Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive335

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:178.134.227.183 reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Wolverine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.134.227.183 (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]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
Pretty straightforward case, with 5 essentially identical edits over two days, the final one following a 3RR warning, a user talk page plea, and an active Talk page discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Three registered editors agreed that the IP's removal of the material was unwarranted, and made slight changes to the article to reflect the IP's stated concerns. The IP did not participate in the discussion beyond an initial posting. IP has not again removed the material at issue, but, he has gone 24 hours between edits previously, so this period of inaction may not indicate his acquiescence. I suggest waiting another 4-5 hours today, and closing out this report if he does not once again remove the material - if thereafter he makes the same edit then I can return here to file another report. JohnInDC (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. User hasn't reverted again in a couple days - and has tried to engage on the talkpage since stopping. I would encourage both sides to discuss the changes before reverting. SQLQuery me! 00:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Maxim.ascanio reported by User:XXN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Vladimir Plahotniuc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maxim.ascanio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Recently created SPA Maxim.ascanio removes continuously referenced content (entire section) from the article Vladimir Plahotniuc. Has violated 3RR indirectly. See last 10-15 entries in the page history. --XXN, 11:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC) *Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. SQLQuery me! 00:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31h I've looked at this, and blocked the user. @XXN: - next time, please use the form. SQLQuery me! 00:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:AlexMiller2 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
Guerra de ídolos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AlexMiller2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 20:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 15:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC) to 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    1. 15:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user continues with its destructive editions even though it was already blocked in the past, and generates editions wars through IPS. Philip J Fry (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Has clearly learned nothing from their block a few days ago. King of ♠ 05:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    Just noticed the sockpuppetry, blocked both account and IP for 1 week. -- King of ♠ 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Nanaonly reported by User:TerryAlex (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
The K2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Nanaonly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 01:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User Nanaonly keeps on adding back the awards section in this article. This television drama was not being nominated as the representative work for any of these awards. In fact, based on its official website and the award ceremony itself, it seems these awards were being given out to their recipients on a general basis. I request for a discussion on the article's talk page, through edit summaries, and the user's talk page, but without any responses. Thank you. TerryAlex (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Nanaonly has responded to me through email and I have responded to it on the article's talk page. Thank you.--TerryAlex (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. User:Nanaonly was convinced that an award won by Im Yoon-ah should be credited to her performance on The K2 program, but others disagreed. The other editors believe that the source was misinterpreted. Now, per a discussion at Talk:The K2#Awards, it appears that this is settled. EdJohnston (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Tahc reported by User:Zfish118 (Result: Both Warned)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Original Edit, adding redundant disclaimers

  1. First revert (Jan 16), making accusation of adding theology instead of history.
  2. Second revert (Jan 16), making accusation of adding theology instead of history and reintroducing inappropriate disclaimers.
  1. Second Edit (Jan 16), relatively productive, specifying what content is disputed
  2. Third revert (Jan 17), needlessly reverting the addition of a source
  3. Forth revert (Jan 17), reverting my restoration of the source.

I would also reference the talkpage discussion, making numerous vague accusations of adding "theology" to the infobox, accusation of refusing to discuss issues that are not clearly stated, etc.

Comments:
This began because I because I reverted an edit that introduced a change in wikilink was that I did not think was particularly helpful to an infobox that has been heavily discussed in the past to reach its current form. Tahc restored his and slightly modified his edit, which was initially going to leave. I subsequently noticed inappropriate disclaimers added to the infobox, which is why I reverted the edit. I was then accused of "adding theology" and not discussing the issue, which I am not at all clear on. Since then, Tahc has engaged in seemingly gratuitous reversions of additional sources, as noted above. This editing behavior is disruptive to the continued maintenance of the article. --Zfish118talk 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that "making accusation not clearly stated" is another way of saying "tried very much to begin a discussion" but I was ignored repeataly. tahc chat 18:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: This is a bit stale, but I'm leaving a warning for both parties. Each of you has some justification for your view, but if you revert again before holding a proper talk page discussion blocks are possible. Generally Wikipedia takes an 'outside view' of people or institutions. We want to know what unaffiliated sources have written about the thing that is the subject of the article. The subject's own view of what happened is secondary, and it's arguable that the Church's belief that it was founded in Jerusalem in the first century may not be credible enough for use in the infobox. We have had many disputes about religion and it's unlikely that admins will have much tolerance for continued warring on this article. If you consider the issue important, open an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:PassenzaT reported by User:Karst (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Aaliyah discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
PassenzaT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "please stop reverting with no reason. There no connection to the note section. Theres no reference to 2,619,829 copies sold on 'Aaliyah'. Just check others discographies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) to 21:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    1. 21:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC) "add Soundscan and BMG Clubs sales again, with a reliable source. Makes the article more detailed, please stop reverting with no reason"
    2. 21:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Aaliyah discography edition war */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 08:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Aaliyah album sales */ new section"
Comments:

