Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive348

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

Noticeboard archives


User: NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Clown town (Result: Nominator blocked)[edit]

Page: Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (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]

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

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


These four edits are not within 24 hours, and the third edit listed is not a revert - it's the simple insertion of a Wikilink to the subject's main article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
User to Admin Request: I can't believe this. If an admin can, protect the page in dispute, and have words with both users. I can't believe that this one decided to report the other for Edit Warring, after they were reported themselves... GUtt01 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Your "both sides"ism is unhelpful. As even the most cursory examination of these edits reveals, I have not violated 3RR. Before you toss out accusations, check the facts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
You reported me after you were warned many times to stop edit-warring and use the talk page. You didn't. So here we are now over a NPOV post that should have easily been discussed in the talk page, but you wouldn't do so, even after being warned and pinged by multiple users. Clown town (talk) 21:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Please provide a diff for "multiple users" warning me - you can't, because it doesn't exist. The only one is you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Clown town (the filer) is at 4 reverts on Google in the past 24 hours. NorthBySouthBaranof is not violating 3RR, this report appears to be purely retaliatory in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC) you were pinged here in the first diff of the talk page. Clown town (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC. I used the talk page. He didn't.

User:AmbientSpaceNoise12 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Already blocked )[edit]

Batman: Arkham Origins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AmbientSpaceNoise12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 04:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 04:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 04:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 04:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
  6. 01:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Batman: Arkham Origins. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Continuously edit wars the article and refuses to use the Talk page to discuss the issue with other editors. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor already blocked as vandalism-only. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): Per WP:BRD, the status quo (exclusion) should be retained while discussion is in progress . (TW)"
  2. 01:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2010 (talk): The clause that people known for being old are excluded IS in the text of WP:RY. (TW)"
  3. 00:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by The Rambling Man (talk): Clearly DOES NOT meet WP:RY. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Yisrael Kristal */"

Editor is edit warring and is removing a name on the 2017 article even tho there's an RFC discussion on the talkpage, As the RFC discussion is in process the name should remain and as explained to the editor the name should only be removed when the RFC discussion has concluded, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Also I've not warned the editor because they're an admin and should know all of this by now anyway. –Davey2010Talk 01:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The discussion is not tagged as an RfC, and claiming WP:BRD in an attempt to edit-war a change in an article is improper, regardless of the number of reverts, even if the discussion were an RfC. The poster's 2 reverts are clearly edit-warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Technically no it's not an RFC however more or less it is, Nice try blaming it on me but it's not happening, You (and the other editor) were bold in removing it, you were reverted and now it's discussion time (which is occurring on the tp) so you reverting TRM and me is unnecessary and is edit warring, You're already up at Arbcom as it is so if I were you I'd self revert and let the RFC continue. –Davey2010Talk 01:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not an RfC and the fact that you are still using that term indicates a battleground approach rather than an interest in resolving conflict. The situation is that a factoid was added to 2017 and there is no consensus on talk to support that addition. A couple of editors say include, and a couple say remove. That is exactly when WP:BRD applies—those wanting an addition need to show clear support (based on policy/guideline arguments) before the text is added. Both sides are edit warring although I have no opinion on whether sanctions are warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Well it is in all but name but that's all besides the point - There's no battleground behaviour from me and quite frankly it's laughable that you even think that!, Point is 2 editors removed this without any consensus and as I said there's currently a discussion on the talkpage so instead of reverting these 2 should've waited, I disagree there's no edit warring from me at all - Fact is both editors added this which goes against BRD and as such this report is warranted. –Davey2010Talk 03:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Struck the RFC part. –Davey2010Talk 03:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn - IMHO AR was still edit warring and does deserve blocking for it however in short I don't see much point in wasting everyones time with this - If consensus is to have it it can be readded back - No point reverting to have it back when in a few days time consensus could be to remove anyway so anyway I withdraw. –Davey2010Talk 14:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:KnowledgeAndPeace reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Blocked Indefinitely)[edit]

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

The user has been repeatedly adding information on a "Cantonese conference", despite it being removed by three other editors (myself, Citobun and Drmies) with clear consensus against it being added on the talk page. These are not straightforward reverts but the diffs of the most recent additions of it to the article:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]

The most recent additions are smaller as they have forked off most of the unwanted content into a new article: Worldwide Cantonese conference

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Discussion on article talk page: Talk:Cantonese #Why I deleted the "Worldwide Cantonese conference" section

The only other thing to add is the editor seems to have an uncommon obsession about this conference, suggesting some conflict of interest, though this is only a supposition. They do though seem unwilling to contribute to the encyclopaedia outside of this narrow area.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The user JohnBlackburne have repeatedly targeted only the Cantonese conference section page but ignoring all others wikipedia pages having a "conference" of their own such as the Hakka people conference. I had asked him multiple times why he didn't remove but he never replied it and kept ignoring it. I've checked on the wiki user JohnBlackburne apparently also chatted with other Hakka wikipedia users and including with other moderators to help him out. I've used multiple references, well sourced from both English and Chinese again and again but removed in the end. Other wikipedia pages with unsourced references can have a section or even just mention of their own conference so why can't the Cantonese people wiki page with multiple reference of their own have neither a section nor a mention in their own wiki page. There is no rule that says you ain't allow to mention of having a conference.
It is a abuse of moderators bias judgement, unfairly deciding what page should they allow to edits and what page don't want to allow.
Hakka conference page had existed since 2009, nearly a whole decade, almost 10 years. This shouldn't be consensus either but why they they ignored for so long while not allowing the Cantonese to have their own conference? it is double standard hypocrisy at best.
  1. [6] 24 December 2015
  2. [7] 14 March 2011
  3. [8] 7 June 2009
Also Drmies), he had ignored the red links of the Hakka people page that has over 70+ red links of unsourced figures while on the other hand my page only had a few but he chose to remove mine and unwilling to remove the ones in the list of Hakka people. The conversation can be seen in the talk page of JohnBlackburne and Drmies being extremely double standard and unwilling to remove anything from Hakka people wikipedia page. In the end it took me to do it again even though it's suppose to be their job. (talk page).
I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement. There is absolutely no reason for other unsourced wiki pages to have a conference of their while my sourced wiki page is not allowed to have it.
My personal feelings: I don't want get blocked right now, I will stop editing the conference page to safe myself from getting blocked if that what it takes. But I won't be surprised if I get blocked since moderators have more rights/control than any normal wiki editors, they make the rules but they also abuse it and you have to submit to their way, in the end we don't even know what their real intentions are (or their real true identity behind the bias judgement). I didn't think having a conference page could bring me so much trouble, some may consider it insignificant and not a big deal, I only copied from the other wikipedia pages, if they can have it ( with sourced/ or unsourced reference ) why can't I have it aswell with multiple sourced reference. I'm supposed to believe that the moderators are being fair on this ? They absolutely did nothing to other wiki pages who had a section/or mention of conference of their own for nearly a decade but they started doing something only when I created my own. It's not fake because there is high number of multiple reference. I really can't think of any reason other than the fact they have something against to those they dislike. They are not just against wiki trolls and abusers but also against those people they dislike. I know there are moderators with nationalistic feelings and moderators with anti-feelings against other wiki editors. -KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 12:50 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Your feelings are one thing--rational argument is another. The charge by KandP is ridiculous; what's next, 9/11 was an inside job? Drmies (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have a good reason to be suspicious. I have already checked many wiki pages that have a conference of their own, such as Jews, Hakka, Germans ect I can show you right now, the Germans themselves have many. So I really don't understand the reason why they are allowed to have it but not in the Cantonese page. I wouldn't respond like this if I was treated fairly, this if there wasn't any evidence I would agree with your ways immediatly but the fact is many other wikipedia pages have a conference of their own from a few years to nearly a decade.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 01:36 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: @KnowledgeAndPeace: Right, two things I got to say. First - "anti-feelings"? I never heard anyone say or write this before in my life. Surely you mean, "zero feelings"? Secondly - If you felt like this was a serious issue, why didn't you go to a administrator noticeboard and see if an admin could look into the matter you have issues with? Surely that would have been better, than getting into a clear Edit Dispute with the reportee and other users. Stating things like "I demand justice for this unfair abuse, bias judgement" raises some questions over whether this will sway people to your side, and quite frankly, I don't think this will help your cause much. GUtt01 (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
By anti-feelings I mean't someone's who display bias and unfairness against a certain group, like for example a Korean moderator can have anti-feelings against any Japanese wiki editors due to historical reasons and for those reasons use his moderators powers to abuse, control other wiki editors opinions. I don't know the real ethnicity of the moderator so I don't what the motives behind the removal of my edits but the evidence I witness and presented clearly shows double standard behavior against Cantonese people. I don't know fully well how to use the administrator noticeboard and believe it would't do any good reporting against moderators who stick out for eachother.-KnowledgeAndPeace (talk) 08:40 , 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What happens on another page (or doesn't happen) is of no consequence at all. From a selective absence of facts, KandP wants to derive that two editors here are racist and have it in for him. See KandP's recent complaint at Talk:Cantonese people--"if something happens to me". I think it is high time that someone else points out to this editor that their accusations of racism and favoritism are a form of harassment. (And what is this nonsense about "conferences" anyway?) Drmies (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies: K&P was indeffed as a sock. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, EvergreenFir. Can't say it comes as a surprise--that kind of behavior is somewhat typical. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:JasmineO0o reported by User:Jmcgnh (Result: )[edit]

Nina Burleigh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JasmineO0o (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:45, 12 August 2017‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 795188563 by Sgerbic (talk) Added Direct Newsweek Source"
  2. 10:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795139307 by Jmcgnh (talk) Possible family member of Nina editing posts."
  3. 08:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795135572 by Jmcgnh (talk) User states "newbie" thus lacks basic skills to edit."
  4. 05:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795106311 by Sgerbic (talk) Daily Caller Removed"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 08:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Nina Burleigh. (TW)"
  3. 11:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Nina Burleigh. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Newsweek piece about high heels */ new section"
  1. Talk:Nina Burleigh#Deeply concerned at the active censorship to the defense of far-left "journalist". Believes we are censoring her preferred content because of political bias. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  2. More context at Talk:Nina Burleigh#Newsweek piece about high heels. I've tried my best to reach out for a discussion. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 01:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: That's the trouble with some people; when they involve political issues with their editing, it can be tricky to deal with. I would recommend that an admin checks over the added content that is in dispute and determine whether it conforms to WP:BLP, as well as assess the behaviour of the reported user. If the content does adhere to WP:BLP, then it might be wise if people ensure that it sticks to a neutral tone and ensure it is worded correctly and maintains good grammar. GUtt01 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

User:YechezkelZilber reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: diff 20:50, 10 August 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 21:22, 10 August 2017
  2. diff 09:09, 11 August 2017
  3. diff 13:08, 11 August 2017 (after this was filed)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Hiding the sex differences section and Talk:Neuroticism#POV_tag


