Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive339

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Cookshat reported by User:jeffreymarkrogers (Result: Declined)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jemma_Green&diff=770691981&oldid=770686128 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jemma_Green&diff=770777205&oldid=770776198


Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jemma_Green&action=history


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


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

Comments:

Cookshat has in November 2016 vandalised this page and again in March 2017. As an illustrative exmple, the user has changed the job title of Jemma Green to 'shameless self promoter and political hopeful' in November, and again in March. Numerous other attempts at vandalising the page by Cookshat have occured.— Preceding unsigned comment added by jeffreymarkrogers (talkcontribs)

  • 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.
Also, looking over the fuller record of Cookshat's edits ([1], [2], [3]), they are not vandalism. See WP:NOTVAND because you clearly misunderstand what qualifies as vandalism here. If anything, they appear to be promotionalism and puffery. Cookshat did not say "shameless self promoter," just "self promoter." I don't understand how you're thinking that "political hopeful" is vandalism.
Looking over your edits, it looks like both of you seem to be fans of Green's. Try actually treating the other person like a human being who is here to help and seek some sort of consensus. I see no talk page discussion, but I also see no edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:90.200.35.182 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Dealt with. --NeilN talk to me 15:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page
AFC Wimbledon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
90.200.35.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "Let's cut out the middle man and take another look at the facts - a business moved and another organisation set out to attract its remaining customers which doesn't seem very phoenix-like."
  2. 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "The statement "considers itself" makes the article susceptible to other contributors suggesting an alternative and less emotional view."
  3. 17:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "I'm stating facts (there are undoubtedly two sides to this story), which in your "opinion" are wrong."
  4. 17:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "In the interest of accuracy I'm trying to show that there are differing views but that doesn't seem to be an acceptable approach."
  5. 16:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "Meaning that any view is equally valid and can can be shouted down by those who don't like the facts."
  6. 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "And so is how I see it."
  7. 14:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "The continuing existence of MK Dons seems unarguably conclusive."
  8. 13:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "This has been discussed, and sentiment should not drive the article."
  9. 09:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  10. 00:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 770640790 by Mattythewhite (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on AFC Wimbledon."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP repeatedly (10 times so far, and counting...) adding original research to article, obviously not intending to stop ever. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 20:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel that the two blocked contributors have been harshly treated for nothing more than attempting to make the article a little more balanced. The phrase in Latin was very appropriate but probably just intimidated the twitchily "serious" Wikiphiles - quis custodiet custodes indeed !! 2.216.83.55 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Well said, the old pragmatic yet casual tone of Wikpedia seems to have been hijacked by a small coterie of users whose aim is apparently to congratulate each other on their own supposed importance. 2.218.112.164 (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes indeed, those of us who just try to dabble helpfully are probably considered somehow unworthy. 2.125.12.144 (talk) 22:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Adorable "conversation". freshacconci (✉) 22:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It was perhaps predictable that the first "proper" user to react would treat it with patronising disdain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.85.174 (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

An enquiry on behalf of occasional contributors; are some of the Wikpedia "overseers" actually the same person using different identities in order to further perpetuate the illusion of control ? 2.122.31.10 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


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

User:76.122.255.184 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Nashville (2012 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
76.122.255.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User is also now using 2601:483:4080:997:1CAB:141:772F:9D66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on Charles Esten
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC) "m"
  2. 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC) "incorrect editing"
  4. 15:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC) "references"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nashville (2012 TV series). (TW)"
  2. 16:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User used another wiki domain as a source (someone edited the information onto that wiki earlier today). Additionally, none of the (legitimate) posted sources mention Mason as the inspiration for Claybourne. And, even if Mason was a legitimate inspiration, what should be written in one sentence has tripled the size of the entire paragraph talking about Mason instead of the show or the characters. Kellymoat (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

User is also adding this same information to Charles Esten and Brent Mason. Kellymoat (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Exemplo347 reported by User:Rd897 (Result: User warned)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Indian Students Union UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Exemplo347 (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. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]


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


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

Comments:
The user has broken the 3RR and I also changed my personal comment from "Strong delete as per nom" to "Strong delete" to have them change it back to "Strong delete as per nom" as seen in this diff. They are issuing warnings for disruptive editing, wrongly. This should be reviewed forthwith. Best, --Rd897 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverting disruptive editing is never edit warring. Please also note that only 3 reversions were made within a 24hr period. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. There's only three reverts listed, the first one is just an edit. This is a silly edit war, and Exemplo347 is cautioned to stop. It's indeed unusual for the nominator to duplicate their !vote, but the closing admin can take this anomaly into account. El_C 16:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it also against guidelines to edit other's discussion comments? Please advise correctly on that, too, as that was the subject of the changes. --Rd897 (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I already advised above. I'm not sure what more you want. El_C 16:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Historical Mensch a/k/a User:75.99.53.82 reported by User:X4n6 (Result: User warned)[edit]

Page: Ari Fleischer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Historical Mensch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) & 75.99.53.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9] as Historical Mensch
  2. [10] as Historical Mensch
  3. [11] as Historical Mensch
  4. [12] as IP 75.99.53.82
  5. [13] as IP 75.99.53.82
  6. [14] as IP 75.99.53.82


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:Brand new, single topic, user is using their new account, plus a single topic IP, to edit war. I tried to leave a welcome message and explanation on the user's new account talk page, but got no response. Instead the user continues to edit war. The edits and edit log make clear that the new user and the IP are the same person. I even tried to warn them on their new account talk page that they could be blocked, despite being new. Again, I got no response. Just more edit warring. X4n6 (talk) 08:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: This report is unclear. We have three reverts, then we have three attempts at adding a reference, that they themselves remove, then add again? What is going on here? El_C 15:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Response: I'll give you the chronology and perhaps that will provide some clarity:
1) The user as an IP, made their first ever edit, trying to insert material here. The user then added more content here, and then removed the source and placed it in the edit summary here.
2) I saw what I thought was IP sandboxing that left the BLP with unsourced edits, so I reverted here.
3) That resulted in the 3 reverts of this same material by this user, under their new account: here, here and here after I had tried to explain the problem with the edits here and on their new account talk page with the first entry that I can no longer link to here - where I welcomed the new user, tried to direct the user to the appropriate explanations and info and said I was available to try to answer questions.
4)There was also my second entry on the users talk page here, which was the edit-warring warning regarding both the new user and IP edits.
But now I see that the user, as the IP, didn't actually edit war: just made 3 clumsy, newbie edits. But the new user did edit war on their new account, with 3 reverts - the last one I've left untouched so I don't 3RR myself. The user has also refused to respond to either my edit summary explanation, or the 2 notes I've left on the user's talk page. Taken together, the user has made 6 determined efforts trying to get this material inserted. But made no effort to engage or respond to another editor's 3 attempts at trying to help them fix their edits. Also their 6 nearly identical edits are the only contributions made by either the IP or the new account. Whew! Hope this explains what's going on. X4n6 (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. So, is there an administrative action you're seeking now? El_C 21:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Fair question. Well, we do still have the 3 reverts w/o response or discussion by the new account. And the unsourced material is still up. Perhaps I'd recommend that you revert the unsourced info and administer a short term block. Nothing to really bite the newbie too hard, just enough to get their attention, so they'll realize they have to engage in discussion with other editors. Otherwise, they'll likely get the impression they can just ignore other folks. Then we open ourselves up to continued behavior like this in the future. Thanks. X4n6 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You need four reverts to violate 3RR. I re-added the IP's source, which I don't understand why it was removed. El_C 22:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
My complaint was edit-warring itself, not specifically violating 3RR. You'd have to ask the user why they removed their own source as an IP, here and decided not to restore it as a new account, here, while still restoring the content? But we likely won't get an answer, as the user still isn't responding anywhere. And your restoring the source, without receiving any response anywhere, just means we'll likely never get an answer. So unless you think an edit-warring warning from you as an admin is appropriate, and/or some info about discussion, then I don't see anything more here and I'll withdraw the complaint. Either way, I'll defer to your judgment. X4n6 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd rather not get too bitey with someone that new—hopefully, they will learn not to edit war for next time. El_C 00:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. And thanks for your help! X4n6 (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Nergaal reported by User:Dnm (Result: Pages protected, Users warned)[edit]

Page: Cultural racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Nations and intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nergaal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


The article before the reverts ( 13 March 2017): [17]
The article got restored and added information (19 March 2017): (still got reverted): [18]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

Cultural racism
  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
Racism
  1. [23] (This link has to do with the edit warring in "Cultural racism". I made a Wikilink from "Racism" to "Cultural racism" tonight, and that was reverted by the user.)
  2. [24]
Nations and intelligence‎
  1. [25]
  2. [26]


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


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

Comments:
I think i posted this on the wrong page before, but this is what i have written:

"The user Nergaal is edit warring in the artikel Cultural racism. His arguments are political and his aim is to erase the article. He also says that he is acting according to AfD from 2012. This article was made 2 years ago and was up for speedy deletion but the admin that acted on it said this: "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)"."

"I do not want to be in a political discussion with the user about the article, but the user refers to it as being Political Correct and me as a PC police. Dnm (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)"

"Now it seems the user has target me in yet another article and starting to revert me on no grounds. The motivation for the deletion of the paragraf is on the talk page but he seems not interested in talkning just reverting me."

"Besides the edit warring, he is very aggressive and unfriendly on the talk page as well. Dnm (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)"

I have tried the talk page, but he seems more interested in pushing through his point of view instead (reverting before consensus). I have reverted him also, as he seems to be disrupting and political in his motivation for the edit. He has shown no interest in communicating with facts, only with personal attacks Dnm (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: What personal attacks can you cite (diffs)? El_C 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: @El_C: I would say this (1) "the propaganda is strong with this guy", (2) "You are a volunteer with a clear agenda; you are not an expert in the field", (3) "To any future reader: this single edit makes Dnm a clear partial participant on any subject revolving topics like this one", (4) "Dear, Swedish PC police". Besides this, the users "arguments" is politically based straight through. The user speaks of, for example, "state propaganda" and "political correctness"; that his edits are reasonable because he is removing what he considers propaganda and political correctness. Dnm (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Which he claims you're adding, yeah, I've caught up. And there's been some edit warring, more on their part. Those comments may be condescending but I would say that they are only uncivil and insinuating rather than rising to a personal attack. What about the discretionary sanctions in effect, what could you tell me about them? I asked that in the ANI listing you started but received no reply. El_C 01:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@El_C: When you asked about "discretionary sanctions" i did not realize it was me you asked. I do not really know what "What about the discretionary sanctions in effect" means in this case. Please explain so that i can learn that. :) I posted this topic because Nergaal are soft deleting an article as an administrator earlier deemed not to fall under the previous AfD-decision: "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)". So what i want is the article restored to this version, the user Nergaal warned for edit warring the way he has done and prompted to stop deleting the article on political grounds. Dnm (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Beside the question of Edit warring:

  • Comment Dnm seems to have an impressive amount of energy finding ways to report me while completely ignoring absolutely any issues I have raised. 6 days have passed since my initial request for discussion and he has yet to participate in the discussion. Meanwhile he seems happy to push a personal agenda and, I suspect, bring in one of his buddies (who casually makes his 2nd edit in 3 months reverting me). Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am sorry that i did not answer you as fast as you wanted, but (1) I did not know that you had written to me, and (2) I do not live on English Wikipedia. And the "buddy" you are talking about is a Administrator on the Swedish Wikipedia project and board member of Wikimedia Sweden, Adville. I did not ask him to come here. Dnm (talk) 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Dude, you spent like 2 hours trying to build something specifically against me, yet in the last 6 days you have put zero effort in addressing any of the issues I have raised. And it sounds to me that you are implying that you did in fact summon that buddy of yours. Good to know. Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
As I said: I did not know you had written to me. You need to ping me so that i can notice your posts (this is why i did not see your post: you pinged me after you had signed the post). It is not every day I am on English Wikipedia. Furthermore, the encyclopedia does not have to be done today, so it can take time to get answers in discussions and that is something we all must respect. We all have lives outside of Wikipedia. I won't continue our conversation here. I will only answer questions from others/administrators so that we two do not flood this request. I hope you understand. Dnm (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@El_C: Ofc, edit warring is not good, but is it OK to soft delete an article and hinder its restoration based on political arguments and hijack an article? Because, this is what has just happened. I mean, it is hard to discussion when this is what you meet and only meet: speculation, assumptions, accusations and claims all without any basis in facts.
If I want the article restored, so that the discussion can have its right cours (Nergaal finding consensus for his deletion) where should I turn? He seems not willing to discussion, or should i maybe put the article on AfD for a new decision as the speedy deletion decision does not count? Sorry for my many questions, I am not used to EnWP. Dnm (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
He seems willing to discuss, he says. Why not give it a chance? I think your best bet is an RFC to decide whether the article should be a redirect or stay as is. El_C 02:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the article more closely, I'm starting to see Nergaal's point about original research, synthesis and problematic sourcing. I'm not sure it's a term that's notable enough in English. It's a rather confusing lead for the English reader... (What is that first UNESCO quote about, does it mention the term? Seems vague.) El_C 02:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Insertcleverphrasehere reported by User:Doc James (Result: User warned)[edit]

Page: Alkaline diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Insertcleverphrasehere (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. [27] removed "false" (1st)
  2. [28] removed again (2nd)
  3. [29] removed a source
  4. [30] after source was restored tagged it instead (3rd)
  5. [31] removed "false" again (4th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. I'm not seeing the minimum of four reverts that are needed to contravene 3RR. Overall, I see the user trying in various way to get their point across about ph in the body being related to food. But what I don't see are reverts. First removal of false is an edit, so what we have are two reverts of false; removing a source (an edit); and tagging that source as unreliable (edit). So two reverts and three edits. Does it count as edit warring? I would say it's borderline: on the one hand, yes, warring over a advancing a very specific ph-oint against concerted opposition—on the other hand, there are no multiple reverts, save the two. I'll instruct the user to start using the talk page as they're obviously being reverted by everyone else. (Medical orthodoxy is at the basis of MEDRS, and the sooner the user realizes this, the better.) El_C 09:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
    • As the term "false" was being discussed and had been previously removed by others I would count the first removal as a revert. But yes others may reasonably count it differently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree that I have stepped into a hornets nest here. I do want to point out however that with the 5th diff above, when I removed 'false' the second time, I clearly stated that it was a procedural edit, both on the talk page and in the edit summary. The fact is that the edit war started after the addition of 'false' by JzG on March 4th in this edit. After two and a bit weeks of edit warring back and forth (there were 6 pairs of reverts before I started editing the article), and a lengthy discussion that has not developed a consensus for inclusion, the addition of 'false' seems to have ended up on the top of the edit war pile. This is in direct violation of WP:NOCONSENSUS and I would like some advice on how to proceed as I don't intend to make the edit again myself. InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Edit: @El_C thanks for the reply on my talk page. InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

User:75.86.98.216 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Plasma globe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.86.98.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

WP:COMPETENCE rather than simple warring, but they're persistent over a number of editors who have reverted this. AIV weren't interested.

Repeated postings of a bunch of new content. It's unsourced, significantly nonsensical and written in such poor English as to be effectively unintelligible. Certainly I can't (or haven't the enthusiasm) to tell what is error and what is poor writing.

See User talk:75.86.98.216 and User_talk:Srleffler#Plasma_globe

Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Noaanon reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff prior to their edits is here; article has been improved by others and diff is "best" :)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • diff at 06:11, 6 March 2017 via IP 2601:14a:4500:530:60fd:ea72:19e1:6ccd
  • diff at 13:18, 6 March 2017 via IP 2601:14a:4500:530:60fd:ea72:19e1:6ccd
  • diff at 18:21, 6 March 2017 via IP 2607:f220:415:611::ab
  • diff at 16:19, 14 March 2017 via IP 2601:14a:4500:530:3d89:c6a4:6554:4181
  • diff at 13:41, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33
  • diff at 13:51, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33 IP finally provided 2 refs; both misformatted. The two refs are PMID 9396960 (a primary source from 1997 -- twenty years old -- and PMID 16359583, a review that is from 2007, ten years old, but is probably OK
  • diff at 14:09, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33 restored that last one, fixing the formatting of the two refs and adding a third, PMID 9269249 which is a literature review from 1997 and too old.
  • diff at 14:50, 16 March 2017 via IP 128.231.234.33 restored it again.
  • diff at 15:00, 17 March 2017 via Noaanon account
  • diff series ending at 14:28, 20 March 2017 via Noaanon account
  • diff series ending at 21:04, 20 March 2017 via Noaanon account


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Venlafaxine#Discontinuation and Talk:Venlafaxine#Discontinuation_syndrome.2FWithdrawal_symptoms

Comments:

You think? It is really obviously all the same person, per DUCK. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 Clerk note: CU can't be used to connect registered accounts to IPs. However, the IPs all geolocate to the same general area (Bethesda/Hyattsville, Maryland). GABgab 02:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I recommend this be closed with a clear warning to User:Noaanon not to revert again. As GAB has noted, a checkuser would not be run. In the mean time I'm going ahead with semiprotection of the article. Noaanon appears to be well-intentioned but stubborn. They do engage in discussion but seem unwilling to wait for consensus. They recently switched over from using the 128.* IP (and possibly some IPV6s) to a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm OK with that outcome for now. Jytdog (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg BlockedUser:Noaanon is warned they may be blocked without notice if they revert the article again. Thanks to User:Coffee for going along with this solution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Bob2448 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Tom Holland (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bob2448 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771464934 by TriiipleThreat (talk) if you want to police Wikipedia then police every single page "in violation" otherwise get over yourself"
  2. 18:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771464052 by Sro23 (talk) other pages have pre-production projects. Remove all of them or leave this alone."
  3. 18:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771463708 by Sro23 (talk)"
  4. 18:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771463291 by TriiipleThreat (talk)"
  5. 17:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Film */ other pages include pre-production projects (see Millie Bobby Brown, Kyle Chandler and Vera Farmiga). Either delete all pre-production project from Wikipedia or leave this alone."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. "‎March 2017: new section#
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continues edit-warring w/ more than one editor, despite the warning left for the user. No attempts at discussing the issue, insists on a WP:OTHERSTUFF-like arguement for the content. Sro23 (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Bob2448's edit warring has spilled over to Daisy Ridley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Doom guy007 reported by User:GoneIn60 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doom guy007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3
  4. diff4
  5. diff5
  6. diff6
  7. diff7
  8. diff8
  9. diff9
  10. diff10


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. EW notice
  2. EW warning


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A – Editor did not respond to discussion attempts and notices on their talk page.

Comments:

The editor has been careful not to violate WP:3RR, yet has been very persistent in restoring their preferred version of the lead. Multiple editors have reverted the edits listed above, and there have been a significant number of attempts to discuss with the user one-on-one at their talk page. Page protection didn't seem like the answer here, as this concerns only one editor who has carried this out for several weeks now. I first left two friendly notifications on March 2 and March 5 offering to discuss in more detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring with zero attempt at discussion on the talk page. User is cautioned that future blocks will be significantly more lengthy. El_C 18:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Utsill reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hours Page protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • diff 15:08, 17 March 2017 - Utsill's initial addition of content
  1. diff 00:58, 18 March 2017 reverting my removal
  2. diff 12:26, 18 March 2017, reverting Kbog's proposal
  3. diff 13:39, 21 March 2017r reverting LemonGirl's removal
  4. diff 18:05, 21 March 2017 reverting my removal


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warnings given to me by Utsill here and here (no need for me to warn them; they are well aware of WP:EW)


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Memphis_Meats#Inclusion_of_information_about_cultured_meatball_and_poultry_products

Comments:

Their edits here are opposed by three other editors per reverts above. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • We are discussing this on the talk page. The process, as I understand it, is that the content should not be changed until we reach consensus. Jytdog keeps trying to do exactly that, so I have reverted his edits and one edit from another user who seemed to not be aware of the ongoing discussion of those two sentences. My understanding is that Jytdog is edit warring, and I am acting according to WP policy, but I'd be happy to be shown where in WP policy it says the opposite. Utsill (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was fine with Kbog's edit, just to be clear. I was reverting the edit Jytdog had made before Kbog edited the page. Utsill (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You reverted Kbog. Your intention to force content into the article is clear. For admins, article is under promotional pressure on three levels; as a biotech startup that keeps putting out press releases to stoke investor interest; by effective altruism advocates who want to end animal suffering, and by vegetarians. So each press release by the company is met by a rush to add promotional content to the article. Now it is hyping their planned (not actual) poultry products, following release of promotional videos by the company. The advocacy editing and behavior is very clear here. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
As per the unblocking, I want to note that I did not revert Kbog. He made an edit based on your edit, and yours was the one I reverted. Yes, that made his edit disappear in some sense, but it only did so because it was based on your edit. This is not advocacy. You think the people who disagree with you are advocates. They think you're an advocate. Please just edit in good faith and help us reach consensus on the issue. Also, just to clarify, they are "actual" poultry products. There was literally a video of people eating them, reported on by major reputable outlets such as WSJ. Utsill (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I should add that my impression, and that of at least one other editor, is that Jytdog is continually harassing new editors based on his advocacy agenda. I'm trying to figure out how I can raise this issue in a more appropriate forum, but I'm limited on time. Utsill (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you feel harrassed as an EA advocate. Folks know that I work toward NPOV across WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not an advocate. You keep bringing up your negative opinions of me and other editors as if they're uncontested facts, when myself and others think you are the advocate. Utsill (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • note that the article has also been protected by User: Lectonar until 18:27, 24 March 2017 Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned: I always forget to check that. Unblocked and warned, instead. El_C 18:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I'll try to avoid situations like this in the future, and look for other ways to resolve the issue when Jytdog seems to me to be deviating from WP policy. Utsill (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Mélencron (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Alternative for Germany (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [42]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link


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

Comments:
Persistently uncooperative behavior within the past 24 hours. Note that the editor is currently engaged in another, unrelated edit war on Trisha Brown and appears to be abusing rollback privileges diff) and once again acting blatantly uncivil/personally attacking another editor. Mélencron (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the reporting editor's attempt to poison the well by adding in unrelated material, please note that the reported diffs are of different material, and that a third editor, User:Helper201 made deletions of part of the disputed material while discussions were ongoing on the talk page, without bothering to take part in the discussion. until after being reverted by a fourth editor (User:Jytdog) [43] This is a pattern on Alternative for Germany. Someone adds an item to the ideology specification, Melancron or some other editor removes it as not being sourced, sources are then added and the item restored, and the pro-AdF crew aggressively quibbles over the sources, with, I suppose, the hope of removing a fact about that party which is embarassing to have in the article. The exact same thing happened in the past month concerning "Anti-feminism" (this one is about "Climate change denial"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Note also that, according to WP:EW Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. The "overriding policy" here is WP:NPOV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This isn't an NPOV issue, and can you please stop accusing me and other editors who disagree with you of supporting the AfD, it's frankly insulting. Mélencron (talk) 03:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
It is very much a NPOV issue, since your actions serve to unbalance the article in a non-factual way. When the party issues a party programme which includes climate change denial, and you try to remove it from the article, that's an NPOV issue. And if you don't want to be typed as an AfD supporter, then you should stop behavior which is supportive of creating a positive view of the party, such as removing ideology items from the infobox, and reporting the person you are in dispute with on the talk page to ANEW. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:92.211.226.147 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Aromanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
92.211.226.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 09:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 09:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 21:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  6. 21:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Aromanians. (TW)"
  2. 15:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aromanians. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Reverting multiple editors to place an unsourced nationalistic symbol on the page. No edit summaries, and has been going on a slow edit war for weeks. ScrpIronIV 15:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 15:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:SuddenDeth reported by User:Laser brain (Result: Indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [44]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
SuddenDeth is a serial edit warrior who has been blocked twice already in the last three months for edit warring across multiple articles. His general style is to continue reverting until he gets his way or is blocked. At Crash Bandicoot he has made the same edit FIVE TIMES (the original plus four reverts of two other editors) over the last three days. He has not broken 3RR in 24 hours but he is plainly edit warring (again) and plans to continue doing so. I don't think Rhain has totally clean hands here either, and should have opened a Talk page thread instead of just requesting it via edit summaries. However, I request SuddenDeth be given a block of appropriate escalation from his previous two to prevent further disruption. Laser brain (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional note: SuddenDeth is also continuing a slow-moving edit war at Megadeth against numerous users who don't agree with his edit. He has been pushing the same change into the article since February without Talk page discussion. I hate to tack other things onto an ANEW report but he's already been asked at AN/I to start discussing instead of edit warring and has ignored such requests. He does not use article Talk pages at all. --Laser brain (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
In a February discussion at ANI I proposed an indefinite block if there was no sign that User:SuddenDeth was willing to change his approach. Just now he has been notified on his talk page and invited to comment here. If there is no appropriate answer we should consider going ahead with the indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: SuddenDeth has edited since your request—I don't believe he has any intention of responding or addressing these concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Indef. It seems the user has no plan to respond to the warning. They don't intend to follow our edit warring policy either now or in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:82.4.178.56 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
List of Dynasty episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.4.178.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "Please see talk section."
  2. 15:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "links fixed"
  3. 13:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See below

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See below

Comments:

Two editors have challenged these additions and though discussion is ongoing, IP wants to revert now and discuss later — TAnthonyTalk 15:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The same situation is occurring in several similar "list of" articles. IP has been informed in edit summaries [50] [51] and on the talk page [52] for this particular list why his/her edits go against MOS:TV. This warning was given on the IPs talk page 2 days ago when Favre1fan93 reverted several articles.— TAnthonyTalk 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. Continue discussing on the talk page—if the IP is even around anymore. El_C 22:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 3 months)[edit]

Page
Bastian Schweinsteiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
PeeJay2K3 (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 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC) to 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
    1. 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771654403 by Walter Görlitz (talk) rvv"
    2. 19:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Club */ cleanup"
  2. 19:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "too soon"
  3. 18:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "rv to last good version"
  4. 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771482441 by Sdotd (talk) inaccurate"
  5. 16:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771448249 by Wenno123 (talk) not yet"
  6. 14:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771426817 by Dave logic (talk) not yet"
  7. 13:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771425747 by 2602:306:30BE:8350:1CDA:EF31:95D2:EC3F (talk)"
  8. 13:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "rvv"
  9. 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Schweinsteiger's move to Chicago Fire is subject to a medical and the successful application for a visa"
  10. 10:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771405616 by Therealdeeone (talk) he didn't play in either final"
  11. 10:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "not yet"
  12. 09:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC) "per ManUtd.com, the deal is subject to him passing a medical and being granted a visa"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Schweinsteiger */ new section"
  2. 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bastian Schweinsteiger. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "/* Move to Chicago Fire */ reply"
Comments:

12 edits against multiple editors. Seems block-worthy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment the page was semi-protected to avoid this rampant speculation regarding Schweinsteiger's future. I propose that the page be fully protected to prevent errant editors from making premature edits. – PeeJay 20:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Full protection is not merited but a block is. No speculation at all. You've seen the sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen all the sources, including this one, which states that the move is not yet complete, as it is subject to Schweinsteiger passing a medical and being granted a visa. If the Chicago Fire website wants to act prematurely and add Schweinsteiger to their roster page, that's up to them, but you can't possibly say the move is complete when it isn't. – PeeJay 20:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
You are relying on your old sources and ignoring the current sources.
  1. http://www.chicago-fire.com/post/2017/03/21/chicago-fire-soccer-club-acquires-world-champion-bastian-schweinsteiger-designated agrees with ManU's source that it's pending, but then
  2. http://www.chicago-fire.com/players has already listed him.
We go by sources and discuss rather than edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Just because they've listed him on their page doesn't mean the transfer is officially complete. It is by no means a certainty that he will pass his medical and be granted a visa, so even though he's listed as part of the Fire's roster on their website, it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say the transfer is complete. As you have noted, even the Fire is saying the deal is not quite done, only that United have agreed to let him go and that he's agreed to a contract; until FIFA approves the move, however, it's not a done deal. – PeeJay 21:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that's speculative, but it is sourced. We don't interpret the sources. Also, FWIW, CRYSTAL is for articles, not content, but I understand the underlying point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months. This much edit warring is not acceptable. El_C 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: No violation)[edit]

New user disrupting a stable article. Deleting reliable sources for internet ones, and persists in changing information cited by reliable sources on Malcolm Wanklyn. Refusing to listen, threatening to edit war. Dapi89 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here I am. You can chek my record, and you will see that I am not a 'new user'; instead, I have been on Wikipedia for years. The sources I have added to the articles are books from the Historical Branch of the Italian Navy, that correct mistakes that any of you can check at ease. 'Refusing to listen' would define well User Dapi89. My threat was to report him from edit war, and here he is...--Olonia (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Use the article's talk page please. NeilN talk to me 13:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
... whan can I do now? I wrote on the talk page to explain, and even linked it on Dapi89's talk page to make sure he would notice it, and instead he reverted my edit again while telling me to "prove what I said on the talk page". --Olonia (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Olonia: See WP:DRR for your options. Maybe ask for a WP:3O or take it to WP:DRN. --NeilN talk to me 15:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, will do.--Olonia (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If this individual thinks it is okay to add figures and data to already cited sentences, and use what appear to be dubious sources in favour of others, as "no violation", then something is seriously wrong Dapi89 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Please somebody help. Dapi89 keepts constantly reverting my edits, ignores the wall of text I have written in the talk page, and ignores the Dispute resolution noticeboard, where I have filed a request. He is refusing the judgment of this administrator, has falsely labelled me as a new user to put me in a bad light, and accuses me of deleting his sources (which I did not do, you can check) while deleting my sources. --Olonia (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
A lie. see here. Three deletions, and insertion of material into a paragraph which does not support it. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Olonia and Dapi89: Well now both of you have violated WP:3RR. I've fully protected the article for three days. If edit warring resumes after protection expires then both of you are looking at blocks. --NeilN talk to me 16:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk about closing the gate after the horse has bolted. I wanted to prevent this (see above). Now, is the issue going to be addressed, here or elsewhere? Dapi89 (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
No you didn't. You reported me to him, refused his judgment, refused to discuss on the talk page or on the dispute resolution noticeboard until the page was luckily protected. And you still try to spread confusion.--Olonia (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
There's little point in continuing this here. In lieu of blocking both of you, I chose to protect the article instead. That's the result of this report. --NeilN talk to me 16:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

User:130.68.17.204 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: )[edit]

Page
Criminal Minds (season 12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
130.68.17.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771863405 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  2. 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771863198 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  3. 23:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771861858 by Andromeda~enwiki (talk)"
  4. 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 771859597 by Callmemirela (talk)"
  5. 22:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Criminal Minds (season 12). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This IP suddenly appeared after I reverted Njorent's edit about removing spoilers. They are now edit warring. It could be Njorent editing logged out or potentially socking. I don't know. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 23:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: And why should you not also be blocked for violating 3RR by edit warring with the IP and Njorent to such an extent? El_C 03:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have AN3 on my watchlist, so I apologize for not responding earlier. Njorent had reverted the other user's edit as "too much info", which I reverted per Wikipedia guideline. Then, out of nowhere, this IP does the same exact thing as Njorent was. It seems very unlikely, to me anyways, that it's not Njorent. The timing said it all. I wasn't sure if they were editing logged out or socking. If Njorent says they aren't them, then I apologize (they never told me they weren't). I will leave them a note after this. As for my part, yes I should have stopped at three. I did stop after filing this report (excluding after Njorent's edits after the IP stopped). I don't allow users to use IPs to prove their point, which is why I went a bit overboard. It was a simple mistake. Also, the IP refused to respond to edit summaries or user talk page; how would a talk page discussion help? If that warrants a block, so be it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 04:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
How about you choose between the following two sanctions: a 24 hour block or four days of 1RR on all pages? (With the usual exemptions.) I'll still log a quick block to let other admins know 3RR was breached (in the block log) if you choose the latter. El_C 05:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Option two. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 06:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You got it. El_C 07:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Vikaskumar601 reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
Graphic Era Hill University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vikaskumar601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC) "VC Profile updated"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been warned multiple times in the past as well as banned for 36hrs a week ago, but keeps making the same additions. Has previously used sockpuppets to make changes. — IVORK Discuss 14:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Copyvios. NeilN talk to me 17:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

User:73.87.208.167 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
JJCC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)