up a discussion please on WT:OLY, or do it for the rest of the nations competing in field hockey. Thank you!"
  4. 18:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "For now, let's just be contented with the original template. If you're going to add a roster table similar to the other team-based sports, you should come up with a centralized discussion, and see if the other users would agree on your suggestion."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Template:2016 Summer Olympics Argentina women's field hockey team roster. (TW)"
  2. 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Template:2016 Summer Olympics Argentina women's field hockey team roster. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Formatting of the tbale */ new section"
Comments:

This user has ownership issues with Olympic related articles. They have clearly violated the 3RR rule, even after a warning was placed and a discussion started (which they have contributed too). The discussion has barely started and they have reverted back to their preferred version without any comments from other users. The user has also removed large chunks of information from other related templates [82] and [83] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the user blanked this report here [84] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Sportsfan 1234, I think that you do not read what I already explained in the edit summary, and then suddenly you just simply reverted my edits with so many negative, irrational remarks, followed by unpleasant administrative reports. Are you trying to instantly block and threaten me on Wikipedia? You should have read and understood my cases and explanations before you react. I already placed them on the talk pages for the said articles, including WT:OLY. You didn't even give me enough RESPECT when I'm fixing something. You kept on reverting my edits so many times, and you never stop. How long have you ever done the revert power on Wikipedia? Is this your regular habit? Sorry if I ask you too many questions, because I need to know about you situation on why do you have to do this every single time. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. The user also removed the 3RR complaint about himself. I think that hurts his credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Mrv3rsac3 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mrv3rsac3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "Oh dear, the three-revert rule. Go ahead and ban me, fascists. It would be the proudest ban I ever received. Being outnumbered and being wrong are two very different things. You all are completely reprehensible."
  2. 03:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743761643 by PeterTheFourth (talk) you all should be ashamed of yourself; Wikipedia should be objective and impartial"
  3. 03:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743760875 by Muboshgu (talk) you Soros-funded sock puppets working overtime? I don't blame you after the bloodbath last night"
  4. 03:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Donald Trump is on WP:1RR – Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the last revert on Donald Trump as consensus exists at the talk page. -- Dane2007 talk 03:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
The sooner this can be handled, the better. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week Ks0stm (TCGE) 03:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Musiclover46 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: I Don't Belong to You (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Musiclover46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [85]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [86]
  2. [87]
  3. [88]
  4. [89]
  5. [90]
  6. [91]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93]

Comments:

They are evidently using multiple IPs to editwar even after breaking 3RR. GABgab 19:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Pinging Sundayclose. GABgab 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
See also the page histories of The Greatest (Keke Palmer song) and Awaken Reloaded. GABgab 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

User: Bigbaby23 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Allicin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bigbaby23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff but this one is fine too.


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 02:50, 9 October 2016 adding bunch of Non-MEDRS sourced content to article about garlic extract
  2. diff 15:14, 10 October 2016
  3. diff 06:46, 11 October 2016
  4. diff 07:34, 11 October 2016


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute