Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive346

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Saronsacl reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Indef)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff (the version pro ante)


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 01:00, 10 July 2017‎
  2. diff 01:08, 10 July 2017
  3. diff 01:16, 10 July 2017

Edit summaries state that they were trying to revert it to the version before ante per WP:BRD

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See their recent block log - they were just recently given long block for edit warring on this topic across several articles.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See extensive reasoning with 2 supports on Talk page here: Talk:Sumer#Removed_irrelevant_reference_to_the_.22Garden_of_Eden.22

Comments:

Content was removed with extensive justification provided by a third party on July 8. Myself and yet another editor supported the reasoning and removal. Saronsacl showed up and just restored it, has not participated on the Talk page or explained why they disagree with the consensus to remove. They have not surpassed the magic 3, but they are well aware of edit warring, and they need a yet longer block to teach them that we discuss things, and that just showing up and trying to force an edit into an article, is not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, I have participated in the talk page. I was just trying to return to the version pro ante, And Jytdog mistook it for edit warring. It was not my intention to edit war. I only reverted it multiple times because Jytdog ignored the fact that it was the version pro ante. Please do not block me, Jytdog and others are trying to edit based on truth and pass voting off as consensus, and I do not want the article to go down that path. I will not revert the article again till consensus.Saronsacl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Also extensiveness of an argument does not make it more or less valid.Saronsacl (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked indef. This is a resumption of the edit war from June in which Saronsacl was blocked two weeks. The edit about the Garden of Eden that he's trying to insert here is the same edit as in the prior report. This user was blocked in May by User:Materialscientist for edits as an IP here. Given his past record and his statements above, there is no reason to believe that Saronsacl will follow our policies in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Monument2virtue reported by User:MontyKind (Result: stale, warned)[edit]

Page: Banu Tamim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monument2virtue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to:


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Diff 1 (15:02, 8 July 2017‎)
  2. Diff 2 (15:17, 8 July 2017)
  3. Diff 3 (18:29, 8 July 2017)
  4. Diff 4 (21:54, 8 July 2017)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Comments:
The editor seems to be a WP:SPA and has made 4 reversions in under 12 hours despite me informing him that it wasn't allowed. I tried to start a discussion with the editor on the talk page to explain why the sources he provided were unacceptable per WP:RS and also why he removed sources from texts published by Oxford University Press and Routledge (amongst others). He doesn't appear to understand WP:RS and insists on edit warring. MontyKind (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note: would have to check carefully whether those are 4 reverts, but in any case the report is stale and the user has not edited in the last couple of days. So I will close this with a warning to Monument2virtue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Rebismusic reported by User:Mileyboo3 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Marsha P. Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebismusic (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. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6]
  5. [7]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8] I have tried to warn the user about his edit warring in the talk page. The user had no attempt to stop, and even responded with a false accusal that I fabricated lies about them. When I ask the user to provide evidence for their claim, the user admitted they were wrong and deleted their accusal. However, they still continued the edit war without stopping.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
The user, Rebismusic, had a long history of constantly deleting other editors' well cited paragraphs on Marsha P. Johnson Wiki page. The user uses their personal, unsourced, theory to justify their deletion. They attempt to identify Marsha P. Johnson as transgender while Johnson never used the word to describe Johnson's gender identity. The user attempts to cite the transgender page on Wikipedia to prove that transvestites and drag queens should be included in the transgender category. When I cited the exact words on the transgender wiki page that actual proves him wrong,[1] the user proceeds to delete the words I cited on the transgender wiki page. [2] When Rebismusic engages in edit war, the reason they give were borderline homophobic. For instance, the user deleted an editor's contribution, giving the reason that the author from which the previous editor cited is just "the opinion of one gay man", despite the author being a professional Stonewall historian, therefore an authority on the topic. In another deletion, the user give this reason, "you are most likely a gay man. its ironic that you probably think you are her ally." The user uses their assumed sexual orientation of other people to devalue other people's validity, and this is very discriminatory. The user's behaviours has been questioned and called out by multiple different editors in the revision history page and the article talk page. Yet the user still hasn't stopped their constant editing on the wiki page to revert to their own edition. Admin, please take a look at this issue, and consider a protection on the page. {{Mileyboo3 (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)}}

References

I have looked at this user's recent editing behavior and decided that a short block is needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kastrioth reported by User:Anastan (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Gazimestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kastrioth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "anything a little"
  2. 17:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Just added what is true"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 13:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
    2. 13:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
    3. 13:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) to 13:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 13:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
    2. 13:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
  5. 13:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Fixed grammar"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Gazimestan. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
This is typical vandal, removal of entire section, no talk, no argument, no nothing. Also, vandalism after final warning on talk. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 19:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked by Ad Orientem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Hadji87 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Now That's What I Call Music! 76 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hadji87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10] – Removal of unreferenced trivia.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 10:47, 9 July 2017[11] – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.
  2. 16:08, 9 July 2017[12] – Restoration of challenged paragraph by IP 86.147.74.200.
  3. 17:16, 9 July 2017[13] – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.
  4. 08:13, 10 July 2017[14] – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.
  5. 09:22, 10 July 2017[15] – Restoration of challenged paragraph by Hadji87.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Apollo The Logician reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Airey Neave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Apatheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Negative and positive atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Implicit and explicit atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: (See diffs of user's revert's below.) – Removal of reliably sourced content.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(at the Airey Neave article)
  1. 20:13, 2 July 2017[18] – Reverts an edit.
  2. 20:19, 3 July 2017[19] – Identical revert 24 hours 5 minutes later while under a 1RR restriction. (gaming) Makes identical revert again today, still having never visited the Talk page.
(at the Apatheism article)
  1. 10:41, 9 July 2017[20] – Removes "philosophical view" wording.
  2. 08:44, 10 July 2017[21] – Reverts to his previous version, violating 1RR, but catches himself and self-reverts.
  3. 17:01, 10 July 2017[22] – Returns 8 hours later to re-implement his revert. (gaming) Zero discussion on the Talk page.
(at the Negative and positive atheism article)
  1. 09:48, 7 July 2017[23] - Reverted the removal of text saying "implicit and explicit atheism used by the philosopher George H. Smith".
  2. 07:53, 8 July 2017[24] - Reverted the removal of text saying "implicit and explicit atheism used by the philosopher George H. Smith". Second revert within a 24 hour period, violating 1RR.
(at the Implicit and explicit atheism article)
  1. 09:43, 7 July 2017[25] - Removed reliably sourced "For the purposes of his paper on philosophical atheism" content.
  2. 07:49, 8 July 2017[26] - Reverted to his preferred version again for the second time in 24 hours, violating 1RR.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [27] -

This is actually the second iteration of the 1RR restriction, as he quickly violated the first one, receiving a 2-week block and had the 1RR restriction extended from 1 month to 3 months. As you can see at his now scrubbed Talk page, several admins and editors (Just Chilling, SQL, Canterbury Tail, Guy Macon) explained to him that he needs to use the Talk pages, get consensus, and not game the 1RR restriction. He deleted some of that excellent advice, saying in his edit summary (removed nonsense).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Negative and positive atheism discussion - Implicit and explicit atheism discussion

Comments:

  • He is fully aware of and understands his 1RR restriction, having earned a block and extension for violating it just weeks ago. Now he has at least 2 more blatant 1RR violations (with no attempt to self-revert after brought to his attention), and several more instances of gaming the restriction. He apparently thinks it is okay to wait a few minutes past 24 hours to resume reverting, usually without discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I gave Apollo The Logician some excellent advice on how to abide by his restriction[28] which he rejected.[29] Since then he has violated his restriction multiple times. The usual remedy (escalating blocks, refusal to reduce the length of the blocks no matter what he promises) will take care of that. That being said, I see a deeper problem.
Sometimes an editor has such strong feelings about a topic that he cannot be trusted to follow Wikipedia policies when editing in that area. I myself have a couple of areas where I have such strong feelings that I don't read those pages, leaving the editing to someone who can edit without a (conscious or unconscious) bias.
Apollo The Logician appears to have such strong feelings in the areas of The Troubles and Atheism/Agnosticism/Irreligion that he cannot be trusted to follow Wikipedia policies when editing in those areas. I suggest a topic ban with the understanding that if he stays completely away from those areas and edits constructively elsewhere for six months, and if he shows that he understands what behavior to avoid, we will consider lifting the topic ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon:Seriously why don't you actually look at the revision history and the talk pages of the two atheism related articles in question. I did absolutely nothing wrong besides accidentally breaking the 1RR (which isn't edit warring btw) I made a revert. I then started a talk page discussuon and some time later I made another revert citing .brd. How is that improper conduct?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reverting so I don't know what you are complaining about.I refered twice and open a talk page discussion ln two of those pages. I reverted once on one page and removed a silly category (incidents don't apply to people) a few times and tried to get a discussion going on the talk. What's the problem?Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support a topic ban. Using an edit summary of 'take to talk' is not trying to get s discussion going. ATL may have read BRD but doesn't follow it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:35, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bastun: You were challenging the long-term stable version so the onus was you to start a talk page discussion. Funnily enough I actually just started a discussion (see talk page of Airey Neave)Apollo The Logician (talk) 08:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocked for one month, standard escalation from previous block. Proposal of a topic ban should be taken to WP:AN. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: /r/The Donald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grayfell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:18, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition of "alt-right" to the lead sentence after removal by editor A (me)
  2. 06:33, 9 July 2017 20:18, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor B
  3. 06:22, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor C
  4. 05:48, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor D
  5. 04:08, 9 July 2017 reinstates addition after rm by editor E

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:

I imagine the user also knew about the WP:ARBAPDS 1RR restriction, having edited the article 13 times since the editnotice was posted on 17 April 2017. The user has now replied to my comment about it. Dervorguilla (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said in response to Dervorguilla's cryptic post on the article's talk page, I reverted a sudden burst of IP vandalism before the article was semiprotected. These edits restored sourced content, including the phrase 'alt-right' which is contested by members of the forum. This is worth discussing on its own merits, and shouldn't be a back-door validation of IP vandalism and off-site canvassing. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, I haven't edited the article since Dervorguilla's talk comment about this. I've responded to each of Dervorguilla's three lengthy talk sections about this one batch of edits, although I admit that if I'm assuming good faith, I don't really understand the point of any of them. Grayfell (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Two of the reverted edits are IP edits; three aren't. All five seem at first sight to be legitimate. Also, the user marked two of his reverts as minor. Dervorguilla (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Grayfell: you clearly violated 3RR let alone 1RR and a block would be justified. As you have a clean block log for 9 years and have now indicated that you will stop then I suggest leniency may be applied. As you are now fully aware of the arbitration remedy, there will be no such leniency in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Above I posted a link to a highly visible reddit post which is a direct call to action ("Not a drill") from users of that forum, who have been a repeated source of difficulty in the past, as demonstrated by the protection history of the article. The edits I reverted were all attempts to remove sourced content without any attempt at discussion or meaningful explanation. I consider that vandalism. Shortly after I saw this was happening, I requested page protection to head-off brigading. While I split it up among two edits, I made only one revert of Dervorguilla, (Dervorguilla has listed one of my reverts twice above) and have engaged that editor on the talk page. Reverting a good faith editor once isn't an edit war. What, exactly, is the problem, here, and what should I have done differently? Grayfell (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I have now removed the second of those two (twice-listed) revert entries and added a missing one. My error. Total reverts (in 17 hours) = 4 + 1 = 5.
Again, as above, how are those not vandalism? Do you still maintain that they are 'legitimate'? Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that the correct action here would have been to request higher level protection and to ignore the changes until the protection was implemented unless they constitute blatant vandalism or BLP violations. In this case, using 'alt-right' in the lede sentence seems to be the main source of contention. I don't nessessarily agree that removing 'alt-right' from the lede is obvious vandalism. The article says: "The subreddit is also connected to the alt-right" (with several sources) However, this sentence is the only mention of the 'alt-right' in the article, and does not to me indicate that /r/The Donald is nessessarily 'alt right' by definition. I agree that the article is probably at its best with "alt-right" in the lede sentence, but I don't agree that removing it from there represents "obvious vandalism". Even without edit summaries, these edits to me can be interpreted as within the realm of good faith edits.
All that being said, I have worked with Grayfell on other articles extensively, and have found that they are a good editor with a strong understanding of policy. Grayfell is at their best when interacting on talk pages to discuss proposed changes to controversial articles, and is generally fairly level headed when doing so. I think that the lack of talk page engagement from these editors frustrated Grayfell and put them at a loss as to what to do in this case to rectify a perceived improper change to the article.
Grayfell should exercise patience in the future when dealing with changes such as this that are almost vandalism, or mild vandalism, but might be construed as good faith edits (breaking 3RR should only be used for cases when it is obvious vandalism—"edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."--WP:3RR)
Grayfell has demonstrated to me that they are en editor willing to learn and listen to criticism, and I suggest a strong warning as all that is necessary in this case. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Grayfell: only one of those reverts was to restore sourced content; all the rest was edit warring over the term "alt-right". So no, I do not regard this to be an exemption to WP:3RR at all. You need to be extremely careful that your own actions do not cross the line into disruptive editing. Other suggestions have been given above, but generally there is no urgency to revert unless it is obvious vandalism or a BLP violation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I've pointed out to the user (at Talk) that three of the edits he reverted aren't IP edits. Yet he's saying here he just "reverted a sudden burst of IP vandalism." One of the four contributors to that burst of "IP" reversions has been editing since January; another, since 2010.
The user is also saying here that those first four edits he reverted were "attempts to remove sourced content without any attempt at ... meaningful explanation". Two of the four are explained: (The criticisms have been leveled unjustly.) and (Removed the "alt-right" tag. The Vox piece is opinion by a political opponent of Trump and not a NPOV.)
Unless there are consequences, the user is likely to keep wasting editors' time with subtly erroneous statements and half-truths. Also, it looks like he may continue breaching 1RR:
1. He warns you that "this ... shouldn't be a back-door validation of IP vandalism..." 2. He doesn't "really understand the point of any" of my Talk comments about the violations (and he questions whether he ought to be "assuming good faith"). 3. He doesn't appear to understand what we're discussing here; he says, "What, exactly, is the problem, here, and what should I have done differently?"
You've warned the user about the ARBAPDS restriction; and he's advised you that he's ready to keep reinstating any "sourced content", without obtaining consensus. He may do so by calling the reversions "vandalism". His reinstatements are likely to get challenged by registered editors per WP:NOCON (or WP:BEGIN). This all seems likely to happen very soon. --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Report closed with the outcome that Grayfell has been warned against violating 3RR in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat and User:Zabboo reported by User:Cjhard (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Ringo (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Zabboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the Zabboo's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]