So this is related to the Google memo kerfluffle. This editor has floated in, made several unproductive joking remarks on the talk page, and slapped a POV tag on the article (their only contrib to the article itself) solely because the article doesn't give a ton of space to the RECENTIST nonsense: ...Shouldn't the sex differences part have at list a heading for itself? I know the various arguments. But it looks way too bad.... etc. (diff) and this is what most people will deem more central... (diff). None of this has anything to do with editing per the policies and guidelines. They have obviously not violated 3RR but this is classic disruptive tagging. Jytdog (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The article was massively amended in the recent days. Original passages were removed.
Lots of heavy-handed editing. By Jytdog (the complaining party here)
Lots of edit undo *not by me* but Jytdog forced his way via edit control, rather than more consensual discussions
Finally, Jytdog decides that the POV issues do not exist.he removed the POV tag, even though it is now clearly explained.
He did not got a *single* sarcastic remark of my, and comes here dishonestly portraying my arguments "several u productive joking remarks". Where in fact, I have argued my cases in great length, along with offering editing suggestions. And..... Unlike him, I have put my edits as suggestions on the talk page, rather than brusquely forcing my edits through Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog might need a talking about how t behave politely without one handed decisions and edit "undo". One can count him for how many undo he did on the said article alone 10:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Google memo is the main issue here. The neutrality dispute is about whether or not there should be a heading "Sex differences". This heading was in the article until [diff] and it is not clear why it was removed. Was it because of political correctness? Roberttherambler (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
For admins, it is clear from the comment, but Roberttherambler is borderline HOUNDING me since I was among those who rejected their anti-vax content at Vaxxed. The behavior is blatant and if it continues will become the subject of its own dramah. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Note the tag added again[9] after this was filed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog reverted claiming that "added POV without discussion in talk". Well, a discussion was opened and no conclusion was reached. In which case, the aggressive repeated undo/edit warring of Jytdog should be cancelled, and POV tag to stand until a consensus is reached.
With more people reverting, I refrained from adding it back. Even though, removing POV tags without consensus is against POV tag policy. I preferred to avoid an edit war. Jazi Zilber (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The neutrality of the article is disputed so I can't see why it should not be tagged. Roberttherambler (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Not on any valid basis in NPOV; the claimed basis is purely personal opinion about style and as well as recent events. Your main contribution to that discussion was the entirely inappropriate: The opposing points of view here are about political correctness. Jazi Zilber is arguing that we should have a heading for "Sex differences" while his/her opponents are arguing against this because it is not politically correct.-(diff)) Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: To any admin who deals with this report, I think that the article has a serious Edit Dispute going on, and until the editors above can discuss and get consensus in regards to whether the article has a Neutrality dispute or not, I would recommend that the page be temporarily protected. I also do not think the reported user has done enough reversions to contrevene WP:3RR, but whether they are disruptive tagging the article... that is unclear unless clear evidence can be shown by the reportee that the article has no POV issues with it. GUtt01 (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually there is no serious content dispute presently - there was one over sourcing, but that has been resolved per this section. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • They are now at 3 reverts, following their initial addition. One more and they cross to 4, but they are already clearly edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have not made any edits to the article Neuroticism so I cannot be accused of edit-warring. All I have done is to support Jazi Zilber's view that the heading "Sex differences" should not have been removed. The heading had been in the article since long before the Google memo affair so I don't see how the Google memo can be relevant. Roberttherambler (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: (Context: I have been editing the article and also arguing with Jytdog over the last few days.) I do not find the POV tagging to be disruptive, though I am inclined to disagree with it; I do disapprove of Jytdog unilaterally deciding to remove the tag. What I can say is I am getting the sense that Jytdog does not value the opinion of any other editor other than him/herself. As an example of this, Jytdog claims above that the dispute over MEDRS sourcing is resolved, which I have denied repeatedly on the article talk page. I see a pattern of wikilawyering. After reaching 3(4?)-revert level ([10][11][12][13]), Jytdog's buddy Alexbrn showed up to perform the subsequent revert [14]. Soon they showed up on my talk page asking me to give information about my IP address [15]. Although Jytdog's edits have been a great improvement to the article, I feel he is WP:OWNing the article and tries to maximally escalate policy against any editor who does not act like a perfect robot according to his interpretation of wiki law. This sort of situation is certainly the kind that drains fun and scares off the noobs; I do not know the current wikipedia policy on whether this is considered Good or Bad. --Nanite (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that Jytdog does take things a bit too personally at times and can be combative, but fortunately these issues have been resolved over time even if this combativeness has made getting past initial impressions somewhat difficult. I still do not think Jytdog has exactly made any kind of egregious errors, though if anything I would like to advise Jytdog to keep a more cool head, such as that activity on Nanite's talk page a while back, which I can only see as pointless, but fortunately Jytdog does not make any personal attacks the very foundation of the argument, so I still do not think Jytdog has been acting too out of line. On the other hand, I do not understand how Jazi Zilber's claims can be anything that is founded on policy, since the only thing Jazi Zilber has done so far is make complaints about certain other editors accusing them of political bias, since the basis of Jazi Zilber's assertion, that there should be a specific section header for something, is that it was formerly there and now hidden due to pushing a political agenda, and this is all Jazi Zilber has claimed so far. Given that the whole of Jazi Zilber's claims is founded upon assuming bad faith on the part of the other editors and not upon the reading of reliable sources, I do not see how Jazi Zilber's addition of the POV tag is anything other than simply trying to be combative, and indeed Jazi Zilber's language has been quite combative so far, using words such as "political correctness" and "high-handed" when referring to other editors.--Tosiaki! (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I have suggested edits. TBH, I'm feeling that whatever edit I'll do will be reverted by Jytdog. Unless I'll be fighting a nuclear war, and counting his undos (=never edit war) vs. my etc.
Why would I edit when any suggestion of my is deleted / neglected / states as incorrect / threatened with wikilawyering
You will see I did some edits even here before Jytdog brutal occupation and complete re-editing of the article
Either Jytdog muzzles and threatens and ignores me, or he wants to argue I should do edits. He cannot have it both ways Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Jazi Zilber has mentioned political correctness. It was my interpretation of what he was saying. Roberttherambler (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
My bad for mixing you up with the other editor then. However, I still do not see you making any rationale for edits other than accusing other editors of acting in bad faith. Also, the edits that you made before Jytdog's round of recent ones simply added statements that had no references to them, making me question whether you are familiar with the guidelines for inclusion of content on Wikipedia. In any case, I would like to just let you know that accusing others of making bad edits is not any justification for your own edits.--Tosiaki! (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm familiar with sourcing rules. However sometimes I'll add the party that has multiple sources and look for the links later. Jazi Zilber (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I request that this case be closed because it is based on a false premise. There has been no attempt to add "RECENTIST nonsense" because of the Google memo. What has actually happened is that long-standing content has been removed following the Google memo, in order to play down gender differences. Roberttherambler (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Crveni5 reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