Editor was previously blocked for similar issues. He/she has continued in the same vein. Case of WP:NOTHERE. Karst (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry but what I did wasn't wrong. I only add the sales from BMG club, with a reliable source. I asked several administrators for help. And theres no reason for this user insulting me, it's just wrong to say these words in Wikipedia. And now I can be blocked? There's just not fair. I understood the fact that I have to discuss on talk page, but how can I discuss with a user that revert everything I do and now is insulting me? You can check my edits by yourself, I put reliable sources in everything I did, but that's just wrong to a user act like he or she owns Aaliyah's articles and say "f*cking idi*t" to me. Please check everything and reconsider, because I'm not that wrong. Insulting a user is worst than editing with references. And yes, I'm here to make Wikipedia better, I respect any users and I use reliable sources. I understood the warning, but blocking me for what? For editing? For being insulted? I can't do a editing war alone. With I should be blocked, Mulaj should too. I'm not editing Aaliyah Discography anymore, but it's not fair to be blocked and I can not discuss with a user that don't have some respect. What I did just made the page more explanatory. PassenzaT (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not about the content that you added, but about your behaviour in these articles. After your block you continue to insert this material without discussing it, even after you were reverted. Please look at WP:BRD. You should have started a section on the Talk page on the Aaliyah discography after you had been reverted. Instead you reverted and insisted you were right. If you are challenged on the sources that you have added (as you were on the Brandy issue that led to your previous block under 3RR), discuss them to reach consensus. Your refusal to do so is clearly frustrating to other editors. Karst (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
If you check you'll see that after being warned I stopped reverting on Brandy's page and used the talk page. That problem is finished. The point is that I can not discuss with the user Mulaj, there's no excuse to insulting another user. If you check I edited the Aaliyah Album article. He/She reverted saying that I didn't use reliable sources. I talked to him, proved that I used reliable sources. Another user reverted my edit, claiming that's no reason to put the sales status by the end of 2001. I accepted and did not edit the album article anymore. I only reverted the discography article because I did nothing wrong, I just add BMG sales like Janet, Madonna, Michael Jackson page. But it's impossible to talk with this user. I'm not editing Aaliyah's article anymore, after your warning. There's no need to block me. But insulting another user is a good reason to be warned at least. If you check I did some good and important edits on Aaliyah articles, all with references and making them more explanatory, like the One In A Million album. You can check by yourself. This user Mulaj has a problem with everyone that has big edits on Aaliyahs articles. Again, all my editions on Aaliyahs Discography has reliable sources, I'm defending myself from being insulted because it's not fair. I asked your help. You warned me and after your warning I stopped editing. Please be impartial. PassenzaT (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

And the 3 consecutives edits I did between 21:23 and 21:34 where when I noticed that one of the links where dead and I searched another source. What's wrong on that? PassenzaT (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You added the material on the 14th to the Aaliyah discography page and you were reverted. Instead of starting a discussion under WP:BRD you engaged in an edit war. That is why we are here. Karst (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. User was previously blocked for edit warring in December. I have no idea which of you is more likely to be right about the numbers, but you need to wait for an agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Mauro Lanari reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Room 237 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mauro Lanari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Reminded user to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

User reminded to raise the content dispute on the talkpage, but has not done so. Has reverted two different editors four times in approx. 18 hours, with no discussion fortcoming. Reminded not to edit-war twice (once by me, once by an admin), and then continued to revert the changes afterwards. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 12:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
Page: Room 237 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (and Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Erik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log))

Diffs of the users' reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff (his 3rd RR. By the way, why no one has also notified to him the warning?)
  4. diff
  5. diff

Users reminded to raise the content dispute on my talkpage, but have not done so: diff

Request for explanations for their revert against WP policy in each of my edit summaries, while I have always provided further reasons never considered

My edit in which I took into account the information found at Template: Allmovie title (example no. 4), one of the Category:Film external link templates: diff

  1. Lugnuts reverted "per the MOS", id est?
  2. Favre1fan93 reverted for his own opinions without saying on which WP guidelines they were based
  3. Erik reverted "per WP:ELMAYBE"

All these answers are so vague as to not even be arguments, and go against everything written in the places that I have indicated to them and here above. I have no further intention to continue to edit that article, but at least I'd like to know what would be the right rule to follow between the {{Allmovie}} template and the external links. Thank you. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You were asked to discuss your change on the article's talkpage, and then continued to revert after that was posted on your talkpage. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Mauro Lanari, I said WP:ELMAYBE #1. Please click on that and look at #1 at that link. That is what the other editors were referring to. It is not an opinion but a clear exclusion. We are already working to get the "review" tab removed from the external link template as inappropriate. Its existence does not mean it was valid, as the conflict with policy is obvious. It will be removed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lugnuts, on this you're right: you wrote "article's talkpage", while I've read and understood "my talkpage". Sorry for the misunderstanding. The fact remains that you have been the first to make 3 reverts but no one has notified also to you the warning.
Erik, in the past (I can't find where and when) I had already asked why the AMG templates enjoy this preferential treatment, and it was explained to me that, as Metacritic and Rotten, their vote is an average rating. Now you say it's not true. Mystery. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Mauro Lanari, The AllMovie link only shows one professional rating. We would not include an EL to share user ratings (which we largely exclude from articles anyway). Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have two distinct roles in film articles. First, they are included as references to report the aggregate scores. Secondly, they are included as external links because they list multiple reviews in one spot (which is why individual reviews as ELs are unnecessary). MOS:FILM#External links says, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate. For example, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic can provide listings of more reviews than sampled in the article body. They can be included as external links instead of links to individual reviews." The fact that they're the same URL is happenstance. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Erik, I managed to find where I had already raised the issue, almost identical to yours, and where I had received a reply, almost opposed to yours: here. Then don't blame the editors who go crazy to follow the elusive consistency of WP policies and guidelines. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Mauro Lanari, I do not find that to be the opposite. What FleetCommand said is an argument for the external link template's general existence, so they did not really answer your question. You can use the AllMovie EL on its own, but the emphasis on linking to the review is unnecessary. I actually do not think that AllMovie should be an EL at all (I've nominated it for deletion a couple of times), but since there was no consensus in either case to exclude the EL template in its entirety, I've accepted its general use. You could probably restore the Room 237 AllMovie EL without the "review" tab and just keep it general. If for some reason, the review at AllMovie is worthwhile, it should be added directly to the article body. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Erik, one of two things: either "AllMovie isn't one review only. It aggregates film metadata and user rating too", or "only shows one professional rating". However, I can also accept to not being able to understand. Furthermore I think this is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Mauro, the reason I didn't warn Lugnuts for edit warring was because he stopped reverting and went to WT:FILM to discuss the matter. That some random editor once said AllMovie is alright to use in the external links doesn't mean that you can edit war to add it against consensus in an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. As I wrote in the edit summary here, consensus can't go against what one tries to understand of the WP policy. First you try to find consensus to change the policy and then you may apply the change, not the reverse. I used to think that even mass edits against a not yet modified WP policy were vandalism. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:174.192.10.245 reported by User:WNYY98 (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Kermit the Frog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
174.192.10.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760962988 by JudgeRM (talk)"
  2. 02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760962943 by JudgeRM (talk)"
  3. 02:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "sigh....."
  4. 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "And again you refuse to listen...."
  5. 01:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "You guy's a really starting to piss me off. I will explain it for the 6th and final god dam time. They don't need to be listed twice in a row, they are already listed, Frank Welker voices him in animation, end of story!"
  6. 01:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Your not even involved in this."
  7. 01:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "shit....."
  8. 01:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "That's it!, I'm done! I'm not dealing with this anymore, I explained it 5 god dam times..... if it gets put back again.... then forget it...."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Also see above, likely the same user and a sock of Bigshowandkane64. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♠ 02:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:174.192.18.219 reported by User:JudgeRM (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page
Kermit the Frog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
174.192.18.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "I will revert this again, as I already explained it so many times."
  3. 01:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC) ""Again", I'm going to say it for the 4th time. They don't need to be listed twice. Frank Welker only voices him in animation."
  4. 01:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "I already explained it, they don't need to be listed twice"
  5. 01:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Come on, enough is enough!, leave it the way it is please. Voice actors only."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kermit the Frog. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The IP has started a discussion about what they are trying to remove here; despite this, the IP keeps removing the content even after being told not to. JudgeRM (talk to me) 01:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That's because user:Tapper930 refuses to listen. 174.192.18.219 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♠ 02:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:JoyceWood reported by User:Sabir Hun (Result: None)[edit]