Kellymoat's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to from Zabboo to Kellymoat: [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning from Kellymoat to Zabboo: [44]

Comments:

I don't know if I'm supposed to comment or allowed to comment on this, but I'd like to make it clear that I didn't even know edit warring existed until this conflict with Kellymoat. I've been on Wikipedia for a while, but I've never had too many interactions with people and my edits have mostly been minor. As a result, I've sort of stayed ignorant to some of Wikipedia's rules like this one. This is a totally fair report, and I admit that I was involved in an edit war, but I didn't realize that wasn't allowed until the whole thing was already underway. I do apologize, and now that I know the rule it won't happen again. - Zabboo (talk) 5:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That is not strictly true because you warned Kellymoat about edit warring at 06:16 on 9 July and then continued your edit war till 22:50 on that day. Also interesting that Kellymoat has violated 3RR. You could both be blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
You're right, I did continue the war, that's why I think this report is valid. However, I just figured Kellymoat was being rude and that his "edit warring" notification sent to me was based only out of contempt, which I still believe is true. However, I did knowingly continue the war, because by that point I was furious at Kellymoat's behavior. For that I apologize and promise it won't happen again. Zabboo (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This issue resolved itself 48 hours ago. There was no reason for the reporting editor to open this case, except for his repetitive trolling of my edits due to his personal issues with me. Kellymoat (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Still, I'd also like to point out that Kellymoat has been blocked for edit warring 3 times in the last 2 months, and this is the fourth time he's broken 3RR. This is completely unacceptable behvavior. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Bbb23. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
And if "stale" isn't good enough, I will gladly go into detail over the situation. But, since blocking is used to prevent, not to punish, the age of the issue should be enough. Kellymoat (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sergecross73: I'm aware of Kellymoat's recurring problem and have little sympathy for their attitude/conduct. However, in my view, their history doesn't justify a block when the battle ceased a couple of days ago. That said, if you believe otherwise, you're welcome to impose sanctions. To the extent you're "overriding" my finding, I assure you it doesn't bother me at all. Thanks for the ping.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
No, your judgement is correct, I just wanted to pointing it out. We actually edit conflicted, and I hadn't noticed how stale it was. That being said, I'm going to give the user an absolute final warning on this, because there's no reason the community has to keep sorting through all these difs over Kellymoat knowingly breaking policy. Sergecross73 msg me 13:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Joobo, User: Peter1170: reported by User:Nagle (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Slovakia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joobo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Peter1170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version before edit war: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [49]

There are more; see history of Slovenia.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] [51]