List of Northern Irish supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Crveni5 (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 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC) to 08:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 08:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795246628 by Northamerica1000 (talk)This needs to stop"
    2. 08:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Deletion"
  2. 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795238585 by Northamerica1000 (talk)Either create an entry for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland or delete this article. You can't have it both ways."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of Northern Irish supercentenarians. (TW)"
  2. 08:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Northern Irish supercentenarians. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

This user has now twice restored the Prod template after I deprodded the article. Per WP:PROD, it clearly states, "If anyone, including the creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from a page, do not replace it ..." In addition to restoring the prod template twice, the user added a speedy deletion template, but it had no valid rationale for speedy deletion. North America1000 08:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, the reported user has not done enough to be considered to have begun an Edit War; there are only two reversions here that they did. However, I do agree that they should not have restored the Prod template to the article if it had been objected to and removed, nor added a Speedy Deletion template during their second reversion. @Crveni5: I would suggest that if you believe that the article should be deleted, take the matter to WP:AFD. @Northamerica1000: I am not an Admin, but I would like to state that it's best to report a user for Edit Warring, when there is a clear sign that they are doing so. Two reversions is not enough to make a decent report, so it would been best to have taken this matter to the Administrator Noticeboard for Incidents. GUtt01 (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 Request withdrawn. North America1000 10:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

World in Conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795380402 by Jd22292 (talk) I have gone to talk and as before removing a better version is vandalism. The so called guidelines are just guidelines not rules"
  2. 21:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795379922 by Jd22292 (talk) this one is better, reverting is vandalism so now, the 'guidelines' are just guide lines not ruled. This being better will remain."
  3. 21:32, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795371773 by Jd22292 (talk) it by far a better plot so reverting it vandalism"
  4. 19:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795366652 by Ferret (talk) nor he's edit warring will report this."
  5. 19:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Revert, not overly long and all relevent details, will revert back to this in future."
  6. 19:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 711968078 by Supergodzilla2090 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on World in Conflict. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Plot structure */ new section"

IP had reverted this plotline a year ago, according to Ferret. Back then, no violation of 3RR was present. It has now become obvious that the IP did not break their intent from last year. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment It was a bad assumption on my part that this user is the same one who first made this edit a year ago. However, they've made a clear statement that they will continue to edit war until they get their way, regardless of guidelines, and have violated 3RR now. -- ferret (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: IP is still warring. I have added new evidence. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Garret seems unable to accept any responsibly o his part and this has decended into blame an IP. if you won't let people improve and change things nothing will get done. Farret seems to think just blame the IP' s and as a named user I will be OK. (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts, was warned and continued to edit war. Jd22292, please be careful not to break 3RR yourself with another revert. Kuru (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Has accused me of edit warring on the World in Conflict article accusing me of doing this numerous time. It was the first time I had edited that page. I actually waited till three revert rule had been broken and really only mention it he because of the needles threat. He seems (based on his edit history) to just revert and criticise anyone he disagrees with, particularly IPs. Seems as a auto confirm user may be abusing that fact. (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

You might want to take this case to WP:ANI. AN3 has a specific thread format that needs to be followed, and unfortunately, this post does not follow that format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There's no violation of 3RR here. User is re-adding a large plot addition (Over 700 words), that that was originally added over a year ago. Admittedly, I made an assumption that the IP was the original editor responsible, who edit warred back then, which I apologize for. However, the main reason I left a stern warning was because the IP left an edit note that they would continue to revert and add back the large plot summary, which is an open declaration that they plan to edit war. -- ferret (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I have to state three things here -
  1. This report should have been constructed in the same style as those above. The reportee may want to consider knowing this in future; I don't have anything against you doing so, but you need to give clear evidence of the reported's edits to prove they are in violation of 3RR. Therefore, this whole matter could have been sent to WP:ANI to be handled.
  2. I do wonder if perhaps, that Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style for articles pertaining to Video Games, but then there's the case of whether it'd be adhered to, and if anyone who the patience, time, and so forth to create it.
  3. If the user does intend to Edit War, you may what to show that to an admin. If someone is certainly voicing intentions to Edit War in that manner, it surely shows a sign that their edits will be POV issues. GUtt01 (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: VG guidelines for plot are at WP:VG/CONTENT and are essentially in line with WP:FILMPLOT. I am an admin, but I first gave a warning (admittedly stern) to the IP once they declared their intent to continue reverting. At the time there had been no 3RR violation (And as of this writing, still has not been) so I had not taken any action. At this point, I'll consider myself WP:Involved and allow another to take action, if warranted. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Ferret has two reverts in the last six months. I see one edit war between several users over a year ago, so nothing burning. There's really no reason you can't hash it out on the talk page. Kuru (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Thismightbezach reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 3 months)[edit]

