Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive337

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:PrincetonNeuroscientist reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Rafael Nadal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Agassi nor McEnroe no longer consider Nadal to be the greatest of all time. Please see source that I have added after the last Agassi reference. I already provided the McEnroe evidence earlier. Reverting my edits constitutes denial of the evidence."
  2. 00:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765531514 by Fyunck(click) (talk) You're not addressing the issue. If you are so incapable to do so. I will make a suitable re-edit. In the mean time stop obstructing."
  3. 23:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "If you don't think it's appropriate. Edit my revision. Obviously, John McEnroe thinks Federer is the Greatest of All Time (see source). Change your alternative fact edit."
  4. 20:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "No more alternative facts please"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Rafael Nadal additions */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of ESPN rankings */"
  2. 08:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Inclusion of ESPN rankings */"
Comments:

1st revert was here. He has also been reverting others including multiple times with this item. It is under discussion at the talk page and he was actually informed before going over 3RR on his talk page not to do it. That was ignored today. We'd like his input on the conversation on Nadals talk page, but not under the barrage of continued blanket removals. 4 reverts of this in 24 hours on this item, but he has also been reverting multiple editors on his addition to the lead here, here, here, and here. That's two different items on the same articles in a short span of days. And they are being discussed on the talk page. This has to stop, especially since he was given a direct pre-warning this time to stop reverting and join us. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click):, I notice that you went back and reverted the page after posting about the edit war here. Have you ever heard of the boomerang?
Apparently this dispute revolves around whether some people[who?] consider Nadal to be the Greatest-Of-All-Time, or whether Andre Agassi's claim that Roger Federer is the GOAT is more legitimate. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Some talk page discussion has happened, but not enough apparently in relation to the amount of edit warring that is going on. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jsharpminor: Wait a minute. He is reverting multiple editors not just me. And he's doing it in several places. I made 3 reverts total... and I hadn't edited the article since December (and that was to add a reference source). Before that, January of 2016. There is a protocol we tend to follow on wikipedia since you've been editing for quite awhile, I'm guessing you know it. You'll also note that he has made multiple reverts without engaging in the talk conversation since February 8! So Boomerang is the least of my concerns here. My concern is he's not letting the process work and is instead disruptive. I jumped into this fray because other editors were being overwhelmed. Certainly you have your opinion on the situation, but I think it's dead wrong. I expect a warning to be given, I expect him not to continue to revert multiple editors, and I expect him to join in the discussion to make the article better. Note something else. One of his concerns was the name of Agassi and McEnroe in the lead and the fact they often change their views. In my last edit I put back the lead but minus those two names. There hadn't been agreement to that yet on the talk page, but I thought it a good compromise while we discussed things. So if you don't think I'm being fair in this, and that you don't think I'm trying to reach some reasonable conclusions and he's not, and that your silly boomerang warning was warranted, then I guess you'll just have to do what you have to do. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): This is quite the wall of text. I'd like to respond to a few of your points individually.
I made 3 reverts total... and I hadn't edited the article since December (and that was to add a reference source).
Are you laboring under the impression that it's not edit warring unless you personally make 4 reverts in a day? That's not true. From WP:EW:
The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.
I jumped into this fray because other editors were being overwhelmed.
By "jumped into this fray," I assume you're saying that you started to edit war right back with him? Yeah, don't do that.
You'll also note that he has made multiple reverts without engaging in the talk conversation since February 8!
He is reverting multiple editors not just me. And he's doing it in several places.
Translation: "He's misbehaving, so I'm going to fight fire with fire!" Also from WP:EW:
The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. (emphasis original)
I expect a warning to be given,
Consider yourself warned.
In my last edit I put back the lead but minus those two names. There hadn't been agreement to that yet on the talk page, but I thought it a good compromise while we discussed things.
Okay, fair enough. I didn't see that. All I saw was the string of reverts and re-reverts, and you had three of them yourself.
The bottom line here, what I hope you might take from this is the following:
Never edit war.
Never, never, never edit war.
Don't even do anything that might possibly look like you're in an edit war.
Try to engage the other side, and only when that has failed completely, and you've given it time to take its course, then come to AN3 or some place like this.
If you follow that advice, you will help keep this board clear of unnecessary reports.
If you don't follow that advice, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a boomerang. Jm (talk | contribs) 01:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Of course I know that 3RR isn't the only thing that constitutes an edit-war. Boy do we have a difference of opinion on this situation. I think he's done what... 8 reverts at least, four in 24 hours? Him reverting multiple editors. That's a big point you seem to be missing. He is being disruptive and hasn't joined in the conversation in a week! Since Feb 8th. Your "Consider yourself warned" post was very snippy and uncalled for as if I'm to blame for this whole thing. That is 100% dead wrong. All you saw was a string of reverts so you didn't even look at the situation? I'm thinking that's our problem, you are taking these things out of context. The "other side" has tried to be engaged by me... for a week. Zip... just reverts. I am flummoxed that this is your response... warn me, nothing for him? I've reported these types of things for over a decade here and I've never been greeted with such uncaring attitude. I'll drop it and let others like @4TheWynne: know he can do what he wants, and I will remember. Consider this dropped and you can close it however you like. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No, Fyunck(click) – don't be discouraged. Jsharpminor, one important thing that you've now overlooked several times is that PrincetonNeuroscientist has been reverting multiple editors, as Fyunck(click) has mentioned. He is the one that is being disruptive, not Fyunck(click), not I, and not the other involved editor, James343e, who has even given more discussion at the talk page than he has. Without meaning to sound rude, I would like to turn the tables and focus on some of your points:

By "jumped into this fray," I assume you're saying that you started to edit war right back with him? Yeah, don't do that.

By this point, PrincetonNeuroscientist's edits were clearly coming off as being disruptive, so you have to see reason that both Fyunck(click) and I were trying to prevent him from continuing his reverting and encouraging him to discuss.

Translation: "He's misbehaving, so I'm going to fight fire with fire!"

Same as above. Look at our edit summaries and you will see a clear difference between ours and his – again, we were trying to encourage him to discuss at the talk page and stop editing against discussion, whereas all he has been doing is telling editors what to and what not to do. This is not "fighting fire with fire".

[U]se common sense...

I think a lot of our discussion, and our arguments/reasons for coming here, revolve around common sense. Mine (for going in to bat for Fyunck(click)) certainly do.

Try to engage the other side, and only when that has failed completely, and you've given it time to take its course, then come to AN3 or some place like this.

Look at my attempt and Fyunck(click)'s attempt to reason with him (outside of the thread at the article's talk page) and you'll find that both of us have already done that.

More or less, I think you've completely misread what Fyunck(click) has done and why he's come here, and for all the work that he has done, he most certainly does not deserve a "Consider yourself warned", which is indeed very uncalled for. PrincetonNeuroscientist has been failing to cooperate, let alone see reason, and has been combative in his editing pattern, doing little more than simply telling other editors what to and what not to do (which I've made mention of elsewhere, outside of this page). This discussion isn't over yet. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 06:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

How Ironic this is coming from 4TheWynne. It should be noted that I am not the only user who has perceived bias in 4TheWynne's editing behavior (specifically his revert edits on Nadal and Sharapova related content). Once again, I don't believe it to be a coincidence that 4TheWynne's favorite tennis player is Nadal (and Sharapova) as noted on his talk page. I would characterize 4TheWynne's behavior as equally uncooperative and unreasonable (Users have further claimed that he attempts to silence those who oppose such bias through reports such as these). For example, 4TheWynne's persistent claim that ESPN's ranking was biased towards Americans when 8 out of the top 10 players in the ranking were non-American. He further made the more general claim that ESPN didn't have the "authority" as other tennis specific sites. A quick search of the internet demonstrates that there are few broadcasting giants and sports websites that are as authoritative and credible as ESPN in any sport whatsoever.
To stay on point -- Most of these issues were discussed on the talk page after which point 4TheWynne admitted that he was misinformed on his ESPN claim. It was concluded that a separate Legacy section would be created to house the ESPN content and I agreed this was a suitable alternative. The most recent edit conflict with Fyunck(click) concerned the claim that Agassi and McEnroe considered Rafael Nadal to be the greatest of all time. It was new piece of content separate to the ESPN citation. As to the 3 revert rule -- these changes took place over a relatively long period of time - in some cases nearly a week, and for each edit a justification was presented. It seems Fyunck is conflating separate conflicts (the first of which took place majorly on the Nadal or my personal talk page) in order to amplify my perceived wrongdoing. This being said, 4TheWynne has been particularly obdurate throughout this squabble. PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This needs to stay on topic – as I've just mentioned on PrincetonNeuroscientist's talk page (after yet another inappropriate and somewhat bizarre comment), just because I like Nadal (or Sharapova, for that matter), doesn't mean that me editing his page constitutes bias. I'd also like to make it known that these "users [who] have further claimed that I attempt to silence those who oppose such bias through reports such as these" were actually sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers who have been indefinitely blocked. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@4TheWynne: Thanks. Some of what you said got lost in the details of my trying to tell @Fyunck(click) not to edit war. Admittedly I failed some of my own due diligence before commenting. For that I apologize. This is not in any way to minimize the point that edit warring is never okay. That being said, I have attempted to contribute to the discussion on the Rafael Nadal talk page, and start the discussion myself on the Martin Shkreli talk page. Jm (talk | contribs) 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. The editor seems to be unaware of the significance of breaking 3RR (he should read the list of four diffs at the top of this report), and his snarky comments about the bias of other editors do not suggest much effort at diplomacy. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Jsharpminor, no worries – was just making sure that nothing happened to people who didn't deserve anything. Anyway, now that he's been blocked, we'll have to wait and see what he does when/if he returns, but hopefully this doesn't resurface. Thanks, guys. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 20:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

User:78.145.177.65 reported by User:Umair Aj (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Will Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deer Tick (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: 78.145.177.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
IP User is currently edit warring at Will Young, Deer Tick (band) etc. Also posting warnings on my talk page. Umair Aj (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense. Editor known (from their talk page) for edit warring and abusing multiple user accounts is engaging in further edit wars with no explanation. No justification or reason given for reverting my edits, and posting false vandalism warnings on my talk page. I would suggest that Umair Aj is investigated for making non-constructive edits, edit warring and using multiple accounts to evade 3RR. You may note that after he engaged in edit warring, he then stalked my other edits reverting them with no reason - then claims it's ME edit warring. No other editors have any issue with the edits I made, and their attempt to get me banned for vandalism was dismissed.

78.145.177.65 (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: I agree with you. The other party is edit warring. However, you are as well. I would advise both of you to knock it off before you both get blocked. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Further, the edit war appears to be over things like whether Will Young is from Wokingham, Berkshire, England, or from Wokingham, England, United Kingdom. Is he styled William Robert "Will" Young or William "Will" Robert Young? Should he be in Category:English male film actors or Category:British male film actors? Only the Truth can decide!!

Honestly, you guys, this is the definition of LAME. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Update: The war over Deer Tick (band) appears to concern whether Robert Crowell is a current or former member of the band. I suppose there's truth somewhere, but I'd probably have to dip into celebrity gossip rags to find it, and frankly, I'd rather go dip myself in bees. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The last comment on either talk page dates from 2016. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I know it's lame - but what kind of editor just mindlessly reverts edits all day without giving a legit reason - then stalks someones edits for no reason? My Edit/s are constructive - Most people wouldn't know where Wokingham is, so the county should be included as well as the country. Putting United Kingdom at the end is considered superfluous - see majority of article etc. It is standard for people from the UK to be described as English, Scottish etc instead of British - I might add I was merely reverting a previous explained change for the most part. The Deer Tick edit is based on a referenced statement on the article. Come on - this guy is just reverting for no reason and has no knowledge or interest of any of the subjects.

You might want to look up the exceptions to the three revert rule. This doesn't qualify. So stop. Go to the talk page which has lain fallow since 2016 and till some new ground there. Put this page on your watchlist. Look for a third opinion. Anyway, there's many ways to resolve a dispute that don't involve edit warring. Yeah, that may not get it resolved today, but I promise that if you follow those steps you can get it done before deadline. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Jm (talk | contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment This IP user has violated three-revert rule and he is supposed to be blocked from editing.Umair Aj (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Umair Aj: I don't see any WP:3RR violations and I'm closer to blocking you for abuse of warning templates and WP:AIV. See WP:NOTVAND. --NeilN talk to me 15:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: You have amused me a lot because you don't see any violation and threatening to block me. I am the one who reported an IP user who used derogatory words and indulge in edit warring. You must youself read WP:AIV carefully because there is no single violation ony my part. This attitude of yours will encourage such anonymous IP users to do this stuff because you don't see any violation on his part. Don't you realize this anonymous IP user is well versed with most of the Wikipedia rules and and certainly not a layman. He must be some blocked user who has emerged again but this time he is just using different IP. If you want editors like me who are active for many years should stop reporting then I am speechless. Umair Aj (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Umair Aj: Violating WP:3RR means performing four reverts in 24 hours on the same article. Please point out these four reverts. You warned and reported the IP for vandalism - there is no vandalism. Again, read WP:NOTVAND. Finally, if you're going to accuse the IP of block evasion, provide solid proof. Like this. We don't care if you're an IP or an editor with 987 edits - you are judged on your edits and behavior. --NeilN talk to me 18:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Hoping this has died down and both parties will use the talk page in the future. NeilN talk to me 00:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:TimDHill92 reported by User:Wiae (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page: Barker College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TimDHill92 (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:

  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]

Comments:

User has repeatedly reinserted copyrighted content into article. The content is clearly copied from http://barkerlibrarynsw.libguides.com/archives/plume and the other subpages of that website, which are all protected by copyright. The user has not responded to any attempts to have them read and understand Wikipedia's copyright policy. My repeated removal of the infringing content is saved by WP:3RRNO#5. /wiae /tlk 03:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:88.251.63.172 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24-hour block)[edit]

Page
Iğdır (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
88.251.63.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765832919 by Dr.K. (talk) I did not remove the armenian spelling. Already in place, in etymology section. Indicate your opinion in the discussion"
  2. 18:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765831085 by Dr.K. (talk) Armenian spelling is situated in etymology section. this is pov-pushing. You can explain the reason in the debate."
  3. 17:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765805078 by Modern Sciences (talk) what is the reason? No summary of changes. per talk page."
  4. 13:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765640079 by Modern Sciences (talk)Why take an ethnicity to the foreground. Armenian spelling It is part of the etymology section. What is the purpose?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iğdır. (TWTW)"
  2. 18:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iğdır. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring removing the Armenian name of the city. Ongoing disruption even after page was pc protected. Sock of previously edit-warring IPs 88.24x.xxx at the same article for days. All geolocate in Turkey and article was originally protected because of their disruption. Disruption of reported IP includes leaving a vandalism warning on my talkpage. Dr. K. 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You turned it back after I opened the discussion. Instead of arguing, you have given a warning message. There were no three return violations when you sent a message. You are trying to block me and ignore the discussion. Admins, You can check my changes. The editor is diverting the target.--88.251.63.172 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm checking your changes, and your edits appear to be a prima facie textbook violation of 3RR. Not only that, but you were given a 3RR warning at 18:01 and you reverted at 18:08; another warning at 18:13 and you reverted at 18:17. I appreciate your response here, but How about you go to the talk page as a show of your good faith? I would also recommend you create a user account. It's quite easy to do. Jm (talk | contribs) 20:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for breaching the Three-revert rule. El_C 10:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: No violation)[edit]

Pages: Kaliman I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Peter II of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Kaliman I of Bulgaria: [11]; Peter II of Bulgaria [12]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

Kaliman I of Bulgaria

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]

Peter II of Bulgaria

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • Kaliman I of Bulgaria: the relevant Talk page discussion can be found here, references to the discussion can be found in the edit summaries ([20]);
  • Peter II of Bulgaria: the relevant Talk page discussion can be found here, , references to the Talk page can be found in the edit summaries ([21]). Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

A new revert on Kaliman I of Bulgaria: [22] Borsoka (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Although no 3RR violation, there is edit warring, which I hope to strongly discourage. Take it to the talk page/s. El_C 10:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:UnicovW reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Pieter Bruegel the Elder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
UnicovW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766011293 by Freshacconci (talk) I'm back putting the right information in the article, numbskull."
  2. 18:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766008339 by Modernist (talk) You've got to be one of the biggest idiots out here."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) to 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Lets skip this POV shall we, Johnbod?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pieter Bruegel the Elder. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Deleting information */ but aren't you...?"
  2. 18:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by UnicovW (talk): Revert sock's personal attack. (TW)"
Comments:

This is the sock of a previous editor who edit warred over the exact same topic. An SPI is already in the works but he has now passed 3RR on this article freshacconci talk to me 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm completely innocent! UnicovW (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I've blocked the user for being WP:NOTHERE, per their edits on the current SPI and various user talkpages. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The relevant SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.Gesualdo. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Realitytvshow reported by User:DPH1110 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Pages:
The Challenge: Rivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Rivals III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Challenge: Battle of the Exes II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Realitytvshow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

This user CONTINUES to ignorantly make disruptive edits to Challenge season articles that suit his/her liking, particularly the five aforementioned articles. Apparently, this user is a sock puppet of 68.190.153.14, who was previously warned and blocked for his/her disruptive editing.
DPH1110 (talk) 09:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)DPH1110

For recent edits by the IP see:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 2 weeks for edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. User continues to play with the layout of these pages without waiting for support from others. The block might be lifted if they will agree to wait for consensus in the future. I'm treating Realitytvshow as the master and the IP 68.190.153.14 as the undeclared alternate account, so I'm blocking the IP for longer. The IP was previously reported in November 2016 at this AN3 link. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: No violationreporter blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [23]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

I already took Eppstein to ANI several days ago for unacceptable edit comments, where he had to apologise. Eppstein's subsequent refusal to accept my apology (for inadvertently upsetting him) and his dismissive view of his censure is given here. So this has gone way beyond ordinary dispute resolution. Eppstein is a very experienced editor and he knows the score, there is no way that this behaviour can be excused by ignorance. In this protracted sequence of events, I trust that the double-revert without discussion response is sufficient to demonstrate warring. There is also some evidence for WP:TAGTEAM coordination between Eppstein and Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (but not enough to bring Lewis here) which may help to explain some of the comments in the diffs. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted approximately once in the last three days, fewer reverts than Steelpillow in the same time period (even though Steelpillow is also far from 3RR). And as I wrote on my user talk page, "tag-team edit war" is another phrase for a consensus that runs against you. Do we have a forum-shopping noticeboard? Because maybe this needs to be taken there too. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation We're not blocking your opponent in an edit war for you. If there are other behavioral issues post to ANI but I strongly recommend trying WP:DRN instead. NeilN talk to me 22:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours (e/c) @Steelpillow: Three people have opposed your edits, you've pushed 3RR twice already, and by reporting here you're clearly asserting you're aware of our edit warring policy. --slakrtalk / 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Examples of Walter's cautioned January 8 edit warring
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]
  1. Examples of Walter's cautioned February 15 edit warring
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. January attempt one: [34]
  2. January attempt two: [35]
  3. February attempt: [36]

Comments:

It seems as though Walter Görlitz needs a briefing on what constitutes edit warring. He seems to struggle with the guideline that states the three-revert rule is merely a convenient limit but is no means a definition of edit warring. WP:EW Other editors have cautioned Mr Görlitz's beliefs and assertions in the past, and I have warned him about his disruptive edit warring repeatedly (I've included examples in this complaint). On February 15, I made one revision to a good faith edit made by ThunderingTyphoons! and undid Walter Görlitz's revision to my edit. Within minutes, Görlitz undid both of my edits and hence, I believe, violated a number of guidelines. I have mentioned of all this in the article's edit history and on Mr Görlitz's talk page, but he'd rather play games and continue editing disruptively. Numerous editors have had a very long (and fruitful) discussion about the issue at hand, but I feel Walter Görlitz isn't at all committed to finding a solution that works for everyone. I'm requesting Walter Görlitz be issued a formal warning at the very least, possibly a temporary ban. NorthernFactoid (talk) 08:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

So what's your excuse for edit warring? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Someguy1221: This appears to have been going on some time; since before 9 January at least when Walter Görlitz requested mediation in the matter. NorthernFactoid described this as WG 'trolling' ('A troll has requested mediation'), with further edit summaries such as this ('trolls clearly don't know what mediation is'), and to his removal of a discussion thread ('Removal of trolling'). That's not counting [37] ('Trolling cannot be permitted here. The nonsense supplied by Walter Gorlitz is not proof of my starting anything'), [38] ('Your disruptive trolling behaviour') (that one, twice), and here on Peter K Burian's talk. Now; it's easy to see how 'troll' can be a subjective term to which, as individuals we each bring a different nuance; but it is less easy to see how it demonstrates the collegiality the community desires. FYI. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not reached 3RR. NorthernFactoid is as culpable of edit warring as I am. There is still no consensus for the wording that NorthernFactoid prefers at the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Both sides are involved in a slow-motion edit war. If talk page discussion isn't helping, try a RFC or WP:DRN. NorthernFactoid cautioned against making personal attacks. Further instances may result in editing sanctions. NeilN talk to me 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Reverting to original form because there was no consensus (January), and making a bold edit yesterday is absolutely NOT indicative of my being involved in a 'slow-motion edit war'. That is a truly ridiculous assertion. I'll tell you this much, I won't stand for Görlitz constantly reverting my edits within minutes of my having made them. That is called edit warring. It's telling that Görlitz essentially admits to edit warring and justifies it with a false claim that I am just as culpable. Wikipedia is demonstrably primitive at times. I also find it rather interesting that Someguy1221 and O Fortuna! randomly appear to defend Walter Görlitz. NorthernFactoid (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You're making multiple edits in conflict with another edit - that's an edit war. You'll notice our policy, Wikipedia:Edit warring, lists several exemptions. "reverting to original" and "making a bold edit" is not an exemption. And this page is watched by over 3000 editors, so no, it's really not that interesting that people randomly appear to make comments. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Show me where reverting to original because there's no consensus is edit warring. Also, show me where disruptively reverting multiple edits within minutes isn't edit warring. NorthernFactoid (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@NorthernFactoid: From WP:EW, 'An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.' Again, as Someguy1221 notes, there is no exemption for "reverting to original because there's no consensus". --NeilN talk to me 12:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN: I made two edits and immediately stopped when it became clear, within minutes, that Walter Görlitz was edit warring. It's rather telling that you have nothing to say about the guideline that clearly says "three-revert rule is merely a convenient limit but is no means a definition of edit warring." WP:EW Like I said, Wikipedia is demonstrably primitive at times. NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:DC22201 reported by User:Keri (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Timothy Giardina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DC22201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765968626 by Keri (talk)"
  2. 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765968924 by DC22201 (talk)"
  3. 13:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765708389 by Keri (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Timothy Giardina. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Disruptive editing */ new section"
Comments:

DC22201 persists in changing the rank in the infobox from "Rear Admiral" to "Vice Admiral" - based on the (2011) photograph of Giardina in a VA uniform. As noted in the article, Giardina was reduced from Vice to Rear Admiral by non-judicial punishment in 2014. His USN biog dated 2015 (which DC22201 has read because it was they who added the link) also records Giardina's rank as Rear Admiral. There is no ambiguity here - his rank, at retirement, was Rear Admiral. Persistently changing the infobox is now purely disruptive editing. Note that these exact changes were previously disruptively made by 72.107.160.125, who is almost certainly the same editor. The edit also breaks the format of the page, and removes content and references. To avoid further edit warring I am unable to again revert to fix the page. DC22201 is at the bright line but his behavior indicates that he clearly intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (t · c) 13:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. User is continuing an edit war that they began with the IP User:72.107.160.125. Also, some of their changes broke the page format. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Fabrickator reported by User:Jujujujuj56 (Result: Filer sock blocked)[edit]

Page
Ages of consent in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fabrickator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


[diff preferred, link permitted]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [diff]


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


Comments:
in the texas section of the age of consent article the user keeps incorporating the text to engage in sexual conduct or causing for texas penal code 43.25 despite the fact that most sources on the page http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.43.htm#43.25 http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/05/31/tutor-student-sex-deemed-legal-photos-not.htm quotes from lawyers https://saputo.law/indecency-with-a-child/http://houstonsexcrimeslawyer.com/sexual-performance-by-a-child/ https://www.versustexas.com/criminal/state-crimes/felonies/sexual-performance-by-a-child/ states that it is or performance the user reasoning is that two cases John Perry DORNBUSCH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas and Summers v. State, 11-92-057-CR, 845 S.W.2d 440 (1992) says that it also applies to that but the article itself already says that those two cases offered a different view on the applicability of the law also from what I understand too on the talk page it was stated that secondary sources take priority

  • Filer sock blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I appreciate that the sock puppet was identified and blocked, but it seems peculiar that you would infer what Wikipedia policy is based on some random user's assertion about what policy is ("secondary sources take priority"). But FWIW, it might be considered that the statute itself is the "primary source" of what the law is, and a judge's opinion is a secondary source. The value of secondary sources is precisely that some independent and knowledgeable third party has provided an interpretation of the facts, which is exactly what a judge's opinion provides. Aside from that, the notice on Template:Age_of_consent_pages_discussion_header specifically calls for primary sources such as statutes, while judicial opinions from appellate courts of appropriate jurisdiction are determinative as to the actual meanings of the law. The websites of 100 lawyers, none of whom has any duty to ensure that the information they have posted is actually comprehensive, cannot overcome a single sentence from the published ruling of an appellate court. Fabrickator (talk) 05:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Guccisamsclub reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2016 United States election interference by Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guccisamsclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43],
  2. [44]

Comments:

This is 1RR violation. I brought it here per instruction on the top of the page. I talked with user, but he affirmed his intention to continue violating 1 RR rule on the page [45]. There was a discussion about this on article talk page [46]. My very best wishes (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Looks like a clear breach of the 1RR discretionary sanctions. El_C 06:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Martinkopperudandersen reported by User:General Ization (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Martinkopperudandersen (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, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    2. 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    3. 20:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Extremes */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
    2. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) to 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. 16:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
    2. 16:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 16:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* U.S. Presidents by height order */"
    5. 16:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    6. 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
    7. 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Comparative table of heights of United States presidential candidates */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  2. 17:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  3. 17:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */ re"
  4. 20:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  5. 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States */"
  6. 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. (TW)"
  7. 20:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Trump's height redux */ cmt"
Comments:

Editor has been persistently changing the height of Donald Trump at this article based on their impressions from observing photographs of the subject and a claim at http://celebheights.com, which the editor has been advised repeatedly is unreliable. Reliable sources establish the subject's height of record and a reliable source (New York Times) is cited in the article; the editor repeatedly replaces those reliable sources with an unreliable source. Attempts to explain policies concerning reliable sources, verifiability and OR on the editor's Talk page have been meet with WP:IDHT and a new round of reversions to the editor's improperly sourced version. Further, the editor was invited to participate in the Talk page discussion that established a consensus against the change they repeatedly make and has thus far failed to do so. General Ization Talk 20:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, FWIW: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#Celebheights.com. General Ization Talk 22:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. For edit warring, as there is no 3RR breach. But there is a lack article talk page particiaption. El_C 07:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Tobysennet reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: Blocked 31 hours; subsequently indeffed as a sock puppet)[edit]

Page: Powered by the Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Apocalypse World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tobysennet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [47], [48]


Diffs of the user's reverts: Powered by the Apocalypse:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]
  6. [54]

Apocalypse World:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here is the diff of the user removing the warning


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: again, not on the talk, but on the user's talk page

Comments:

Slow motion edit wars by a WP:SPA user at the RPG system Powered by the Apocalypse and at Apocalypse World, the game from which the system was derived. Every single one of the user's edits has been to reinsert these paragraphs that are based purely on blog complaints (where none of he comments even support it, by the way). Also makes clearly ludicrous accusations of bad faith, like at my user page (note that's not my user talk page). Obvious axe-grinding going on here without merit, and edit warring to try to force it into the articles to boot. Being the user has no other edits and is clearly WP:NOTHERE, I think an indefinite block is in order. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the User Oknazevad is only interested to delete the section Criticism of 2 pages related to RPG games. There is not reason to delete the section. I do not think honestly that the user Oknazevad is in good faith and manage only an account. In his page the user Oknazevad has deleted the talk of other editors unsatisfied of his changes as well. Anyway without entering in the details which I let to check to wikipedia I feel that deleting systematically a criticism section as he does is just a censorship and could hide commercial interests. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

And here is the ludicrous aspersions talked about above. Of course, I've only been in Wikipedia for 13 years, have over 51,000 edits and a completely clean block log, so clearly I'm a single purpose promotional account. oknazevad (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Tobysennet, you need to shut down that line of attack right now. --NeilN talk to me 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oknazevad, you really should warn a new editor about WP:3RR and see if they stop before reporting them here. Tobysennet, have you actually read Oknazevad's concerns about sourcing? --NeilN talk to me 16:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I did warn them about edit warring. This was them removing the warning from their talk page (which means they saw the warning). The last two diffs listed above were from after that warning (which means they didn't stop). This report was filed after that. oknazevad (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: I see no reference in that to our edit warring policy. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I meant to warn them about both NPOV and EW, but neglected the latter. Still doesn't excuse the clear WP:NOTHERE behavior of POV-pushing. oknazevad (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

yes I read it and I tried to talk on his page. but the user Oknazevad deleted that. I do not think that user Oknazevad is in good faith. Just he is much more expert than me to edit pages and in wikipedia procedures, giving the idea that is a professional marketing expert. In this moment for example his continuous editings do not allow me to answer easily. Please note that in the last 2 months the criticism section of the 2 pages was systematically deleted by anonymous users as well, as you can see from the history of the pages. Unfortunately the PBTA games are moving a market of various millions of dollars. Tobysennet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not revert your edit to my user page, Simone else did because it was on the wrong page, not my user talk page. I am not marketing anything. I'm a stage hand by trade. Accusing someone of paid editing because they disagree with your edits without any evidence is itself a blockable offense. And just maybe your edits have been repeatedly removed by multiple editors because they are utterly unacceptable. Did you think of that? No, you jumped to bad faith accusations and persecution complexes. oknazevad (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. I have indicated next block will probably be indefinite if same behavior continues. NeilN talk to me 16:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And now CU indeffed as a sock. --NeilN talk to me 16:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:CplDHicks reported by User:FF-UK (Result: No violation) 12 hours[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NEMA_connector&oldid=764214829


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1 07:22, 17 February 2017‎ [59]
  1. 2 16:06, 17 February 2017‎ [60] (revised)
  1. 3 17:24, 17 February 2017 [61]
  1. 4 17:39, 17 February 2017 [62]

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


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

Comments:
Earlier today CplDHicks removed a significant amount of properly sourced information that I had added to the article 10 days ago. The removal was subsequently reverted by another editor, since then CplDHicks has again removed the information three further times today, and ignored requests to discuss on the talk page from me and another editor. Other than an edit comment that the information was "redundant" CplDHicks has offered no explanation of his actions. FF-UK (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)}}

Earlier today I moved some information had added by FF-UK to the article, and deleted the rest of an otherwise extraneous glossary. The edit was relatively minor and the pertinent information in FF-UK's original edit is retained, complete with the sources he cited. Neither FF-UK nor JimmiCheddar made any attempt to resolve their dispute on the article talk page despite clear insistence on my part to do so, as evinced by FF-UK's completely absent diff of any attempt on his part to start a discussion. FF-UK has a persistent history of this sort of combative behaviour and clearly assumes no one else's edits are made in good faith. CplDHicks (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@CplDHicks: Please be aware of our three-revert rule. Continuing to revert (what you're doing) will result in your being blocked from editing. Please use the article's talk page and seek dispute resolution. --slakrtalk / 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me, after all I'm the one who consistently reminded FF-UK and JimmiCheddar to start a discussion on the talk page. Lest those two editors continue to game the system by tag-teaming, can I ask that the page be protected for some time pending a resolution on the article's talk page? Thanks. CplDHicks (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Why was the 2nd diff listed? No breach of 3RR. The other participants are directed to the article's talk page. El_C 06:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@El_C In answer to the question above, the second diff was correct as entered, but has become corrupted by the addition of extraneous characters at the end of the link! Several attempts to correct this have resulted in the same problem being repeated! I have now added the correct link below the second diff. The four reverts took place in less than 11 hours. FF-UK (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours. El_C 19:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:173.68.78.3 reported by User:lamlilom37 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Peter T. King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.68.78.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 07:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 06:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 05:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765926146 by Barek (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons. (TW)"
  2. [64]
Comments:

Notified: [65]. VQuakr (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Harambewasagod123 reported by User:Meters (Result: No violation—Wrong year )[edit]

Page: James Logan High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harambewasagod123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [66]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74] plus clarification by User:Gestrid that restoring the material would be edit warring even if outside a 3RR violation time frame [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:

Slow motion edit war by an SPA to add a non-notable to a school alumni list (no wikiarticle, no sources, no evidence of attendance, dubious notability claims). It has been several months since the previous edits but I don't see any point in trying to engage this editor yet again since there was no response to previous attempts and warnings. This was very clearly explained in edit summaries, on the editor's talk page, and on the article's talk page. Twice before the editor has made the edit three times, and then disappeared. There are zero edits besides the attempts to add this alumnus. Meters (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I first caught this when I was patrolling for vandalism. Gestrid (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
No surprise... the early versions of the edit were "Popular Twitter memer, known most for his memes of the principal Abhi Brar", by someone with the Harambe meme as part of his username, would have set off most patrollers' detectors. Meters (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
header 1 header 2 header 3
row 1, cell 1 row 1, cell 2 row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1 row 2, cell 2 row 2, cell 3
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Almost all the reverts are from 2016 (very stale). El_C 08:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Near-sightedness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:647:4081:49D0:99CD:E0DC:6437:9091 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE MOS IMPORTANT CAUSE. I added a secondary source so there is no reason for you to delete. You are not to decide what papers are important. Anyway you will be able to find dozens of papers supporting this accepted cause for myopia."
  2. 02:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 766242787 by EricEnfermero (talk)"
  3. 02:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */ Review paper added about effect of lenses. This is an important improvement and actualization of this article"
  4. 23:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Causes */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Near-sightedness. (TW)"
  2. 02:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Near-sightedness. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC) "/* WP:MEDRS issues and negative lenses */ new section"
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:DrFleischman (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Breitbart News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (1RR restriction)
User being reported: Thismightbezach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [77]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [78]
  2. [79]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

  • I'm not watching this page, so please ping me if you need my attention. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I support action being taken against Thismightbezach. Note that the user has been warned repeatedly and is edit-warring against consensus, and the user's basis for reverting is incredibly flimsy (he doesn't accept the New York Times as a reliable source). There's no justification for that sort of conduct. Neutralitytalk 07:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I accept the NYT as a reliable source when they give examples. Breitbart has never pushed the birther conspiracy. End of story. What consensus? You and another left-winger? Thismightbezach (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear breach of 1RR. El_C 08:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE reported by User:331dot (Result: 6 weeks)[edit]

Page
Survivor Series (1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2A02:C7F:8E16:8300:E42B:2F78:719B:CAAE (talk · contribs ·