Page: Kanasubigi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: JoyceWood (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. [9]
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]


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


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

Comments:
Starting from 19/01/2017 the user JoyceWood have made a lot of changes on a number of articles in which he/she didn't have any previous interests and edits. Some of these articles are: Madara Rider, Dengizich, Bulgars, Avitohol and especially striking are his edits on the articles Dulo clan, Kanasubigi and Kidarites from which he removed a massive amount of information. I am interested in the last 2 articles (because they are related to the Yuezhi) and I reverted his edits a couple of times. I warned him that he/she shouldn't remove information from the articles without any real argument. He only posted some stupid explanation on the talk page of the article Kanasubigi from which I couldn't make any sense and there wasn't any real argument why he have deleted this information, actually JoyceWood have deleted 14 books from the article. This is obvious vandalism. Thank you.--Sabir Hun (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC) --Sabir Hun (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The information i.e. edits on the article Dulo clan were done according to Talk:Dulo clan#December 2016 - January 2017. The information i.e. edits on the article Kanasubigi were done according to Talk:Kanasubigi#January 2017 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior and editing by Sabir Hun. As explained and shown in the prior talk and noticeboard report, Sabir Hun push insertion of clearly unsourced and unrelated information, did not constructively engage in the discussion and ignored my arguments (as well which can be seen above, he made a false claim that I did not provide any real argument and called them stupid), ignored the previous talk page consensus, ignored the noted Wikipedian editing principles (even actual facts - as there was no 14 books, and these references supported unrelated information), made a false accusation for WP:VANDAL, and ignored my warning on his disruptive editing.--JoyceWood (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for 72 hours. One user made 4 reverts, the other 3, but I see very little difference in the behavior of the two users. Please work it out on the talk page. King of ♠ 03:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    Unprotected given that nominator turned out to be a sock. -- King of ♠ 03:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    Both accounts are now blocked as socks, of different masters, of course.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpidErxD reported by User:47.17.27.96 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Economy of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SpidErxD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. King of ♠ 05:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


No true. SpidErDx has been edit warring for a week already. See his edit history as proof. Also please tell this troll that he must wait until consensus is reached about content on talk page of the article before reverting the long standing stable version. 47.17.27.96 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Besides, SpidErxD, as IP editor 45.116.232.56 (and other IP ranges from same carrier) from Pakistan, tries to evade block, which is not permitted. On the other side, as IP editor fromm NY area I try my best to avoid trolls like him. Besides, for 10 years, MOST of my edits are IP edits (User:SSZ) and this has nothing at all with avoiding any block. I edit back and forth by login-in and out when nobody is around with other dull articles as well where there is no discussion or any dispute. Examine my IP edit history. Many (thousands) are even listed in my user space edit history. I am reverting user:SpidErxD/as IP 45.116.232.56 back to the long standing stable version. IF i was hiding - which I was not - HOW COME this troll from Pakistan found about it so easily then? (he/she is not an admin) Please watch this article as the discussion on the talk page is just beginning. Thanks.47.17.27.96 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Repeating my point of view. because he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) didn't reply on that and moved on. He is reverting all my edits under pretext that IMF GDP estimates are not real values on other hand, Almost all Economies page contain estimates figures from IMF Oct 2016 report and latest CIA World Factbook see example : Economy of Brazil, Economy of China, Economy of Philippines, Economy of Japan etc. but he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) don't revert those, maybe because he is just anti iran. Also i just not only updated according to IMF. I also updated latest figures from CIA World Factbook. I will revert all my edits. promise me that he(User:SSZ & 47.17.27.96) will update infobox of Economy of Iran according to latest figures from CIA World Factbook and IMF latest report himself?. Honestly, just ask him to add latest values in infobox and summary. Thank you. SpidErxD (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – 10 days. This war has continued for more than a week. More reverts happened after the original closure by King of Hearts. Each person has made well over three reverts during the past week, if edits by 45.* and SpifErxD are combined and edits by 47.* and SSZ are combined. The war has been going on since a large change by SpidErx on 6 January which seemed not to receive universal support. See previous AN3 report and previous ANI report. The two parties seem to be totally unable or unwilling to follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The clearest explanation of the disagreement was a comment by a bystander, User:Winged Blades of Godric at the end of the last ANI report. The above dialog is typical. 47 calls SpidErx a troll, and SpidErx explains that 47 is 'anti-Iran'. These blocks could be lifted if there is an agreement to avoid the topic. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Fulgery reported by User:Walrasiad (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Ibn Tumart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fulgery (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. label
  2. label
  3. label
  4. label
  5. label
  6. label
  7. label
  8. label


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Entire talk:Ibn Tumart page dedicated to trying to resolve dispute.

Comments:
I'm actually going to request a little leniency in this case, as the it is a new user. He registered on January 16. On the other hand, the edit-warring seems pretty relentless, so I would appreciate if some sort of warning could be delivered.

Since his registration, he has done one thing which is insist on inserting a controversial allegation about the ethnicity of a historical figure, Ibn Tumart. In practically all secondary sources, Ibn Tumart is referred to as Berber. The user decided to claim he was Arab. His edits were reversed by User:Aṭlas for lack of sources. User:Fulgery tried to produce sources at first, but they were very poor sources, and several did not in fact support his allegation or edits. Other editors have brought piles of secondary evidence contradicting his allegation and the edits reversed. Evidently this was unsatisfactory to User:Fulgery. Rather than address the evidence he was confronted with, User:Fulgery decided to just start reverting it to his version. He then decided to lodge a dispute resolution, and then request total page protection, etc. (two days in and he knows how to do this!)

Unfortunately, an edit war with other users is now beginning to take shape.

In good part because I think he misunderstands what "dispute resolution" means. I think he hopes some outside expert will judge the content and approve his edits. I am not sure he actually understands how articles are edited in Wikipedia or how consensus is reached. He does not seem to be interested in discussion but in forum-shopping.

I don't want to request a ban, because it seems his reversals are driven by an obsession to ensure that his edits stay in place until this magical outsider comes in to rescue them (maybe he doesn't understand how diffs work?). I have restored the page twice to his pre-edit version, since I don't want the page to be marred by error in the interim. But he just reverses them right back. I have warned him both in the discussion page and in the user talk page about edit-warring and 3RR, but I guess that didn't make a difference (I expect he doesn't think I'm credible because I have disputed his edits?)

Anyway, the page currently contains his erroneous claims, which all other editors agree are unconscionable. And so it is inevitable they will be reversed. But he is likely to just reverse them back again instantly. Given his neophyte status, I do not want to request a ban, but I'd like to nip this error-war in the bud. So if there is a way to get him to stop edit warring and simply return to discussion, it would be splendid.

Walrasiad (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Soundofmusicals reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page
Auld Lang Syne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Soundofmusicals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 760736301 by Soundofmusicals: You are becoming tiresome - go to talk if you think you have a case for this silly re-arrngement and make it there. (TW)"
  2. 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 760661916 by Soundofmusicals: Not so - "Recordings" no longer contains a list of recordings, but it is far from "nul" - the note as to why it contains no list is important. YOU justify the change,on talk, if the change improves the..."
  3. 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 758222161 by Soundofmusicals (talk): Well mesat edit - but original order makes better sense really. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* January 2017 */ 3RR violation on Auld Lang Syne as well as flagrant flouting of the MOS policy on capitalization"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "/* A section does not necessarily need to contain a list. */ if there's no content then it is null, and the rationale is not being removed only the null subsection heading, also vio of 3RR and MOS per capitalization norms in headings"
Comments:

This editor seems simply here to argue and have their way, ignoring subtext and just reverting. Before 3RRing (3 reverts in 13 hours on ALS article) without any substantive reason given, I see an edit history with other uncivil/non-Good Faith edit summaries like the ones he/she gave me in the ALS article, to wit parting shot - I'm fed up with this nonsense, to be honest... and his/her comment to me "you are becoming tiresome" as a personal attack in addition to lack of good faith and being rather uncivil. JesseRafe (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also editor seems to think I added a "list" (???) to the article, which I empirically did not, otherwise their attempt at resolving at Talk (after the 3RR vio) makes zero sense.JesseRafe (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This complaint maybe now needs to be moved to the noticeboard for personal attacks if possible? User now calling my edits stupid (admittedly on a scale of "less stupid than most" on their talk page). User is also completely ignoring the substance of my conversation, to wit: Ownership of the article/willingness to collaborate, the 3RR rule, and the capitalization issue -- none were addressed at all. Editor seems to think all these issues are "stupid" and just "things they have to deal with". JesseRafe (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
With all respect - complainant is in fact doing what he is complaining of. It takes 2 to edit war and violate 3RR - he is actually doing it, while I am not (yet). My point, that he has goaded me into putting on the talk page has (as I type) not been answered - it strikes me as relevant, if not conclusive. An editor suggesting a change that is not immediately accepted needs to go to talk to discuss why the change is necesary (or even marginally desirable) - not howl "hard done by". All else confusion. I will not copy the abuse I have copped on my own talk page here - but if anyone doesn't believe me go have a look! I called his abuse of me "stupid" which they are - if I inadvertently called HIM stupid then this was inappropriate, and I apologise. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if I should even respond to all of the above. Again, Soundofmusicals ignored the actual substance, and while did not make any new personal attacks, clearly misrepresented the facts: 1. I reverted two times, he/she reverted three times. That is not subjective no matter how much Soundofmusicals wants to say it is the other way. 2. I had already responded on the article's talk page before filing this report, proof of which is my response on the Talk page is linked in this report -- Soundofmusicals is clearly trying to discredit me in the hopes that someone not look at time stamps or into the matter and just read these comments as "testimony". After looking at Talk:Auld Lang Syne it definitely seems incontrovertible that User Soundofmusicals is acting in an "ownership" role as sole and final editor over that page, and per IP below, I am not at all surprised others have run into them and their abrasive style. Also note the jingoism and nationalism expressed on that Talk page against Americans. JesseRafe (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Same experience here with Soundofmusicals at Baha'i talk page ("FA?" section)47.17.27.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Seriously? No comment or response here? And yes, I removed the inappropriate copy-and-paste from the Talk page as it's obviously accessible. JesseRafe (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – The 3RR was not broken. Consider following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you advise where to turn for these personal attacks and WP:OWN tactics?JesseRafe (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

User:207.11.1.164 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Billie Holiday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
207.11.1.164 (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 20:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC) to 20:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "/* 1915–25: Childhood */"
    2. 20:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "/* 1926–35: Early career */"
  2. 20:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "/* 1915–25: Childhood */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC) to 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "/* 1926–35: Early career */"
    2. 20:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Billie Holiday. (TW)"
  2. 20:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Billie Holiday. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Attempted censorship. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayout reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page
Blackout (Britney Spears album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Grayout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760746714 by Kellymoat (talk)"
  2. 20:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760732694 by Kellymoat (talk) read the AllMusic review it says robo-R&B beforehand you get trigger happy"
  3. 19:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 760677044 by Kellymoat (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
  2. 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been adding an unsourced music genre --- please note, he is then linking that genre to a page he created that redirects to another genre. Kellymoat (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Explain how you aren't also edit warring? Even if you believe you are correct, you should be discussing, not repeatedly reverting the other editor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct on that. All I can say is - I sent him a warning. I sent a 3rr warning. I tried the edit summary. And now I am here taking it to a higher power. I may be just as guilty when it comes to 3rr, but I have at least given him ample opportunity. Kellymoat (talk) 15:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Max Rays reported by User:Akld guy (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Sam Sheppard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Max Rays (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
User:Max Rays added a new section that pointed to a suspect named in a 2002 book. His/her edit was originally reverted by User:EEng on 16 January here. In the past few hours, Max Rays has persistently re-inserted the same content, despite being reverted and told on the article's Talk page that references are needed for statements that are presented as facts. In an attempt to accommodate the editor, I rewrote the section here, stating in the edit summary that this version got around the need to provide references by attributing the statements to the author of the book. Even this edit was reverted by User:Max Rays, so he/she is clearly edit-warring in order to force his/her version into the article. I ask here for some kind of censure of Max Rays, who is an SPA account with fewer than 20 edits, virtually all of them to the Sam Sheppard article. Akld guy (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked User was not warned prior to violating 3RR, and may not be familiar with our policies. King of ♠ 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Posting to keep this open, because he's back at it, though let's see what happens next. If I don't come back here we're OK. EEng 13:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Duqsene reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Medri Bahri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Duqsene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [24]
  2. [25]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
I just found this active discussion on ANI about this editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Editor_on_Ethiopia_related_pages Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Religious views of Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:982:8200:4790:FD34:96C1:7D4E:BC38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761395266 by Tymon.r (talk)Hitler's Table Talk"
  3. 19:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 19:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761394536 by Tymon.r (talk) In the body of the article, most historians mentions that."
  5. 19:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Religious views of Adolf Hitler. (TW)"
  2. 19:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "add"
  3. 19:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

This edit on the talkpage [26] doesn't indicate that there is any genuine interest in discussing sources or content, but I did add a note on their talk page [27] to which there is no response.Acroterion (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear 3RR, was warned. Kuru (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:94.5.104.222 reported by User:Class455 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
London Underground (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
94.5.104.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted. You are getting into an edit war not me. I gave proof. A link and a mat that Watford is served by the Overground and partially the Underground."
  2. 22:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Reverted: proof on Talk Page."
  4. 16:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Bakerloo line extension to Watford Junction */ Removed section as this is completed"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on London Underground. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion on talk page

Comments:

Violating the three revert rule by reverting edits without consensus formed on the talk page. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. Wait for agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:97.106.151.168 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Bob's Burgers (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bob's Burgers (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bob's Burgers (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bob's Burgers (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 97.106.151.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Season 2, Season 3, Season 4, Season 5


Diffs of the user's reverts:

Season 2
  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]
  5. [32]
Season 3
  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]
  6. [38]
Season 4
  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]
  5. [43]
Season 5
  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]
  5. [48]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] - Briefly discussed on user talk page

Comments:

User has a number of warnings on their talk page (some of which were deleted by the user). Since January 10, they've been edit warring over the image on the season pages for Bob's Burgers. The other involved user is Grapesoda22. User insists the MOD cover art is not acceptable for the infoboxes (for some unknown reason). EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. The IP has never posted to any of the talk pages relevant to Bob's Burgers. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that this may be the logged-out IP of active user S hannon434 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I posted these warnings about editing while logged out on December 14 ([51][52]), and again on December 15 ([53][54]). I came to know this when they posted on my talk page under the IP ([55]), and then changed the signature three minutes later to that of the registered account ([56]). I would also note that this is further supported by the fact that the media releases that the IP editor is edit-warring to add to the fact were, in fact, also uploaded by the registered user in question. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I have asked User:S hannon434 to reply to the suggestion they are using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:82.148.70.9 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )[edit]

Page
X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.148.70.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761521401 by D Eaketts (talk)"
  2. 11:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761512460 by Hotwiki (talk) So they have the same misconception as you, big deal.. lol"
  3. 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761419219 by D Eaketts (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."
Comments:

This IP keeps editing Warring on the X-Men: Days of Future Past article, Several editors reverted it back including me. D Eaketts (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:89.160.219.247 reported by User:D Eaketts (Result: )[edit]

Page
X-Men: Days of Future Past (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
89.160.219.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761565382 by D Eaketts (talk)"
  2. 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761365988 by Hotwiki (talk)"
  3. 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761272676 by Hotwiki (talk)"
  4. 15:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 761131943 by Bong009 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on X-Men: Days of Future Past. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ Added answer to Edit warring question."
Comments:

This IP address keeps on Edit Warring on X-Men:Days of Future Past article as 4 people have reverted his editing quite alot could be using IP address: 82.148.70.9 also. D Eaketts (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
One World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
WelcometoJurassicPark (