Sebastian Gorka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Thismightbezach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795358345 by Dammitkevin (talk) opinion pieces are reliable sources for opinions according to editor User:Volunteer Marek"
  2. 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795357115 by Dammitkevin (talk) the transcript itself is a reliable source"
  3. 18:43, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795356781 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) added clarity"
  4. 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795349829 by MarkBernstein (talk) posting the actual transcript is not POV pushing"
  5. 14:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)‎ "Undid revision 795359130 by Neutrality (talk) made it more neural"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sebastian Gorka‎. (TW)"

  • This user has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring in the past, as recently as February 24. Neutralitytalk 19:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a short transcript of Gorka's actual words in context to the discussion about the Hungarian Guard . The fact that you want to hide that tells a lot about your agenda. Thismightbezach (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Was User:Volunteer Marek wrong in saying this on the Gorka page?

(cur | prev) 09:18, 12 August 2017‎ User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (51,830 bytes) (-395)‎ . . (opinion pieces are reliable sources for opinions.) (undo | thank)

Thismightbezach (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I've taken a look, and I wonder if the information being added in is conforming to Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. I would suggest that an admin checks over the information they added in, that is clearly being disputed between the reported and the reportee and a number of users (as can be seen in the article's history log). GUtt01 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Clear reverts, well past 3RR and no exception offered. This seems to be a long term pattern with no hint of understanding that minor editorial disputes should be discussed. I don't see the BLP issue, it all looks like partisan talking points to me. Kuru (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:DHSULP reported by User:Umair Aj (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Rani of Jhansi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DHSULP

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff][17]
  2. [diff][18]
  3. [diff][19]
  4. [diff][20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]/[22]

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

This user is also being investigated for sockpuppetry and use of multiple abusive accounts here [23]. Can't be reasoned with as he has violated 3RR. Other editors also warned him here [24]-Umair Aj (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Since 11th August, User:Umair Aj is vandalizing the pages that I have been editing, he is basically stalking by edits, undoing anything I write or edit, just blindly, even if it is just correcting a calendar event. Just notice his contribution history since 11th August, it just follows me. He is not using talk page, no constructive editing, just plain, blind reverts of my edits. DHSULP (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Here the user was warned by an other user, about how illogical his reverts were and he even conceded his mistake, still he is stalking and vandalizing my edits. DHSULP (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I'm a bit concerned over this matter. It seems that both users have been reverting each other's edits; the reported is correct in that the reportee appears to be hounding them on their edits and making blind reverts, yet the reportee is correct in stating that the reported has a sockpuppet investigation against them. I would recommend an admin deals with both users here over what they have been doing. GUtt01 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01:He is the same user who has been blocked for sock puppetry here[25] and emerged with a new name and identity. I must be given some credit for dealing with him and there is no violation on my part as this sock is reverting and violating 3RR most of the times.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Umair Aj: I can't be certain about that, to be honest. But I will say this. If you keep reverting his edits on the basis that he is a sockpuppet, before an admin can check to determine that is the case or not, it won't help your cause. I would suggest leaving him alone, and letting Admins handle this matter. They can determine what to do about him; if you keep reverting his edits, after reporting him, they may take a dim view to your claims of sockpupptery by this user. GUtt01 (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: Well if you are not sure yet then you are trying to be a little tactful here and I see no trouble in that. I will follow your advice and leaving him alone till the time sockpuppetry is not proven but some one has to do something about this user as he has obvious violations of 3RR.-Umair Aj (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@GUtt01: It must be noted that this sockpuppet investigation was started by the reportee himself, since the day he has started stalking my edits. I do not know what is his(User:Umair Aj) issue, but all he does his stalk my edits and my talk page history. His reverts and edits are illogical, pure blind reverts, removing sourced items, just to disrupt. DHSULP (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Neither of you were acting logically here and the only fair result is to block both of you for edit warring. The sockpuppet investigations are a different matter entirely, and will be dealt with subjectively eventually. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

2601:192:8600:1c80:d9a1:711d:f5d1:722f reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: )[edit]

Page: Christiaan Barnard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:192:8600:1c80:d9a1:711d:f5d1:722f (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

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

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

this dynamic IP has repeatedly undone POV removal by both myself and User:Samsara. A google search for the source material only brings up the Wikipedia article. In addition, requested page protection unsuccessfully Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't know why this blanked my comments-I don't do this a lot.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Fyddlestix and User:Rockypedia reported by User:Atsme (Result: Declined.)[edit]

Two editors are involved: User:Fyddlestix User:Rockypedia

I'm including both editors in this one complaint because they appear to be working in unison in a very disruptive and aggressive manner. Their behavior is rather disturbing.

The article that connects everyone is Jared Taylor - the edit summaries will substantiate the connection. It is a very controversial BLP because the man's ideology is vehemently opposed by scores of people, but we still have to follow PAGs, so my focus was on trying to get it compliant with WP:BLP WP:LABEL, and WP:REDFLAG. A very minor edit would have resolved the issue but they chose instead to attack me.

I proposed that the contentious labels not be stated in Wiki voice, and that high quality RS be used with inline text attribution in the lede according to policy. I did not engage in edit warring when the two editors reverted my removal of the contentious material. But those edits are only part of the reason I'm here.

I warned both editors on their respective TP about the BLP violations, and did not engage them in an edit war.

I called for an RfC, and added a list of sources in my comment section to support my proposal.

Fyddlestick reverted the sources from my comment section in the RfC:

  • 1st one here, which I replaced.
  • Again here edit summary states: ("wrongful removal" my ass, I merely moved this response to someone else's comment to Threaded Discussion, where it belongs (and has since been replied to). We don't need to read the same wall of text twice.)

I reverted because it is part of my comment in the RfC and removal of it is unacceptable as it is an attempt to wrongfully influence the RfC. I did strike some duplicates in the discussion section at the bottom of the page which is what he termed as repetitive.

Rockypedia reverted it again - removed it from my comment section in the RfC in an attempt to influence the !vote: Tag team revert. They're working together and may even be one in the same for all I know.

If that wasn't enough, Rockypedia, started trolling me in unison with Fyddlestick's disruption at Taylor. He went over to Clinton-Lynch_tarmac_meeting, an article I recently created and was still working on, and reverted large blocks of text in retaliation as evidenced by his edit summary.

  • First revert here stating in the edit summary (removed the POV crap only supported by an editor currently engaged in campaign to whitewash the white supremacists's Jared Taylor article. He's not neutral.) I reverted his edit and he sent me a thank you notice as if to dare me into an edit war. I reverted his vandalism.
  • He reverted me again.

He also retaliated on my TP, claiming that my warning about his BLP violations were "veiled threats"...

Something has to be done about these two editors and their highly disruptive editing because they will keep reverting and disrupting unless they are stopped. It's borderline scary. Atsme📞📧 02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Add another note in response to Fyddlestix ludicrous claim about me altering a date stamp. To begin, I wouldn't know how - just the other day, I had to get help from another editor to show me how to fix the time in my sig, so I don't know what he's talking about or if it even matters. Diversion. Atsme📞📧 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've struck that claim with my apologies. It was a misunderstanding: the timestamps did change but it looks like it was because Atsme's browser displays UTC - 5, and they copy pasted that over the original (UTC) stamp. Rest assured I feel really stupid for not having realized this before. Again, my apologies. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
There's about a dozen veiled threats that you've made against multiple editors on the Jared Taylor talk page. Meanwhile, your completely off-the-wall assertions are being rejected in a non-neutral RfC that you started, and you don't like it, so you're seeking some revenge here. I don't think that will work, as anyone that looks at the Jared Taylor talk page for even a few minutes will see who's actually being disruptive. Rockypedia (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sigh. OK, I moved a comment from the "Survey" to the "Threaded Discussion" section of an RFC. Perhaps this was over-bold, but it is a common practice and it was done in good faith, in attempt to keep everyone's !votes and their replies to others' comments separate (and sequential). Atsme later copy-pasted their original comment back, but left a duplicate of the same material below, while also separating their comment from (and placing it far above) replies that people had since written in response to it. Even if my original move had been a bad idea (which I don't concede), this struck me as vastly more disruptive so removed the duplicate material, re-pairing the post with the replies.
That's it - one move of a comment and one revert. I will happily apologize for the grumpy edit summary, and for any offense caused. But this is hardly edit warring. Both edits were made in good faith, and in an attempt to keep the RFC intelligible and minimize disruption.
For a fuller explanation please read this and note that Atsme has been altering datestamps on their own posts as part of this kerfuffle. (Struck this both here and there, the stamps changed but it was unintentional & I should not have assumed that bad faith. My sincere apologies to Atsme, I'll see myself out... ) Fyddlestix (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey Atsme. It is traditional for people reporting editwarring to supply diffs of the alleged violations so that drive by editors can easily see what is going on, just like Rockypedia has in the report below this. What do you say? -Roxy the dog. bark 10:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I'm surprised to see Atsme suggesting that two experienced editors "may even be one in the same for all I know". Usually we only get that kind of silliness from new users, and it does you no favours, User:Atsme. And did you really refer to calling Jared Taylor a white supremacist (which is ridiculously well-sourced) as "a blatant BLP violation"[27]? BLP violations are always serious, but claiming BLP vios isn't magic pixie dust. Frivolous report, which is only tenuously connected with edit warring of any kind and not in the required format. Please don't misuse our boards. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

User:Mogomaniac reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: The Shield (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mogomaniac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [29]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

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

Comments: User moved page with no discussion,which had to be moved back, then edit warred, then made personal attacks in summary. User was warned by another user for violating 3rr yet they still edited the article again anyway. Pretty sure I violated 3rr myself, which I stopped editting the article once I realized I may have so if the hammer needs to be swung my way then so be it. Judging by users other contributions in the last week or so edit warring without discussing on talks and personal attacks towards users are frequent. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 05:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. As Mogomaniac has been blocked several times previously, escalating. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr Brand reported by User:BlackCab (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Spring Hill Fair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr Brand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]
  5. [39]
  6. [40]
  7. [41]
  8. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43][[44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Spring Hill Fair#Lindy Morrison / Jon Brand claims and user page talk at User talk:Mr Brand#Spring Hill Fair and User talk:Mr Brand#Conflict of Interest

Editor says he is the son of a record producer referred to in the article and is repeatedly removing a claim about the producer contained in a solidly researched biog first published in 1997 and updated and republished in 2003 with the same claim. Discussion has been started on both the article talk page and user talk page; editor persists in removing the claim, saying it is false and defamatory and says he "will continue to delete this every time you put it back up". [45]

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for a period of 24 hours. Go and slog it out on the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Three editors believe the article is fine as is. One editor keeps reverting and has declared his intention to keep doing so. I'm not sure another 24 hours will make much of a difference here. BlackCab (TALK) 10:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Four. Roxy the dog. bark 10:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
The get out clause I'm offering to Mr Brand here is a potential Wikipedia:3RRBLP, plus he has used the talk page. Plus I'm keeping an eye on the conversation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Philotam reported by User:Bastun (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page: Anthony Bailey (PR advisor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Philotam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14 August, 11:16
  2. 14 August, 12:30
  3. 15 August, 10:39
  4. 15 August, 10:51
  5. 15 August, 11:07

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15 August, 11:08

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14 August, 12:13


User is insistant on adding the title "Princess" to someone who is a citizen of a republic, against consensus. User has been reverted by Edwardx, Roxy the dog, and me, thus far. As MOS:HONORIFIC notes, "the inclusion of some honorific prefixes and styles is controversial", and consensus should be reached to introduce a courtesy title for someone who isn't even the subject of the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing reported by User:Twitbookspacetube (Result: No violation)[edit]

2017 Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
GoldenRing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795468237 by Twitbookspacetube (talk) Four editors in half an hour does not make consensus and the violation is clear - do we really need to take this to AE?"
  2. 11:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795462686 by WWGB (talk) As this has been challenged per BLPCRIME it requires consensus to re-add"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) to 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    1. 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ Remove details per WP:BLPCRIME"
    2. 11:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Vehicular attack on counterprotesters */ more details per BLPCRIME"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


The reason I am bringing this here so quickly is because an admin is willfully misinterpreting policies and attempting to use intimidation tactics to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion and get their way. Twitbookspacetube 12:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 12:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't see why this shouldn't be discussed at the article talk before coming here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The edits I have made are removing the name of someone who has recently been charged with crimes and is not known to the public for anything else. This seems to me a clear violation of BLPCRIME. As the material had been challenged on BLP grounds, the editor who reverted my removal ought not to have done so but ought to have started a discussion on the talk page - which I did for him. Twitbookspacetube decided that thirty-seven minutes was enough discussion to declare that consensus is on his side and revert again - and now he has reverted yet again despite having started this report here. GoldenRing (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @El C: would you consider a boomerang here? Twitbookspacetube was already at 4RR ([47] [48] [49] [50]) before this kicked off - they're now at 9 ([51] [52] [53] [54] [55]). GoldenRing (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at this--but GoldenRing, here and here and here they are obviously reverting vandalism, for which we should thank them. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Seriously, I looked at all the ones you listed; one of the users reverted by Twitbook is already indef-blocked as a vandal, and this is one from your first list. There is no way in which I'm going to add this to any list of bad edits, so that leaves only five. Nor am I convinced that this should count: there is no way that there will ever be agreement for that edit, which by way of a fairly typical false equivalency lumps everything together--needless to say this is also not verified by the sources, though I admit I've read only one single Breitbart article today. I can fault Twitbook for a silly username and for not appropriately summarizing their edit, but for those edits from your list that I singled out, no. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. As far as I can tell Twitbook has added that content three times. You have removed it five times--but you have invoked the BLP, an argument that doesn't give you carte blance but, as I like to say, we should always stay on the conservative side of the BLP. A fourth revert you listed that I haven't yet discussed is this, which I wish they had explained--but it's minor and one can argue that the unexplained removal of valid sourced content is vandalism (I also wish you hadn't listed those obvious vandalism reverts here--they do not make your case look good). So I certainly don't see a need for any block right now. The validity of this content is, of course, dependent on consensus at BLPN and the talk page; and I am assuming for both of you that there was no consensus while this back and forth was going on. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Fair call. That really leaves their three reversions of BLP-challenged material; clearly disruptive (IMO) but not a 3RR violation. GoldenRing (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure--thanks. I will say that a lack of edit summaries doesn't help, nor does bringing this case. Well, I just commented at the ARE thread; let's see how that goes. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, as I mentioned here, Twitbookspacetube is subject to a 1RR restriction. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's not good then--they deserve a block, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • User:EdJohnston, it is clear that the Twitbook editor violated a 1R restriction, but by now this is really yesterday's news. I'm asking you as an experienced denizen of this board--do we block for an edit warring violation if it happened one or two days ago and required this much discussion? I'll note also that the editor reported here in some bad faith; they knew they were themselves under a restriction. Separately there's a request at WP:ARE, but I'm wondering if you'd block for edit warring on the basis of this report, regardless of what sanction may come out of the other report. And if your answer is "yes", please go ahead and do it, and close this affair. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: Page Protected; Both blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]
  4. [61]
  5. [62]
  6. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

This is the same anon IP, continuing to edit war after he reverted 18+ different edits of mine, many of them including sourced material; the reversions removed the sources as well. See the previous reverts by this IP and the warning issued here. Rockypedia (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel that this addition by the IP in the discussion below deserves attention: "I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted." This is in reference to the 18+ edits where he removed sources and the sourced info that I had added to the article over hours of work. Rockypedia (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Hours of work? What, do you type half a word per minute? Also, after I removed your edits, you were supposed to discuss the changes on the talk page, which you didn't do, because you think you're above WP:Cycle rules. (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Even more recently, this edit further illustrates this IP's mission to make disruptive edits. The edit labeled Ayaan Hirsi Ali "an anti-Muslim extremist" in the lead paragraph. It was immediately reverted by another editor. Rockypedia (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so using the same source you insisted was a WP:RS for labeling Jared Taylor a white supremacist is "disruptive" when it involves labeling Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do tell. (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I implore you, take a look at who has been doing the "edit-warring" as of late, not to mention falsely accusing me of being a "sockpuppet" account simply because he doesn't like me. I have been using the talk page and providing perfectly relevant, sourced material, yet Rockypedia apparently thinks he is not only above the rules of wikipedia, but has the authority to decide what can and can not go on a page simply because he registered an account. When I reverted his stuff in the past, he was making several successive edits (not in good faith) simply to make it impossible for me to revert his deletion of my edits without reverting his as well...and then he claimed "edit warring." I guess such trickery is to be expected from someone who knows his way around wikipedia. Recently, I have only reverted things where he blindly reverted me and refused to discuss on the talk page/claimed consensus where there wasn't, or when he restored something that I had removed because it was unsourced (and gave the reason for). I also encourage you to take into consideration the fact that he first appeared on the Terrell Owens article on July 30th, 2017, following me over from the Jared Taylor talk page (I never made a single edit on the Jared Taylor page because it doesn't allow IPs to make edits), and all he did at the time was revert all of my edits, NOBODY ELSE'S, and he didn't return until August 4th. The evidence clearly shows he had no interest in improving the article, he only checked my contributions history to delete what I wrote out of spite. He would never have returned to the article had I not restored the stuff he removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
As before, there's a lot of lies in the above paragraph. First off, I did look at the IP's edits, as I often do when I see any user pushing POV like he was doing at the Jared Taylor talk page (namely, arguing that Taylor is not a white supremacist). When I saw that the additions to the Owens page were not sourced, I researched them, edited some (and added sources), and removed others that I could not find sources for. Meanwhile, the page had a lot of unsourced material, and I started to work through that and add sources, deleting some material again that wasn't supported anywhere. So it's a lie that I only focused on this IP's edits. I added a lot of work to that page. Rockypedia (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Once again, I ask that you check the Terrell Owens article history. Rockypedia popped in on July 30, 2017, to remove only my edits, nobody else's. He was nowhere to be found on the article in the next 5 days. It was only when I restored what he had reverted on August 4th, 2017, that he appeared again, and then he made a bunch of successive edits so that I could not undo his revert without undoing the successive edits. You should also look at how he persisted in telling me reliable sources - in which there was consensus for - were not reliable sources. And while it's off-topic, he is also misrepresenting what occurred on the Jared Taylor talk page. I argued Taylor can not be proven to be a white supremacist because there is nothing to show he has ever espoused views fitting the dictionary (nor wikipedia) definition of the term, and I think common sense dictates the sources calling him this are unreliable for making this kind of claim when looked at in context. (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
18 reversions here, many of them removing reliable sources, and 6 more reported here. I let that evidence stand for itself. Rockypedia (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
So because of that, I'm banned from ever again removing content, even when it is justified? I already explained why I was doing the reverts in the past. I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted; I was only trying to get to the edits which I had made, which you removed, in order to restore them. (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
"I wasn't even looking at the majority of the edits I reverted" - well, does that sound like someone we want editing Wikipedia? Rockypedia (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
1. It was obvious to me you weren't adding edits on "good faith," but rather to make it more difficult for me to restore my edits, since you wanted nothing to do with the article until I restored the content you had spitefully removed. 2. I wasn't aware of the 3RR rule at the time. "We don't want people who aren't part of our clique editing a website designed to be publicly edited." (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Action by Admin: An admin has looked into this matter, and has done the following:
  1. The page has been given temporary protection for a few days.
  2. Both users were blocked for 24 hours, due to ignoring previous warnings about edit-warring; the admin had protected the page before, in the hopes that both the reportee and reported could debate on the matter.
The reportee has recently admitted to handling their behaviour with the reported poorly, and has taken in this moment as a learning experience. I hope the reported chooses to behave better, and not act in this way as well. GUtt01 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Kjelltyrid reported by User:Ukpong1 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Henrik Steffens Professor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kjelltyrid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "rv vandalism/false template with fictitious claim about "duplicate article""
  2. 23:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795702610 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
  3. 23:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 795693417 by Ukpong1 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:59, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Speedy deletion nomination of Henrik Steffens Professor */ new section"
  2. 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
  3. 23:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Henrik Steffens Professor. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User has repeatedly removed speedy deletion template upon being warned. Zazzysa (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There's A LOT more to this than just that... Kjelltyrid isn't the only one edit warring here. Several users have been edit warring at WP:AIV while filing and erasing reports made for each other. First, Adam9007 filed an WP:AIV report for User:Kjellyrid, then Kjellyrid followed up with an AIV report for Adam9007. Adam reverted Kjellyrid's AIV report, which was then followed by Coldandspicy deleting Kjellyrid's report for Adam9007, which was reverted again, and again, and again. I don't know if edit warring (filing and deleting reports made for each other) constitutes as edit warring/3RR or not, but this was clearly not the correct way to handle the situation. Although the user filing this report, Zazzysa was not directly involved in the whole WP:AIV edit war, this is probably something that should be looked into further. Thanks. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, both me and Coldandspicy thought it was vandalism, which is usually dealt with by reverting. Adam9007 (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Kjelltyrid was just blocked for 36 hours by Oshwah. 2601:1C0:10B:7D6D:19FC:80A1:3B49:6D26 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User: (IP hopper) reported by User:Laszlo Panaflex (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: History of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP hopper - please see page revision history

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]
  5. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Impossible, different addresses used for each

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History_of_India#Reversion_of_Maestro2016


This page has a large number of edits by one or more IP hoppers. They frequently display edit warring and ownership tendencies. In this instance, the user advised an editor to discuss the changes at the talk page. After the discussion above was opened, the IP continues to revert (#4-5) and has still not addressed the question of their objection in the talk page discussion. Page protection or logged only status should be considered. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Apparently the same user has been edit warring at Maratha Empire (rev hist). Both these pages have now been protected by Oshwah. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The user has been active at this account for a while now. They have responded to the talk page discussion, but only to make accusations against other editors, while offering no substantive reason for their reversions. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected for 3 months Swarm 06:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

User: reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Stale)[edit]

Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (