Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:AffeL reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [1] (single example)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2] (December 2015)
  2. [3] (April 2016)
  3. [4] (May 2016)
  4. [5] (May 2016)
  5. [6] (June 2016)
  6. [7] (June 2016)
  7. [8] (February 2017)
  8. [9] (April 2017)
  9. [10] (April 2017)
  10. [11] (April 2017)
  11. [12] (May 2017)


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


Comments:


The editor has been reverted multiple times by multiple editors for his long-term edit warring on the linked article, where he is adamant that the actor's role in a singular episode of Game of Thrones is notable enough to be listed in his most well-known works, despite the actor appearing in only one episode and having a career that spans decades. This is based on and supported by the fact that the editor reported has displayed extreme fanboy mannerisms in the past when it comes to the series, adamantly refusing the deletion of any Game of Thrones-related articles, especially those he has contributed to, and claiming that his edits are acceptable because "Game of Thrones" is the best television series in the world". -- AlexTW 00:45, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I have only been reverted by AlexTheWhovian.
Diffs of the user's reverts by him:
  1. [14] (January 2017)
  2. [15] (February 2017)
  3. [16] (February 2017)
  4. [17] (February 2017)
  5. [18] (April 2017)
  6. [19] (April 2017)
  7. [20] (May 2017)
These are just some of the many reverts by him. He has not given a valid reason to why he keeps reverting my edits. I think he believes he has Wikipedia:Ownership of content. - AffeL (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Eleven diffs from you, seven from me, and I'm the only one reverting you? I think your maths is out, friend. I know that other editors have reverted you, given that that's how I came to now about the topic; I'll find the diff soon. Let's go through the edit summaries of those reverts and get the general topic: "In his 50+ year career, he is not especially known for his appearance in a single episode of a television show." That's the reason. You know this, you have read the reverts, and you continue to press the Undo button and reinstate it. -- AlexTW 10:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess the first three or four was wrong by me since that was before the seventh season. But other times I have been reverted was by you and you did not give any good reason as to why. I am more than willing to discuss the matter. - AffeL (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, I'll find the diffs for the other editor(s) who reverted you previously when I can. Then when you noticed that either your contributions were being removed, or that your edits were being reverted, that is when you should have started a discussion on why, but instead, you would prefer to continue to revert me - yes, I know that you reverted instead of re-adding it, because I got the notification that you deliberately pressed the Undo link. If you have indeed noticed the reverts, then that means you have read the edit summaries; simply because you may disagree with the reason for the revert, that does not mean that I "did not give any good reason as to why". -- AlexTW 10:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
You are the on who should have had a discussion on the talk page as to why you reverted me. I have now posted in the talk page for Ian Mcshane. - AffeL (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It's about time you did. Per WP:BRD, you added the edit, it was reverted, meaning that it was up to you to discuss it. -- AlexTW 10:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It was reverted weeks later. - AffeL (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Timespan does not matter. -- AlexTW 10:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Hypaattia reported by User:James Allison (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Linda Katehi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Hypaattia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 778549183 by James Allison (talk)"
  2. 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 778411232 by James Allison (talk)"
  3. 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "It is unacceptable to remove accurate and cited information that has been appropriately incorporated in the report. It is called vandalism"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Linda Katehi. (TW)"
  2. 00:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Linda Katehi. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "attempt at resolution"
Comments:

Hypaattia insists on reverting to their edits, which are shoddily written, full of red links, and subtle POV pushing ("hiding" seemingly negative information by moving it from the lede to the body of the article, which violates SUMMARYSTYLE). They have not responded to discussion on the article talk page, and based on their edits to their user talk page, do not seem to grasp our policies on content inclusion. James (talk/contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

They have now violated 3RR with this revert. James (talk/contribs) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that I reverted it back to James's version as the version preferred by Hypaattia was frankly, hideously malformed. No opinion on content, not my general subject matter. I think a NOTHERE/WP:CIR block is in order. Pushing a viewpoint with edit warring and lack of competence is a bad combo. John from Idegon (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
One further thing: I counseled him on how to proceed going forward at the article talk page, and he sought and received essentially the same advice I gave him from the hosts at Teahouse. He reverted my change on the article after that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Blocks will rapidly escalate if Hypaattia returns to edit warring after the 24 hours, even without passing 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:24.140.226.193 reported by User:Karlpoppery (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Miracle of the Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
24.140.226.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "What talk? The deleted addition is merely a few weeks old, and has utterly no associated talk with it. Until a more objective standpoint is presented, it ought to scrapped."
  2. 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "The sources are misleading, the heading also is a leading conclusion; and hints of not letting the reader adjudicate the evidence on his or her own terms."
  3. 19:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Quite frankly, it is the other way around."
  4. 19:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Violates NPOV"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Miracle of the Sun. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This editor is edit warring to remove skeptical content from the lead the article. This content is primordial as the article is already near from fringe theory territory. (Note: I've reverted many edits from a previous user on this page earlier, who was making disruptive edits and has been blocked) KarlPoppery (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. The IP is warring to remove properly-sourced skeptical commentary from the article, with no policy-based argument for their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: 30-500 protection)[edit]

Page
Hargeisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 00:21, 1 May 2017 ‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 777676932 by Kzl55 (talk): Restoring pre edit-war version. (TW)."
  2. 08:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 778076861 by Kzl55 (talk): Restoring pre edit-war version. Please cease the disruptive editing."
  3. 08:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 778126966 by Kzl55 (talk): De facto status added. No more edit warring please."
  4. 19:49, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC) "

Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [21]

  1. [22] 00:20, 1 May 2017
  2. [23] 08:44, 1 May 2017
  3. [24] 19:50, 1 May 2017‎
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Hargeisa. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:34, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC) "(→‎Edit war)"
Comments:

User:Kzl55 has reverted four times now, and has violated 3RR at this articles. As mentioned at the discussion, his edits include , WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV violations. this is second time in a week he is doing this two articles without discussing or sourcing it and removing sourced content and repeated removal is disruptive.

False. Same editor filing this report was in violation of 3RR last week link, and has refused multiple [25], [26], [27] requests to perform a self-revert. They are not willing to defend their edit in the talkpage Talk:Hargeisa#Edit war yet continue to engage in edit-warring. They are very disruptive across multiple pages. My edits were to return the page to its pre-edit-war state, seeing as the editor has violated 3RR previously. Attempts were even made to reach a middle ground [28]. Please also see disruptive editing history on other pages [29], [30] and [31].Kzl55 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Extended-confirmed protected for six months. There is a long running dispute as to what status to ascribe to Somaliland, which claims to govern territory but is not a generally recognized state. The Hargeisa article is about the capital of this region. Editors should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to decide what wording to use in the Hargeisa article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:GramereC reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]
  6. [38], another after I filed this.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Samuel_Fraunces#Request_for_Comment, an entire section trying to deal with this over weeks and weeks. The entire thing has gone on for many months, possibly years.

Comments:
One user, an SPA who brings in OR simply will not listen to others and insists that she is the only one with a say of what is in the article Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three editors who will not even allow a correct citation to be added to this article. It is necessary to get this looked at up the food chain. I have tried adding the corrections one by one but the response is that they revert to the original article instead of looking at each change. I have added it to sand box uploaded it and was told to upload the complete new article which I did. Now they are reverting again without the corrections. GramereC 17:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talkcontribs)
Another diff on 3rr warning 7&6=thirteen () 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
If you decide to take action, please remember User:GramereC's aliases – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. Though several people have reverted, the only person who I noticed breaking 3RR was GramereC. This is a long-running dispute, and one of the editor's statements above tends to illustrate that GramereC's views are usually in the minority. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Ivan Asen I 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: [40]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [41]
  2. [42]
  3. [43]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  • talk page: [45],
  • request for third opinion: [46]
  • third opinion: [47]
  • suggesting other forums of dispute resolution: [48]

Comments:

I am afraid, he is not here to build an encyclopedia. For further info, I refer to his Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

He seems to have accepted the third opinion. It is quite time-consuming that consensus can only be reached through reports about him on this notice board. I am not sure that he is able to cooperate with other editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he is still at it with this edit ScrpIronIV 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
And yet again, here That makes five reverts of two editors in the last 20 hours. ScrpIronIV 14:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 week. This is Kandi's second edit warring block this year. He chose not to accept the WP:3O, he continued to revert at 14:05 on 5 May, which is after this report was filed. The user has also made personal attacks at Talk:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria. If he comes to this board again I think an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:JaySmith2017 reported by User:GabetheEditor (Result: Article deleted, socks blocked)[edit]

Page: Jay T M Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have attempted several times to place a db-hoax template on his page, due to the fact that the notable claims on the page are wholly false. The editor continues to repeatedly remove the template. GabetheEditor (talkcont) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the article. ~ GB fan 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kzl55 reported by User:Somajeeste (Result: 24-hour Boomerang)[edit]

Page
Bosaso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 09:34,6 May 2017 ‎ (UTC)
  2. 09:37, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
  3. 12:46, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
  4. 15:17, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC) "
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: 3RR Warning"
Comments:

User:Kzl55 has reverted four times now, on another article this time Bosaso, with out explaining, and claiming old 2004 article and removing 2014 municipality website which claimed that the city have 700,000 population. and he is keep doing disruptive edits again and again violating NPOV.

This is getting ridiculous. I have already explained to you in the article's talkpage why you cant remove estimate numbers cited by UNOCHA and UNDP and replace their estimate with a number not based on any study from a reliable source that we know of. The number you are using is taken from a website that is no longer operational. I have also given you advice to search for updated numbers from UN agencies currently working in the region. Please stop your disruptive edits. Kzl55 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Boomerang block. It's not about who reports whom first. 2nd edit is not a revert. Somajeeste has, however, violated 3RR ([49][50][51][52]). As well as failed to participate on the talk page. Please cite reliable sources so that your numbers may be verified. El_C 09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Antinoos69 reported by Eric the fever (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: First Epistle to Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [54]
  2. [55]
  3. [56]
  4. [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I went to his user page instead [58] Discussions I had with a wiki admin over this, who suggested that I go to dispute resolution over this, so here I am. [59]

Comments:
The editor in question here has engaged in edit wars with no fewer than four other editors on this page over the last 6 weeks, see history [60]. He has raised false [61] allegations of sock puppets against two other editors. He has shown a long history of vitriol and ad hominen attacks against editors with which he disagreed[62] [63] Just search through his talk history page for more examples.

EDIT: One brief note on the history of the article, prior[64] versions[65] of the article contained similar (and better sourced) material to what is currently being warred over. However these sections were deleted[66] by an IP editor in 2010 with no explanation given, and no discussion on the talk page at all. Since that time, I counted at least 15 edit wars over this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric the fever (talkcontribs) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT2: I have found additional warnings to this user about edit warring on his talk page history, should I link them in this report or file a new one? Eric the fever (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - 2 months. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Nasrid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71]
  5. [72]
  6. [73]
  7. [74]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76][77][78]

Comments:

User:Tarook97 has been edit warring, under this particular name, since 30 April. It should be noted that an IP has been doing the exact same edit-warring since 5 April. Tarook's edit warring has included;

When Tarook finally posted a source, researching this source indicates the Nasrids, claim and presented themselves as Arabs. Nothing in the source states they were Arabs. As I explained on the talk page and was met with a snide comment(Your opinion is not more reliable than academic sources[79]), Wikipedia does not present claims as fact.

Judging from Tarook's previous block for edit warring, their continued edit warring whilst logged out(multiple IPs)[80][81][82], this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 4 days. Previously blocked for edit warring in April. The user has reverted five times since April 30 to make the Nasrids be Arab. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.129.178 reported by User:331dot (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Maryam Nawaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
124.106.129.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "yet again dont complain about me reverting something when youre doing the same. you wanna talk or you wanna revert?"
  2. 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "dont tell me not to revert when youre doing the same"
  3. 10:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "It is something relevant and from good sources. It can stay"
  4. 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "No it isn't. It's relevant enough to deserve detail."
  5. 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "no whitewash please"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Maryam Nawaz. (TW)"
  2. 10:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Maryam Nawaz. (TW)"
  3. 10:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"
  4. 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"
Comments:

Repeated reversion of content the user believes should be in the page, but was removed. Complains about others' behavior without stopping their own. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

what am i supposed to do here? this guy jumps into an article and reverts my edits and now he complains about me doing the same. we are doing the same thing so why complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

he did lots of reverts as well so how can he complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

this is all really unfair. this guy obviously knows all the rules really well and pushed me into breaking them. he should be punished for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not force you to keep clicking the mouse, and gave you several warnings. Even if you are unsure about the rules, you could have stopped to ask what the warnings were about. Please stop blaming others for your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

no you just sent me some automated server message and kept on reverting me. if you had stopped reverting me yourself and discussed the problem then everything would have been fine. you were just goading me into breaking some obscure rule while stay 0.01% within the rule yourself. you deserve a punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you continue to blame others for your actions. I don't want anyone to break any rule, which is why I was informing you of it. You don't have to know any of the rules or policies, but you do need to respond appropriately when they are pointed out to you. I twice told you what the proper procedure was when an edit is in dispute, but you chose to revert again each time. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

as did you. dont act innocent you sent some automated server message and then went back to reverting me. this is very much the pot calling the kettle black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one year. The protection log shows a long history of BLP protections, and this particular IP has broken 3RR while attempting to add further negative material. (Five reverts on May 7). It is not enough for material to be sourced, it also needs consensus for its inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:ContentEditman (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Michael Pearl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (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. [83]
  2. [84]
  3. [85]
  4. [86]
  5. [87]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
Myself and 2 other editors have added a small update to this page. At first StAnselm said he removed it for reference reasons. So I added several references. He then said there was a word missing from a reference and removed it again. I added a 4th reference that had that word as well. He then moved the goal posted and removed it again. He then called me out by name, in the headline, on the talk page. This was his first time posting about this on the talk page and used it to try and call me out. StAnselm has a long history, and block history, of edit warring, 3rr, and even blocked for 1rr as well. His editing style is to edit war when he does not get his way and try to keep at it till the person just gives up. He has been warned about this, even recently, yet still edit wars when he does not get his way. He is editing in bad faith and calling users out on talk pages. ContentEditman (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: It's late at night and I'm not able to comment at length, but it should suffice to say that I explained the BLP violation on the talk page, explicitly stated that I was claiming a BLP exemption to edit warring (because yes - I have been blocked before and don't want to be blocked again) and posted at BLPN just to make sure. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It should be noted he did not post to the BLPN till after his 5th revert. Look at his history and he has done similar things... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=StAnselm&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=2d92b25tpg3qmsbkpt2jdtr78 You can see he got out of one report by acting like he did not know and was told to be more careful. His history shows he has done no such thing but is great at working the "system" after he is called out for his edit warring and other behavior. ContentEditman (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors warned. If reverts continue, blocks are possible. It is unclear what the BLP violation is supposed to consist of. Anyone who wants to *add* negative material is advised to include a literal quote from the source on the article talk page and include page numbers. Anyone who wants to claim a BLP violation should point to the article text that they think constitutes the offence. It can't violate BLP to quote what Michael Pearl says in his own book, if his words are quoted correctly. In this context, the fact that his book is a primary source does not matter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow so because someone has more post they get more power and ability to revert 5 times with nothing? The same person who has been warned over and over again let alone has a history of edit warring? And why am I being warned? I added references and then reverted once? Is adding references to an article that StAnselm was edit warring with 2 other editors mean I should be warned not to mess with someone who has so many edits? ContentEditman (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody broke 3RR in 24 hours, but if there are more reverts from either party without prior consensus on talk, a block is possible. ContentEditman's citation of http://culteducation.com may be questioned, since it may not qualify as a reliable source for BLP matters. That site is associated with Rick Alan Ross. You will notice there are many past discussions of Rick Ross at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
So I can revert 5 times and change why and be ok? Just want to make sure that is what you are saying so I can edit like that as well. Edit warring and even 1rr can be a violation and StAnselm more than crossed that line. And why are you calling out a single reference? You did see there are 4 of them now. I added that many as he kept edit wearing, like he has a history of, and moving the goal post. There are dozens of references but he made his mind up he was not going to allow anything. And why am I being warned? All I did was add references when he was edit warring with 2 other editors? How about this why don't you read all the references and add something to the talk page? 2 other editors already added something but you are allowing StAnselm to revert 5 times and be ok with that. ContentEditman (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The decision has been made, and given the circumstances, count yourself lucky IMO. This is definitely not the place to be WP:POINTY. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
"count yourself lucky IMO" for what? Adding references 2 times to try and break up the edit war StAnselm was having with 2 other editors is against the rules? Following Wikipedia rules and posting here properly was wrong? Care your explain your threats? ContentEditman (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, I've woken up on Monday morning and I'm glad I'm not blocked. @EdJohnston: I'm sorry you weren't clear about the violation; I thought I had explained myself. ContentEditman added (among other things) the words It describes Debi Pearl repeatedly "switching" a toddler because he would not play with a certain toy she gave him. There is a string of citations after this sentence but the claim does not appear in any of them. They are, in fact, fake references. Surely this is what we mean by a "BLP violation"? Our policy requires that unsourced statements like this be removed immediately. I'm OK with receiving a warning but I'm a bit disappointed you missed what was actually going on. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:Judist (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [90]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [91]
  2. [92]
  3. [93]
  4. [94]

Comments:
Violation of the 3RR. I didn't use the talk page, but I reverted only once.Judist (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a baloney report because the reverts were for different items in each case and in different sections of the article. WP:3RR does not apply to reverting edits of different content in different sections of the article, it applies to reverting the same content. Revert one is of an anon editor from the article's infobox. Revert two was of the same anon editor inserting contentious material in the article. Revert three was of the reporting editor inserting different material into the article. Revert four was a combination revert of the reporting editor and the anon IP, neither of whom seem to understand WP:BRD and the need for discussion on the Talk Page to build WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, 3RR states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material. El_C 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


The reporting editor is quite right about one thing--he/she has made absolutely no attempt to discuss their addition of material on the Talk Page or to gain a consensus for doing so.
I apologize if I made a mistake with the report. I will withdraw the report if Taivo justifies any exemption. I report per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.... A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."Judist (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected three months by User:Materialscientist. Some statements above are not correct: (a) all reverts count, whether of the same or of different material, (b) TaivoLinguist did not exceed three reverts, since some of their edits were consecutive. This article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. I have previously explained to Judist that they should be more careful about neutrality. It would not come as a shock if some other admin decided that Judist's behavior already justifies a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment by SilentResident: I am afraid that the User:TaivoLinguist has done nothing wrong but defend the article from User:Judist's constant disruptions. User Judist has a loaded history of disruptive and tendentious edits on several Macedonia-topic articles, which fall under WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Judist already has a bad record of two (2) blocks in the past exactly for the same reason: disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles: one in November 2015 and another one in 18 June 2016. It is unfortunate however to see that after two blocks, he still didn't familiarize himself with Wikipedia's rules and core policies. Frankly, Judist's move to report Taivo here on Admin Noticeboard is nothing more but a retaliatory filling that aims to punish this respected member of our community just because he does not agree with his POV edits. Taivo has done nothign wrong and I am urging that no action is taken against him and that Judist's filling is dismissed without hesitation. User:EdJohnston, a respectful administrator of the community, has already tried the best possible way to explain Judist on his talk why his behavior is problematic, but it is unfortunate that he could not heel to anyone's warnings, even to an admin's warnings. At this rate, I couldn't be surprised if Judist gets a topic-ban on Macedonia articles. --SILENTRESIDENT 10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I feel obliged to bring to the attention of Admins the possibility that this retaliatory AN filling of purported 3RR violation by User:Judist against User:TaivoLinguist is crossing the line of WP:HARASSing those who couldn't agree with Judist's POV and consent to his disruptive edits, because recently, the same happened to me: Judist seeing that I couldn't let him pass his disruptive edits on Macedonia articles, he placed an ARBMAC warning ( a copy of the one EdJohnston sent him), on my own Talk page, in a bid to discourage me from intervening again against his disruptive edits on these articles: [95]. I suggest the Admins send him a very strongly-worded warning. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
And last: Page protection is unrelated to Judist's disruptions as it was requested by Taivo on the RFPP Board due to anonymous IP edits: [96]. Furthermore, this level of page protection does not affect Judist, a registered user. Therefore, further disruption on this article and other ARBMAC articles by Judist is expected to resume, given his past records. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Thucydides411 reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: No block violation)[edit]

The actions triggered by this particular report have run their course. --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 8 May 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: Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thucydides411 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Volunteer Marek's proper removal of non-constructive IP comment.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. First restoration after Volunteer Marek's removal.
  2. Second restoration after MrX's removal.
  3. Third restoration after MrX's removal.
  4. [??] after Objective3000's removal.

At this time a fourth removal has not occurred, so there might not technically be a 3RR violation, but warnings on their talk page have been met with rebuffs and a lack of understanding. Maybe more admins should remind them that edit warring is bad, even if they're right.

Comments:

Straight out edit warring on the talk page against multiple other editors. Non-constructive comments by IPs are talk page violations and can be deleted. This was judged to be the case by multiple editors, but Thucydides411 kept restoring the junk comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Striking because the editor has now been banned from the article for three months. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Filling out a non-existent item 4 is jumping the gun, don't you think? "[T]here might not technically be a 3RR violation." In other words, there was no 3RR at all. You filed this report in the expectation that I'd do something I didn't do. "[W]arnings on their talk page have been met with rebuffs and a lack of understanding." What does that even mean? I acknowledged the policy, and expressed my opinion to MelanieN that censoring the talk page is not acceptable - I'm still of that opinion. That's not a crime. -Thucydides411 (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
While this point is moot now, blocks can be handed out for edit warring without a 3RR violation. Sometimes one or two reverts already reveal an edit warring spirit and the hammer may fall. It's a judgment call. If your edit war had only been with one editor, it wouldn't be so serious, but it was three editors who clearly thought that content should not be allowed, yet you still fought on. That was unwise and uncollaborative. But, as I said, this is moot now. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, no, it was with two editors. When a third editor jumped in and also censored the talk page comment, I didn't attempt to restore the comment that had been deleted. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Removing trolling is not "censoring". The talk page comment by the IP was wholly unconstructive and unacceptable per WP:TALKNO. You were wrong to restore it, and doing so repeatedly over the objections of two editors was disruptive.- MrX 21:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to point out that you repeatedly removed the IP talk page comment (which was neither "wholly unconstructive" nor "unacceptable"). I see far worse comments on that talk page on a regular basis, but I don't take it upon myself to censor the discussion. The IP expressed the opinion that the article is NPOV, which is a legitimate opinion shared by many of the active editors on the page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This kind of knee-jerk BATTLEGROUND personal attack is exactly why a preventive TBAN might serve the community well in this case. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that is an incredibly aggressive response to such a straightforward comment, especially considering that WP:IPs are human too. -Darouet (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: (Article is subject to 1RR, not 3RR.) No block 1RR violation. Clearly 1RR was violated, twice, but since the user is banned from the article, a block would be punitive at this time. El_C 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1RR restriction applies to the article. There's no indication that it applies to the talk page. This was a matter of whether or not a talk page comment should be deleted, which is a somewhat different matter than whether article content should be changed. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Thucydides411: topic ban has now been vacated by the sanctioning Admin @Lord Roem:, and since the briefly banned user has repeatedly denied every violation of DS for which he's been sanctioned, including the bizarre statements above in this thread 1)that the third editor who disagreed with his POV is somehow not evidence that he was editing against consensus because he stopped his wheel-war, and 2)that reverts on the talk page are not subject to edit-warring restrictions -- false on its face per WP:3RR and WP:1RR, it's not clear that a preventive block would not help the editor to reflect on his patterns of behavior and his reactions when his behavior is cited for violations of WP norms and policy. Others may cite other patterns and evidence relating to his behavior, but I will not, and I will not characterize it lest it be misread as aspersions. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Issuing sanctions on the basis that I defended myself against claims that I violated policy would be really Kafkaesque, especially seeing as most admins who commented on the case agreed that the sanction was unjust. When the previous DS appeal was closed, there was a forming consensus that the sanction should be overturned. The appeal only ended without action because the sanction ran out.
In any case, this issue is stale now. I've discussed the issue with Lord Roem, who's reduced the new sanction to a warning. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Right, that's why the Community needs to consider banning you here. Your opinion as to whether you were thisclose to getting a block reversed is not really on the table here. I called it denial, but it's not the topic at hand here. SPECIFICO talk 22:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There was no basis for your revert of Thucydides411's edit, as previous discussion had shown consensus for the material. AN is not a place to win content disputes by getting editors who disagree with you banned. -Darouet (talk) 23:02, 8 May 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:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Charlesaaronthompson (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff


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


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

Comments:

User:67.14.236.50 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.14.236.50 (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. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff
  6. diff


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (some point between their fourth or fifth revert from the diffs above)

Discussion takes place on the article talkpage, but the IP goes ahead and makes the changes without consensus. Also a request to protect the page was declined, so the IP editor was free to continue with their edits.

This IP editor makes changes to this guideline with the summary "see talk" as their believe a consensus has been reached (which it has not). This slow building edit-war has been going on for about 2/3 weeks now, with every single edit made by this IP user reverted by multiple editors. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me just point out that only three of the six reported edits were reverts, and one of those was weeks before and unrelated to the others. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This isn’t edit warring. It’s the B part of WP:BRD. You are free to join in the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
So both Rob and Neil are incorrect when they posted in this section on your talkpage asking you not to edit war? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, you were talking about the outdated Hills Have Eyes example, with the demands to seek WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Yes, I thought we had standing community consensus on that one. But that’s over. And that was isolated to the 26th, so I don’t know why you bring it up now. What you’re apparently reacting to now was, I received feedback on a proposed change, altered it to address concerns, then implemented the change days later with no further objections. If someone came along and started doing that to a page I felt I owned or considered sacrosanct, then yeah, I might say he was edit warring. Otherwise, it’s the normal process. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
To be fair IP, it is BRD, not BRDBRBRBR and I am not convinced that BRD should even apply to a MOS. All substantive changes to naming guidelines should arguably gain consensus before installation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Betty Logan: BRBR is actually suggested as a viable alternative to BRD. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I thought what we’ve been doing was BRDBRDBRD. Occasionally with myself being the only one attempting the third step, so yeah, it doesn’t really work if no one else participates. But even if BRD is inappropriate here, we should certainly discuss the change, which is intended as mere clarification rather than a substantive change. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Several editors have participated in the dicussion. As I noted there you seem to be coming up with solutions looking for a problem. I think the reason the discussion hasn't caught fire is because there seems to be no evidence of the current guideline causing problems. If it were leading to articles being given the incorrect name there would probably be more desire to "fix" it but nobody seems to be arguing that the articles should be called something else! Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I posted a revision six days ago. It has gone undiscussed, even when the change was eventually made and reverted. Yesterday I posted a response to the revert. Still nothing. So yeah, I seem to be the only one here even attempting discussion.
Anyway, there’s a subtle difference between a solution looking for a problem, and a solution to a problem that you can’t or won’t see. Fresh eyes would help here, rather than the local consensus […] opposed to making any changes whatsoever. But this is a matter for the talkpage (or DRN, etc.), not AN. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
This was moved into the archive without any action being taken. The IP continues with the same disruption on the page concerned. Reverts this edit saying their are no objections (incorrect), which is then itself (correctly) reverted by another editor. That IP revert comes after they have commented here and the original report was archived.
Can some please either block this IP or protect the page. This will go quiet for a few days, then continue again, as per the edit history shows. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: I don’t “go quiet”; I wait for responses on the talkpage, and if no one objects to a proposed change, I edit the page accordingly. This is standard editing practice. In this case, there are no objections that anyone so far (including yourself) has verbalized, so it’s not incorrect to say there are no objections. The only response so far has been one of support. It’s not “disruptive” just because you WP:DONTLIKEIT. If you do have objections to the proposed edit, please feel free to join the discussion at WT:NCF. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:27.6.240.205 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Meenakshi Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
27.6.240.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Meenakshi Jain. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Persistent vandalism Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN talk to me 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TBBC reported by User:LM2000 (Result: )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [97]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [98]
  2. [99]
  3. [100]
  4. [101]
  5. [102]
  6. [103]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[105]

Comments:

  • Well 1) the user who has provoked the edit war (and others, yet he hasn't been blocked might I add) has used ridiculous reasons, because this is a page on a wrestling match not a page youtube channel so the youtube video about how the match is organised can't be...WTF , 2) I thought we have made a compromise,--TBBC (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment There's a policy for WP:NOYT which says that "official [YouTube] channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace [sic] to a reliable publisher. Videos may also be used as a convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder." The video that you linked to was uploaded by Wrestling Hut, which is a fan page channel that includes shoots, opinions, news matches/spots from multiple wrestling sites, not an official one. Nickag989talk 08:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You offered a compromise on the talk page and continued edit warring without waiting for a consensus. That's not how this is supposed to work.LM2000 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Many reverts for TBBC but they haven't technically violated WP:3RR. TBBC, you'll stop reverting until the dispute is worked out on the talk page? --NeilN talk to me 13:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:108.178.115.3 reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Mary Nolan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
108.178.115.3 (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 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
    2. 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779454227 by Stevietheman (talk)"
    2. 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
  3. 00:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Numerous warnings by multiple editors. One started a discussion at talk page. See discussions at the IPs talk, User talk:Meters and the reverted discussion at User talk:Stevietheman. Note this is a static IP. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Note I have not warned him but others have twice. There are also many more reverts. Twinkle didn't pick the up because I didn't make the warnings I suppose. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The four main issues with this user is that they have violated WP:3RR, made personal attacks against me (making totally unfounded and near-slanderous accusations), have advanced the attitude that they get to right great wrongs in an article no matter what reliable sources say, and have harassed myself and Meters on our talk pages. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 04:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Y'all should look at their most recent tirade; I responded, and I'm done responding to them. If they edit that article again they should be blocked; I'll leave it to the next admin to decide if they should be blocked already. BUT BE PREPARED TO HAVE THE WRONGS RIGHTED ON ALL THE SOCIAL MEDIA ETC ETC. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, this user is clearly abusive/bullying in their language, and calling people "misogynists" with absolutely no basis. They even thought calling their rant a rant (which folks of all genders can do LOL) was sexist. In the final analysis, this user is fully intent on 1) not following or caring about our policies, guidelines and the way we write articles; 2) being very nasty in the process. We expect collegiality (or at least halfway reasonable attempts at such) on the wiki; this user isn't even trying to work in this manner. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Wrong section

Well 1) the user who has provoked the edit war (and others, yet he hasn't been blocked might I add) has used ridiculous reasons, because this is a page on a wrestling match not a page youtube channel so the youtube video about how the match is organised can't be...WTF , 2) I thought we have made a compromise, and Stewie is the Man, I don't know you, I can't seem to find any edits I've contradicted.--TBBC (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to say I totally don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you are responding to an entry different than you had intended? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Whhops, sorry, that's embarrassing. Just tapped ctrl+end and started typing--TBBC (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Now, this IP is conducting an attack again on myself and on John from Idgeon on their talk page. Part of this is misconstruing my comment about FWOMPT ("fucking waste of my precious time"). I was saying this not as a description of the article content (which am I actually very neutral toward), but as a description of the baseless accusations made by this user against me, and their ongoing harassment against me. And this user just posted more harassing language on my talk page, which I quickly reverted. And this was after an admin told them to stop posting on my talk page. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 06:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

More follow-up. Since my last post, the IP user has left even more messages on my talk page against my wishes, while posting a lot more incendiary discussion on their talk page. They have also added a very long complaint entry to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed posts, to which I have responded. Last, they have left a harassing message on John from Idgeon's talk page. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 08:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. NeilN talk to me 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Somajeeste reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Somali language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Somajeeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "stop vandalism"
  2. 12:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779354746 by Ciiseciise007 (talk) explained on talk page"
  3. 10:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not country wikipedia was not built for POV. explain your reason on talk page."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) to 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779188891 by Soupforone (talk) clearly that is WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV"
    2. 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not country that is WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV)"
    3. 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR Warning */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Nation */"
Comments:

Editor was blocked for edit warring just two days ago [106] and continued to edit war despite clear warning [[107]]. Further action needs to be taken due to their disruptive behaviour, including vandalism and removal of content for no reason [108], [109], [110]. Kzl55 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

False , no one violated 3RR he is the one who making revert and removing sourced content,[111], [112] i just add content and I as explained it on talk page.[113], His edits are very disruptive across multiple pages. My edits were constructive, not distractive even other editor got involved but he ignore it [114] while edit waring his preferred POV,
and gain today on another page

[115] [116] [117] also this is him reverting other editor all because doesn't suit his POV; which is unacceptable [118], [119] Somajeeste (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I should have probably explained this better. I did not report the editor for their violation of 3RR on the Somali language page due to page protection by El C. I have made this report because, after they were warned by El C not to edit war again [120] they went to a different page and did just that [121].Kzl55 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: I see El C also fully protected that page and when protection expired, the edit war started up again. Have you considered using WP:DRN? --NeilN talk to me 16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@NeilN:, I think we have reached some resolution on the Adal Sultanate page (not with the editor in question here but a different one). My concern is the disruptive behaviour from editor Somajeeste, who was blocked two days ago, and came back to continue the same pattern of edit warring, even after being specifically warned by El C today. Their unexplained removal of content [122], [123], [124] and constant edit warring are very disruptive. Kzl55 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected By El_C This is your chance to work it out on the talk page before blocks are issued. NeilN talk to me 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Oscar22 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: blocked 48 hours )[edit]

Page
Iron Fist (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Oscar22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "This is nowhere near vandalizing. We all reached a new consensus we should stop using a critical reception term."