Comments:
Ongoing edit war since 2017-07-05. About 30 edits on each side. Unclear over what. No discussions on talk by either party. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Slovakia admin suggested it was a 3RR violation, but it's a bit slow-motion for that. Both parties have left warning messages on the talk page of the other, which the other party has then deleted. Reported by uninvolved party; I have zero edits on article in question. (Was looking at this as a possible COI issue, but that seems unlikely. I can't figure out why the parties are edit warring over how many pictures of churches to include. Suggest light application of clue stick. Thanks.) John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In case a 3d person, as you seem to be, is reporting something as an edit war he or she might get familiar, at least a little bit, with the matter concerned initially. Simply saying "No discussions on talk by either party" is somehow strange. Did you not checked the history? Clearly no deep and detailed discussion is needed with an editor who uses Wikipedia as some sort of promoting platform, with few idea of WP guidelines, MoS and also is personally attacking. "I can't figure out why the parties are edit warring over how many pictures of churches to include"- Well, maybe because some editors care about the layout and style of articles and want to stick to basic WP edit guidelines. Just a suggestion from my humble side. Additionally, I like to get an explanation from you what "There are more; see history of Slovenia." is supposed to mean? Or did you really just confused "Slovenia" with "Slovakia";or what are you referring to? In the article Slovenia the red link editor was not even involved.--Joobo (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Joobo, you can say what you like, but this is an unexplained revert. That sort of thing is disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Start talking, on the talk page, and stop reverting, or you will get blocked: I'm talking to the both of you. Thank you John. Drmies (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
If I am correct, the example you provided was not reverted three times. In addition to that, I reverted this edit back to my included images, not just because to me they were the better choice (one quality rated, the other one for improved contrast of seasons), but also as it appeared that the editor was/is merely focused on reverting anyways by any image changes that were made. So it was not about the images, but the fact that another user edited images in the article at all. The edit description is incoherent as images are not there for to promote anything, but to support the content/information of the articles; in this case the section of the nation's climate. PS: I guess if some editor writes this on your talkpage without signing it, you do not need to engage in any discussion do you? Joobo (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't care: edit warring is more than just 3RR violations. I or any other admin could block both of you right now for your behavior. As for that message, don't confuse a collaborative project such as Wikipedia with a schoolyard after class. That the editor leaves you a shitty message doesn't mean you don't have to explain to everyone else what you're doing. These charges you made above, with this stuff about "promotional platform", none of them are proven. You want admins to side with you, start acting like an adult. And don't try to explain stuff here--explain it on the article talk page and in edit summaries. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying and I agree. Nevertheless it is hard to feel the urge to start a decent and detailed discussion with someone when he or she does not seem to follow the most basic guidelines of civility, is personally attacking you and threatening you as well as arbitrarily reverting everything you do. I hope it is also understandable from my side. In case there are any questions concerning image usage or selection I am of course open to any form of dialogue, if it is initiated in an appropriate manner.--Joobo (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Both warned. If either User:Joobo or User:Peter1170 makes any further edits to the article that don't have prior consensus on the talk page, they may be blocked. There is no sense in letting both parties continue to revert after the closure of the ANI complaint. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Eterror reported by User:Citobun (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Junius Ho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Eterror (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 01:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 06:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [52]
  2. [53]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [54]
Comments:

Seems to be a WP:COI account intent on pushing an old promotional revision of this article. A discussion was opened at Talk:Junius Ho, which the user has not participated in. Has also been warned by others on his/her talk page, but has not responded in any way except to continue reverting the article. Citobun (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:27.100.21.247 reported by User:Tornado chaser (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Gavin Menzies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
27.100.21.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "npov"
  2. 00:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "npov"
  3. 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "npov"
  4. 00:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 22:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[55]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Repeated requests to discus on talk were made using edit summeries

Comments:

has been warned, keeps making same large change. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one year. Last time around the semiprotection was set for six months. The challenge is to give a neutral statement of the lack of mainstream acceptance of this writer's views. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohio girl reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: warned)[edit]

Page
Jeff Horn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ohio girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Doesn't belong in lead"
  3. 10:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Non-neutral; the rescoring doesn't "confirm" anything."
  4. 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "The WBO rescoring doesn't magically make the decision uncontroversial."
  5. 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Unexplained removal of content from a disruptive editor"
  6. 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "context matters"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

The user has been restoring removed content and removing sourced content. Once I saw too many reverts from both the user and myself, I warned them about edit warring, and instead of reporting them for edit warring, I suggested that they self revert, in order to avoid a block. This suggestion was ignored and followed with more reverts. Two warnings have been issued, and the user also placed an edit warring template on my talk page, showing that they are fully aware of the situation.

Additionally, this seems like a single purpose account designed to make pro-Asian racial edits, rather than contribute towards making Wikipedia better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the edits I actually reverted, shall we?
Diffs 1, 5, and 6 were restorations of sourced content that had been removed with no explanation.
Diff 2 was a revert of excessive detail that violated WP:LEAD.
Diff 3 was a revert of a factually erroneous statement.
Diff 4 was a revert of a semantically nonsensical sentence.
I was not "warring" with anyone; I was reverting edits that did not contribute constructively to the article. Most of the reverted edits bordered on vandalism.
Spacecowboy420 has a history of making ridiculous racial accusations, and has previously been called out for using another editor's ethnicity to undermine their editing abilities. Take his claims with a grain of salt. If anything, accusing someone out-of-the-blue of having a racial agenda only serves to expose your own racial agenda.
Case in point: see Spacecowboy420's behavior on Chinese massacre of 1871, in which he has made several attempts to restore a vandalized version of the article which had originally been published with the edit summary: "removed the cuckspeak". Ohio girl (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ohio girl: you have at least five reverts on this article within the last 24 hours, which is against the rules and worthy of a block. It doesn't matter if you believe you were improving the article. You are fairly new here and have not been warned about this before. If you would acknowledge your error we could maybe just give you a warning and move on? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it. Ohio girl (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A significant part of your recent edits appear not to follow the neutral point of view policy. Please take care to be impartial. For example changing "controversial" to "highly controversial" has no purpose that to express subjective opinions. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more examples of words to avoid. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet after this report was closed with the editor stating "Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it." two more reverts were made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214591

Can I/someone reopen this report, or should I file a new report?

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Ohio girl reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Sock blocked)[edit]

I'm creating a new report, as despite the previous case being closed, User:Ohio girl has made more reverts after the closure.

Page
Jeff Horn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ohio girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 10:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Doesn't belong in lead"
  3. 10:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Non-neutral; the rescoring doesn't "confirm" anything."
  4. 10:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "The WBO rescoring doesn't magically make the decision uncontroversial."
  5. 09:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "Unexplained removal of content from a disruptive editor"
  6. 09:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "context matters"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 10:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

The user has been restoring removed content and removing sourced content. Once I saw too many reverts from both the user and myself, I warned them about edit warring, and instead of reporting them for edit warring, I suggested that they self revert, in order to avoid a block. This suggestion was ignored and followed with more reverts. Two warnings have been issued, and the user also placed an edit warring template on my talk page, showing that they are fully aware of the situation.

Additionally, this seems like a single purpose account designed to make pro-Asian racial edits, rather than contribute towards making Wikipedia better. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at the edits I actually reverted, shall we?
Diffs 1, 5, and 6 were restorations of sourced content that had been removed with no explanation.
Diff 2 was a revert of excessive detail that violated WP:LEAD.
Diff 3 was a revert of a factually erroneous statement.
Diff 4 was a revert of a semantically nonsensical sentence.
I was not "warring" with anyone; I was reverting edits that did not contribute constructively to the article. Most of the reverted edits bordered on vandalism.
Spacecowboy420 has a history of making ridiculous racial accusations, and has previously been called out for using another editor's ethnicity to undermine their editing abilities. Take his claims with a grain of salt. If anything, accusing someone out-of-the-blue of having a racial agenda only serves to expose your own racial agenda.
Case in point: see Spacecowboy420's behavior on Chinese massacre of 1871, in which he has made several attempts to restore a vandalized version of the article which had originally been published with the edit summary: "removed the cuckspeak". Ohio girl (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ohio girl: you have at least five reverts on this article within the last 24 hours, which is against the rules and worthy of a block. It doesn't matter if you believe you were improving the article. You are fairly new here and have not been warned about this before. If you would acknowledge your error we could maybe just give you a warning and move on? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it. Ohio girl (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
A significant part of your recent edits appear not to follow the neutral point of view policy. Please take care to be impartial. For example changing "controversial" to "highly controversial" has no purpose that to express subjective opinions. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more examples of words to avoid. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet after this report was closed with the editor stating "Sure. I acknowledge my error and will make my best effort not to repeat it." two more reverts were made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214500

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manny_Pacquiao_vs._Jeff_Horn&diff=prev&oldid=790214591

Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Huh? Those are not reverts. The first edit was a condensing of an overlong sentence and the second edit was an accidental deletion which I corrected in the very next edit. Keep in mind that both of Spacecowboy's edits used non-neutral language that would have warranted attention either way. Ohio girl (talk) 12:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Changing "official clarification that he was the rightful winner of the match" to "rescoring" is a revert. It removes someone's content.
"A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part"
It wasn't a rewording, it was removal of content that was added by someone (me) - so yeah, it's totally a revert. (just after you were warned for making excessive reverts) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
And what was the official clarification? Oh right, the rescoring was the official clarification. It was indeed a rewording, unless you are implying that there was more to your edit than a statement of fact, in which case you were being partisan and violating rules to begin with. Perhaps you should stop injecting your personal prejudices into what should be very simple statements of fact. Ohio girl (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
What did the official clarification clarify? That Horn was the winner of the match. "rescoring" does not say who won the match. Therefore you removed meaning from the sentence. The fact that the rescoring confirmed that Horn won the fight, was supported by the sources, so it was in no way synthesis. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Sock blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:HXEG reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [56]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]


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


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

Comments:


This user ignores warnings and actively revert-wars all over their edits in other articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned User had not received a 3RR warning before this report was filed. There have been no edits by the user since the warning. Will continue to engage with user. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours User continued in pattern after multiple warnings and attempts to engage. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:DoctorBiochemistry reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 4 days)[edit]

Page: Charlie Gard treatment controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DoctorBiochemistry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: This editor came off their block for edit warring, and immediately did this 08:18, 12 July 2017 and more as below, and edit warred to retain it.


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 09:05, 12 July 2017, restored edit above that was reverted
  2. diff 11:41, 12 July 2017, restored content again and added further content along lines that they were trying to add in earlier round of edit warring
  3. diff 15:10, 12 July 2017 restored content that had been removed
  4. diff 15:59, 12 July 2017‎ , restored content, now with YELLING editing
  5. diff 16:10, 12 July 2017, restored content


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: They were already aware of 3RR from their recent block, renotified in diff at 15:57, but they continued to edit war even after re-nofication (twice, technically, but once very blatantly)


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page- they have still been in too much a hurry to use the article talk page, but see User_talk:DoctorBiochemistry#More_problems. (note, they finally just now found the article Talk page.

Comments:

This is a difficult topic on which to edit - high profile and lots of passion. This editor needs a much longer block to keep them away from this article until the heat is over - they do not seem capable of self-restraint, and they remain too passionate to understand the basics of editing WP content, instead continuing to make arguments that are invalid in Wikipedia, both for their behavior and for the content they wish to add. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

agree editor in question is not showing self-restraint--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia, I just found there is a talk page about the article. I am willing to discuss any further changes there. The page is being edited with totally incorrect and unsourced statements in the medical section, for example that "MDDS progressively causes all cells to stop functioning". I am a qualified MD-PhD and active in research, and now that I am beginning to understand the policies I am doing my best to include appropiate secondary sources. I will discuss any further modifications with the other users before undoing changes. I agree the topic is very heated, but there are other users introducing biased and unsourced opinions there (for example, about the efficacy or not of the nucleoside therapy, textually: "had been used in babies only a few times and had shown little to no efficacy", this is totally unsourced and incorrect, it is being applied to children and adults). I have no COI as I stated before. Wikipedia should be really neutral and explain what this therapy is about without making any interested judgements. There are several reviews about mitochondrial diseases discussing this issue, and specifically this therapy, and they are being reomved from the page. But as I said, let's discuss that in the talk page DoctorBiochemistry (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Has just come off a 2-day block for edit warring, so I've now blocked for 4 days — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CoatbridgeChancellor and User:81.154.241.99 reported by User:Jd02022092 (Result: Resolved)[edit]

Page: St Johnstone F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of CoatbridgeChancellor's reverts:

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

Diffs of 81.154.241.99's reverts:

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link


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

Comments:

This war had been ongoing for a few days now. Before you are the diffs that violate 3RR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The situation has been partially resolved. CoatbridgeChancellor has agreed to stop reverting while the situation settles. The IP, however, has not replied. If they continue to revert, I will re-report. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Blevy97 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Sock blocked)[edit]

Page: Sigma Tau Gamma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blevy97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff - not a revert, but a continuation of the same problematic edits
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

(They also blanked an old peer review request and blanked parts of the talk page; I'm not clear why. SigTau2015 may have been a sock or otherwise associated with this user, given the similarity of their edits, although that account is currently soft blocked for having a promotional username.)

Comments:
I've made this report because, based on the user's comments on my talk and the article's talk, it appears that Blevy97 intends to keep reverting in order to include promotional material. Blevy97 has stated that they are part of Sigma Tau Gamma's communications team, so I've also left a conflict of interest notice on their talk page.

For clarity: I came across this article while patrolling recent changes. Initially, my edits were reverts of Blevy97's edits for the reasons I detailed on the article's talk page (removed all references in the article, did not comply with the manual of style, removed peacock tag without changing the peacock language of the article). Blevy97 seems to have taken some of that on board (e.g. their further edits left the references in place), but the article remained hugely peacock so I did a general edit this morning to get rid of the puffery/peacock terms/promotion/other obviously non-encyclopaedic content. Blevy97 subsequently reverted my edit, leading to this report. Although not a revert, I recognise that my fourth edit may be considered as edit warring on my part, since it was my fourth within 24 hours; if so, I apologise and will accept whatever sanctions are deemed appropriate. Marianna251TALK 23:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I also note this diff in which he restored the creed after I removed it as being unencyclopedic. only (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
He has now reverted me again. only (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Blocked sock. Only, hard username blocks were intended to be used for precisely this kind of user, i.e., SigTau2015. Their problem was not only their username. In this particular instance, I had no problem dealing with the soft block because (1) there were three accounts and (2) Blevy97 was created before SigTau2015. You're not alone, Only. Many admins don't believe hard promotional username blocks should be used, but, FWIW, I don't like it, partly because it creates socking issues. Just my two cents.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat and User:2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86 reported by User:Zabboo (Result:No violation )[edit]

Page: Yeezus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Kellymoat's reverts:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]

2a01:cb08:8139:3c00:d6f:bf1e:e52e:5c86's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]

I hope I did this right - never reported anyone before. I know the reverts are minor here but the fact is Kellymoat in particular has been banned three times prior for this exact thing and just the other day was given an "absolute final warning". This seems like unacceptable behavior to me after something like that.

Sorry, but if this is par for the course, that's clearly vandalism and not a 3RR issue. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, should I file a separate report against the other guy for that? Don't want to let someone get away with vandalism Zabboo (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:3RRNO. Report the IP to me if you see any further vandalism, and I'll block it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
First, I am going to say --- ANOTHER TROLLER? Too funny. Almost as if the two are "in cohoots" (which is something I already suspected).
Anyhow - no, don't bother reporting or blocking the IP. First, the situation has been cleared via talk page. Secondly, the IP is not static. He probably already has a new one assigned to him. And lastly, if you look, I suspect that the 3 IP addresses that were used (in the course of 20 minutes) are all the same person. A block would be useless. Kellymoat (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
If a block is useless because of an IP hopper, please report to WP:RFPP. TimothyJosephWood 01:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Also Zabboo, if there is a static, or persistent dynamic IP engaged in vandalism, please report to WP:AIV. It's pretty common. TimothyJosephWood 01:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The article is now semiprotected by User:Jimfbleak on the basis of persistent vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:72.38.83.19 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Semi)[edit]

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


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Someone is spamming a youtube video as WP:TRIVIA into Polybius (video game), from three different IP addresses. — Smuckola(talk) 17:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. There might be an argument for including this video under 'popular culture' but the campaign to insert it from multiple IPs is not kosher. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:AffeL reported by User:Hijiri88 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Rickon Stark (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: [69]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [70]
  2. [71]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73][74]

Comments:
No idea why the above didn't come out properly. I wrote the following (which, luckily, I managed to copy-paste here), but it didn't show up.

AffeL has a history of edit-warring, and he's been brought to this noticeboard enough times to know that he is required to use the talk page rather than continuously revert, and that technically staying within 3RR can still be edit-warring. In his relatively brief interactions with me, I've seen him receive one direct notice about edit-warring[75] and one admin notice that cautioned him against edit-warring[76] in addition to the above "Stop restoring inappropriate content" warning. Searching his talk page history for the terms "edit warring" and "three-revert rule" indicates that he has received at least ten total warnings in the last eight months, but has managed to avoid being blocked for more than ten minutes (for edit-warring). He seems to think that his first revert doesn't count, and that every talk page reply allows him to revert one more time, even though his one talk page reply made no sense.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I have posted and replied on the talk page, never said I was not willing to discuss. - AffeL (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
You outright refused to use the talk page the last three or four times you edit-warred at me, and only made a remotely reasonable talk page response after I filed this ANEW report.
Assuming that my recent solution is not reverted, then I suspect we might be done on that article, but AffeL should be issued a WP:FINALWARNING. It is unacceptable for AffeL to refuse to use the talk page until someone opens an ANEW report, then weasel his way out of a sanction by suddenly becoming affable until the ANEW report is closed.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Something really needs to be done about AffeL. Aside from his history of editwarring and socking, he's been especially bad in recent months, including unexplained reverts of technical edits[77] which he described as a "vandal edit" when challenged (and this is only one of his editwars on the page: here's another). There was also editwarring with three editors at List of highest paid American television stars. He also has a habit of restoring challenged content, such as at Josephine Gillan (a page that has now been deleted, but an admin could access the diffs). None of this behaviour is getting better. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: User:AffeL is advised not to exhaust the patience of other editors. It took a surprisingly long time for him to realize that by reverting, he was causing a direct quotation to be duplicated. Since there is no actual 3RR there will be no block. But if he reverts again on any of the disputed text he is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

User:86.86.185.56 reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
User talk:Mahensingha (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.86.185.56 (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 18:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC) to 18:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 790432117 by Mahensingha (talk)"
    2. 18:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "/* chowdhary */"
  2. 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 10:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC) to 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Chowdhury. (TW)"
  2. 15:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Improper use of warning or blocking template on User_talk:Mahensingha. (TW)"
  3. 17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:31, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 86.86.185.56 (talk) to last version by Lowercase sigmabot III"
  2. 18:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 86.86.185.56 (talk) to last version by SineBot"
Comments:
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring at Mulatto and other pages; adding original research. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Page: Bromocriptine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Cycloset (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael ezrokhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff adding spam link to Cycloset article they created.

Diffs of the user's reverts at Bromocriptine (the generic name) :

  1. diff 15:03, 13 July 2017
  2. diff 15:58, 13 July 2017
  3. diff 17:42, 13 July 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts at Cycloset (the brand name for the version of this drug marketed by the editor's company --see below) :

  1. diff 15:01, 13 July 2017
  2. diff 17:39, 13 July 2017


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: