Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive350

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Jkool380 reported by User:PureRED (Result: EC protected)[edit]

Page
ExtraTorrent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jkool380 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799291095 by 45.115.104.229 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC) "/* What is the actual domain name for this website? */ new section"
Comments:

I have reason to believe this user is the registered account for 45.115.104.229 who is involved in a edit war with 64.58.202.4 which may use Kanivi13 as their registered account.

I have warned both IP users already, but there is some extensive edit warring going on. PureRED | talk to me | 20:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Article extended confirmed protected for two months. This will exclude the warring IPs as well as any newly-registered socks, but everyone can still participate on the talk page. This has the air of being a dispute among insiders. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: I may have inadvertently violated 3RR, although based on my edits I believe only two of my edits (see below) were materially the same (see bolded entries from edit history), although I may be mistaken. Quis separabit? 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • 20:18, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+116)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (updated)
  • 20:14, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+137)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (restored factual claims from Lady Colin Campbell's almost 500 page, footnoted and expansive book, published by St Martin's Press)
  • 20:07, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+232)‎ . . Talk:Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (→‎Date/place of birth)
  • 20:05, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (broken wikilink fixed)
  • 20:04, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-48)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (c/e)
  • 20:03, 5 September 2017 (diff | hist) . . (-150)‎ . . Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother ‎ (rv censorship)

Also, I wished to discuss the issue on the article talk page and left two messages to that effect on @DrKay's talk page, which were basically rebuffed, it should be noted (see [8]). Quis separabit? 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted to a version from 1st September. Even though the 3RR violation just happened now the actual content that was disputed was in the edit made a few days ago. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Rms125a@hotmail.com could normally be blocked for the 3RR violation. In my opinion he can avoid this if he will agree to make no more edits of any kind at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother until a consensus is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I have already stopped editing this article and have removed it from my watchlist. I may take part in talk page discussions, however, if any other editors weigh in or if any new ground is broken. Quis separabit? 17:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The above seems to promise you will never edit the article again. Is that how you want to leave it? It would be simpler to agree to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston -- No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by @Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia (see [9]). I just don't see myself editing it again any time soon, too many headaches. But I am not signing in blood that I'll never edit that page again, i.e. new edits, not rehashing the ones involved herein. It doesn't make sense to foreclose on any options. Quis separabit? 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, @Emir of Wikipedia -- just a question. I am not trying to be a sleazoid backing out of anything and I already acknowledged that I might have violated 3RR, but do bold changes based on valid sources -- i.e. the book about the Queen Mother by Lady Colin Campbell -- such as here and here -- toll against 3RR? Just wondering.───────────────────────── And if I ever do resume editing the article and wish to restore said sourced editing (albeit not by removing anything extant) -- will adding or updating footnotes going over the same territory which comprised the edits being reported here as 3RR be a problem? Quis separabit? 17:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)───────────────────────── NOTE: this message was left before I read the most recent comments on my talk page by @EdJohnston: I don't mean to be vague -- it's hard to predict the future. Is what you are trying to say, Ed, that I am free to edit the article excepting the issues surrounding place and date (which Lady Campbell states was 3 August not 4 August) of birth, which are what triggered this entire issue? Obviously if I am prohibited from making those edits, however reliably sourced, and not be blocked, and being prohibited from making the same edits and still being blocked, then it's a no brainer. Quis separabit? 17:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
This is no longer an acceptance of my original offer (which requires you to wait for consensus before editing the article again), nor does it guarantee an end to the war, so I'm planning to go ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
So be it but I did state specifically (see above) "No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by @Bmclaughlin9 by @Emir of Wikipedia". I have not touched the article since 20:39, 5 September 2017‎. ─────────────────────────
Perhaps you didn't notice the comment in italics I just referenced given the admitted verbosity and clutter above (sorry about that, just trying to express myself), but let's be fair. @Emir of Wikipedia -- what is your opinion here? Was my comment regarding accepting the talk page consensus unclear somehow? Also, it is not my responsibility to come up with "an enforceable decision"; it is my responsibility to either contest it or adhere to it, IMO. Quis separabit? 18:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC) ───────────────────────── I thought your comment meant that you would not make an edit until their is a talkpage consensus, not that you are banning yourself from ever editing the article again. Bold changes do count against 3RR because you are meant to discuss them as per WP:BRD if they are contested, but if an editor reverts you then they should try to discuss it with you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)───────────────────────── @Emir of Wikipedia: "Bold changes do count against 3RR because you are meant to discuss them as per WP:BRD if they are contested, but if an editor reverts you then they should try to discuss it with you." -- But I twice contacted him on his talk page and was rebuffed; DrKay made no effort to discuss except to dismiss the reliably sourced position and rebuffed my efforts. Quis separabit? 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)───────────────────────── @Emir of Wikipedia: "I thought your comment meant that you would not make an edit until their is a talkpage consensus, not that you are banning yourself from ever editing the article again" -- What you just said is just what I did mean!! Quis separabit? 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC) ───────────────────────── Look I will serve a block if I deserve one but there seems to be a failure to clearly communicate on someone's part here (what the hell, let's say it's me) and perhaps you can translate, because @EdJohnston stated:

"This is no longer an acceptance of my original offer (which requires you to wait for consensus before editing the article again)"

However, that is precisely what I thought I said (see above; very cluttered I know):

<blockquote>:::::::::::[[User:EdJohnston|@EdJohnston]] -- No, I will wait for the consensus but if you are referring to the thread on the article talk page, there are no new comments being left, so I assume the consensus was the rolling back of edits to the last one by [[User:Bmclaughlin9|@Bmclaughlin9]] by [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|@Emir of Wikipedia]] (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_Elizabeth_The_Queen_Mother&diff=799144318&oldid=798394281]). I just don't see myself editing it again any time soon, too many headaches. But I am not signing in blood that I'll never edit that page again, i.e. new edits, not rehashing the ones involved herein. It doesn't make sense to foreclose on any options. [[User:Rms125a@hotmail.com|<font color="orange">'''''Quis separabit?'''''</font>]] 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)</blockquote> Quis separabit? 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. I did make an offer that would allow you to avoid a block. You declined to accept the exact language I proposed, but offered something else. Your alternative didn't meet my requirements, so I'm going ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: is this block really preventative? The user doesn't appear to be edit warring anymore. AlexEng(TALK) 22:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The user can be unblocked if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. They seemed reluctant to speak in those terms, for reasons which aren't entirely clear. It appeared they were reserving the right to keep reverting in the future, even if they couldn't persuade anyone else that their changes were correct. EdJohnston (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
You're right; the language did seem kind of evasive to my eyes. I think there was some confusion about whether you were suggesting he agree to a blanket ban on all edits to the article that have not yet been approved by consensus on the talk page (in essence, turning it into a protected page for him) or if he would be narrowly banned from edits concerning the subject of the edit war on that page without first establishing consensus. AlexEng(TALK) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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


Previous version reverted to: first diff 23:24, 30 August 2017, edit note sources do not say he "ran as an establishment Republican", conform to sources. Incorrect edit note (see below). Removed content about Gillepsie originally running as establishment candidate and then taking on a Trump advisor later. The edit also left the content reading According to the New York Times, Gillespie's has been largely focused on economic issues rather social issues... Gillespie's.... what?

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 02:49, 31 August 2017 , again removed content about Trump advisor, added quote about "creature" - see below.
  2. diff 04:48, 6 September 2017; restored edits above, mostly.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section and section

Comments:

Article is about a candidate for governor in Virginia; it has been on my watchlist for a while due to COI problems in the past.

Instaurare showed up a while ago and made their first dif with the wrong edit note noted above. (source says "A top aide in President George W. Bush’s administration, Mr. Gillespie, 55, is very much a creature of the pre-Trump, establishment wing of his party".) In that same diff, they also removed content about Gillepsie choosing a former Trump advisor to advise him.. which is a change of course. And also left the content a bit mangled. The latter not that big a deal..

And of course, after I provided the quote on the Talk page, they ran with the "creature" thing, which is a ridiculously POV thing to do in an article about a politician in a current race. And then added back this BLP violation after it was removed. This editor has no business editing this carelessly about politics and living people. Jytdog (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – This article is not under WP:1RR. Unclear what the BLP violation is supposed to consist of. This looks like a disagreement about nuances; people don't agree on how to best summarize the sources. If Gillespie did hire Jack Morgan (as stated by the Washington Post in August) that is worth considering for inclusion in the article. Please use WP:Dispute resolution if opinions differ on this. EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:58.169.197.56 reported by User:Andrei Stroe (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Romania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.169.197.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/799230188
  2. Special:Diff/799238267
  3. Special:Diff/799239889
  4. Special:Diff/799245689

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Romania#Qz.com_article_as_a_source

Comments:
It is the anon that asked others to talk, but when the talk was initiated, s/he kept reverting. - Andrei (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Reported IP was not warned of violating WP:3RR, and was not notified of this report. I have done so. GABgab 17:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected two months. Besides the IP named here who broke 3RR, there is another IP from 176.59.* who is committing plain vandalism on the article from a fluctuating address. EdJohnston (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Bobbysev1 reported by User:Geogene (Result: Blocked, protected)[edit]

Page: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bobbysev1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15], [16], [17], [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Article is under 1RR

Comments My initial 1RR warning was premature because it was ClueBot they were reverting. However, they reverted me and then went on to revert two other human users in quick succession. This article is very controversial and was under page protection until recently. Geogene (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Procedural close requested. Already blocked by Acroterion. Geogene (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've also restored ECP, since it expired two days ago. Acroterion (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Borja1986 reported by User:Lescandinave (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Social Party of National Unity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Colombian Conservative Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Colombian Liberal Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Borja1986 (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 on Social Party of National Unity:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Colombian Conservative Party :

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]
  4. [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Colombian Liberal Party :

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]


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

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

Comments:
The user removed also information and references on other page : Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and Greek–Turkish relations.

The user wasn't notified; I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Borja1986 is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without discussion. Since they never post on talk pages it is hard to tell what they are up to. This was a particularly strange edit since it added a comparison of Germany to Japan inside an infobox and had an edit summary claiming to be reverting false information. They also mark nearly all their edits as minor, which may suggest a particular sock. I wonder if User:Lescandinave is aware that World Net Daily (which they added as a reference) has a poor reputation as a source. EdJohnston (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Glennconti reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: No block)[edit]

Page
Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Glennconti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799356477 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) I am proposing that this article is biased and I am soliciting comment."
  2. 05:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799354910 by Volunteer Marek (talk)My comment has everything to do with this article. I believe NPOV is being subverted in this article."
  3. 05:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799354205 by Sro23 (talk)I am soliciting comments about SPLC and the methods used by other editors on this article."
  4. 05:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799353575 by Volunteer Marek (talk) My Million Dollar bet was just won that you would repress my speech!!!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "/* WP:NOTFORUM */ new section"
  2. 05:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Does anyone else see a pattern here? */ Hatting as unproductive."
  2. 05:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Making thinly-veiled personal attacks and claiming that other editors want to "scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas out of the encyclopedia" is unproductive and not founded in policy."
  3. 05:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC) "Logging out doesn't give you extra reverts."
Comments:

Reverting the hatting of an unproductive WP:NOTFORUM post on the talk page which basically argues that all the article's editors have a liberal bias and are censoring conservative views. Also likely to be this IP, which conveniently showed up instantly to continue the revert war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if the IP is the same person as Glennconti, but that IP is the same as the one that was ... "leaving strange comments on" User:GoldenRing's talk page [32]. Volunteer Marek  06:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
This is rich. Editors are suppressing me from discussion on the Talk page.Glennconti (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Thanks for putting words in my mouth and accusing me of sock puppetry too. Glennconti (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to open a new discussion, but you need to read the talk page guidelines for Wikipedia. Your personal views about Wikipedia or belief that the project has a "bias" are not suitable topics for discussion on an article talk page. You should discuss those issues at the Village Pump or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. Claiming that editors desire to "scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas out of the encyclopedia" is unhelpful soapboxing and bordering on a personal attack, which is similarly unwanted on article talk pages. You are welcome to discuss specific proposed improvements you think would make the article about the SPLC better, and you are welcome to suggest sources which, if included, would improve the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, but please stop putting words in my mouth and attaching claims to me or trying to figure out my personal beliefs. You realize my comment and request for comments was hatted in less than 15 minutes of posting. Of what are you terrified? Glennconti (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not about being "terrified," it's about preventing an inappropriate, unproductive digression from the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. The SPLC article talk page is, as I have repeatedly said, not a forum for you to discuss Wikipedia. I have not put any words in your mouth; to the contrary, I directly quoted your post. Ok, so we all know the main stream media is biased against conservative ideologies. Professors and educational institutions are too. This is wonderful. Here's the plan: We bash any sources that represent conservative viewpoints as not reliable and we just parrot the liberal ideologies as the only valid ones. We need many Wikipedians that have a liberal bias to get on board with the game plan and block any conservative thought out of the encyclopedia. In this way, we can totally subvert WP:NPOV and we can hide behind WP:RS. Further, we can revert any and all conservative ideas as soon as we see them. Then we accuse the original editor of edit warring. Brilliant!! Sprinkle in some Ad Hominem too. Now go forth and use this plan to scrub any and all conservative or libertarian ideas the hell out of this encyclopedia! That is trolling, not initiating good-faith discussion of article improvement. You are welcome to do the latter; you are not welcome to do the former, and so it was hatted by three different users. Are you interested in good-faith engagement and article improvement, or are you interested in trolling? The choice is yours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There were also editors in support of my comments and against your hatting of my comments on the Talk page. I think a very productive discussion as concerns SPLC might have happened had my comments not been immediately hidden. Glennconti (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Also why are you abbreviating what I said in your excerpt? Glennconti (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If you actually think that the additional lines that I snipped for brevity makes your comment any more relevant or appropriate for an article talk page (hint: it doesn't), I'll happily include them. They simply further confirm that your post is soapboxing and not directed toward improving the SPLC article. It cites no sources, suggests no article improvements and, in fact, does not even mention the subject of the article. It's just a rant, and the article talk page is not a place to rant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This was a (frankly) irritating rant that just wasted my time, the edit war over it's inclusion (And the resorting to sock puppetry) is really poor. The user clearly hereto "improve" them project by forcing it to conform to his ideology and I think is not going to be productive (As the time wasted over this demonstrates).Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for take the time to look into this. Your conclusion that I sock puppeted is erroneous though. And I am not the one who wasted time running to administrators. Glennconti (talk) 08:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It is odd that an IP showed up to make the self same reverts, was this not you?
It certainly was not me! 6 editors made edits including myself over a very brief period of time. 3 were against me "Talking" and 3 (including myself) were supportive.Glennconti (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Then I withdraw the accusation, you have denied it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I understand that my edit to the Talk page, while designed to be thought provoking, covered too broad a subject and was not specific enough about the article. This was an error on my part. I do however believe that given some time, many specific suggestions concerning the article would have been forthcoming. But, we will never know. I apologize for all the time spent on this subject too. Glennconti (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC) Further, I have definitely learned my lesson (that the 3RR also applies to any wiki page including Talk pages) and will not break the 3RR again.Glennconti (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your coming to that understanding, and with that, I think this can be closed without further ado. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK let's close this then. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Mavriksfan11 reported by User:Icewhiz (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Council on American–Islamic Relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mavriksfan11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Comments:

Concurrent to the reverts of a few editors, there is a also discussion on-going under the talk section "RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"" which is not a properly formatted RFC.

Beyond the 3RR violation, looking at Mavriksfan11's contributions (particularly after returning from a wiki-break that started in 2013) they are mainly limited to Muslim Brotherhood, Council on American–Islamic Relations, and Fiqh Council of North America. The few edits to other articles seem to be mainly regarding Islam/Islamist/Sharia/CAIR/ISNA/Brotherhood (e.g. [40]). Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the accused and pretty new to this. I mostly edit the pages the accuser listed above and I think you'll find all my edits are orderly. As for the 3RR, didn't know there's such a thing. My bad. But I have requested every time for people to come to the Talk Page and discuss this section and its existence on the page as there are other users than just me who believe it is not relevant and misleading and have specific reasons for saying so which we outlined very carefully and in detail in the Talk Page. Still, the accusing user and another user have gone on and reverted the section back onto the page again and again, ignoring requests to explain why it should be reinstated on the talk page before taking action. However is the better way to resolve this dispute, I am all for it.Mavriksfan11 (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I will note that I commented extensively on the talk page, and my reading is that Mavriksfan11 position is not quite supported as he states here - though there is a discussion on-going concurrent to this edit-warring.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you willing to try WP:3 to resolve this? Mavriksfan11 (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Mavriksfan11, you should self-revert your last edit to the page; if you violated 3RR because you didn't know the rule, reverting your own edit would help demonstrate your good faith and your understanding of the rule going forward. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I will do so. But how should we resolve this issue? We both have conflicting claims, and there are users which want to see it removed and kept up... Mavriksfan11 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Mavriksfan11: Check out WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Icewhiz: User was never warned via {{subst:uw-ew}} or {{subst:uw-3rr}}. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
His talk is empty, you are correct. In my defense, this is a 2011 account, and in his edit summaries he called on other editors to go to the talk page - Go to the talk section and lay out your reasons there, other editors have supported its removal., We posted our reasons for deleting this section in the talk page. Go there and respond to those in a reasoned manner if you want it reinstated., No editor of this page came out against it in the RFC on talk page for 8 months. If you wish to revert, go to talk page., Section has been removed in conjunction with agreement on the talk page. If you wish to see it put back please go to the Talk Page section entitled: 'RFC: Removing "Funding Request for Muslim Peace Foundation from Muammar Qaddafi"' and comment there.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale I see Mavriksfan11 self-reverted, so he's obviously trying not to get 3RR blocked. You'll have to continue discussions on talk. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

List of State and Local Politicians Convicted of Crimes[edit]

Extended content

Please forgive me. Is this the right place for a 3r / war edit battle? The article has been paralyzed and I see Blocked Editors are involved.

18:32, 2 September 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (261,538 bytes) (-6,349)‎ 17:07, 2 September 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (262,429 bytes) (-5,458)‎ 10:26, 1 September 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (265,414 bytes) (-2,473)

20:14, 31 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (266,919 bytes) (-968)‎ 17:05, 31 August 2017‎ Caltropdefense (talk | contribs)‎ . . (267,381 bytes) (+1,032)

16:57, 31 August 2017‎ Caltropdefense (talk | contribs)‎ . . (265,691 bytes) (+1,050)‎ 13:06, 31 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (262,789 bytes) (-1,050)

15:59, 26 August 2017‎ Hmains (talk | contribs)‎ . . (262,484 bytes) (+1,032) 17:34, 25 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (261,452 bytes) (-1,032)‎

09:53, 24 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (260,908 bytes) (-1,032)‎ . . (Not convicted by a court) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:53, 24 August 2017‎ JimmyJoe87 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (261,940 bytes) (-544)‎ . . (→‎California) (undo) (cur | prev) 23:37, 22 August 2017‎ Elginina17 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (262,484 bytes) (+1,031)‎

03:55, 4 August 2017‎ Hmains (talk | contribs)‎ . . (263,405 bytes) (+8,652)‎ . . (no reason for deletion of cited text) (undo) 08:34, 3 August 2017‎ 82.132.227.46 (talk)‎ . . (254,753 bytes) (-518)‎ BLOCKED EDITOR

(cur | prev) 17:15, 21 July 2017‎ 80.2.141.56 (talk)‎ . . (256,530 bytes) (-839)‎ . . (→‎Kentucky) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:03, 20 July 2017‎ Valleyjc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (257,369 bytes) (+839)‎ . . (→‎Kentucky: Kyle Tasker guilty of sex and drug charges) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:41, 13 July 2017‎ 193.63.97.34 (talk)‎ . . (256,297 bytes) (-1,367)‎ . . (→‎Florida) (undo) (cur | prev) 19:42, 12 July 2017‎ Valleyjc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (257,664 bytes) (+1,371)‎ . . (→‎1990–1999: Couch added)

(cur | prev) 10:40, 23 May 2017‎ 82.132.216.232 (talk)‎ . . (251,564 bytes) (-547)‎ . . (Not elected) (undo) (Tags: section blanking, Mobile edit, Mobile web edit) BLOCKED EDITOR undo)



[[User:]] reported by User:Caltropdefense (Result: )[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|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]

Comments:

Whatever is going on here appears to be in reference to this article and this editor (notified). In case someone wants to look into it. Does appear that they have a long non-3RR breaching string of reverting others, possibly with BLP implications. TimothyJosephWood 19:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I've made sure that all the edits I have added have been sourced so that the may be included. The other edits I have done are when I have removed the names of people who are already listed, are listed in the Federal politicians convicted of crimes page (for example Members of Congress), where they are not elected politicians or where they have not been convicted (including due to death or suicide) JimmyJoe87 (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
JimmyJoe87: When you revert a substantial edit, it's generally considered good form to address the issue on the article's talk page, especially if you are reverting something you added. See also WP:BRD. TimothyJosephWood 00:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by User:Nihlus Kryik (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Lakewood Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Joel Osteen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niteshift36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts on Lakewood Church:

  1. 20:45, August 28, 2017
  2. 10:36, September 1, 2017
  3. 13:59, September 1, 2017
  4. 11:15, September 5, 2017
  5. 12:39, September 5, 2017
  6. 11:51, September 6, 2017
  7. 10:56, September 7, 2017 *NEW*

Diffs of the user's reverts on Joel Osteen for Edit War #1:

  1. 16:48, August 28, 2017
  2. 20:43, August 28, 2017
  3. 12:47, August 29, 2017
  4. 11:34, August 30, 2017
  5. 12:29, August 30, 2017
  6. 14:22, August 31, 2017
  7. 11:11, September 5, 2017
  8. 12:43, September 5, 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts on Joel Osteen for Edit War #2:

  1. 13:15, September 5, 2017
  2. 11:55, September 6, 2017
  3. 12:06, September 6, 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:13, August 31, 2017

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:

This is a slow-burn edit war as the user does what he can to avoid a direct 3RR violation, but the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality is there and not stopping. User is absolutely adamant that information critical to Joel Osteen and his church be removed. User has a history of edit warring in favor of right-wing/religious articles. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is actually misleading. The initial dispute, about including the Hurricane Harvey piece, was resolved days ago. The current issue is the inclusion of a single sentence and there is a discussion going on and there is no consensus about it. Also, note that you're looking at two different articles here. The OP here needs to AGF and not make the allegation that I'm editing to avoid the 3RR. I'm editing as time allows. Real life has many things going on here, including a hurricane of my own on the way. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to AGF as you are clearly edit warring and have no intentions on stopping. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
User is still reverting. Can an administrator please look at this report? It's been almost 20 hours without comment. EdJohnston are you available? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
You should AGF. Your claim that I have some scheme on the timing of my edits is an allegation that you can't support. Also, you fail to understand that when you revert/restore, you too are doing what you are complaining about. Now you're going to solicit a specific admin to get your way? Wow, that's not transparent at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
You should learn how to properly format talk page responses. I've gone ahead and fixed your posts here. I don't need to AGF when you are edit warring and have an exhaustive history of edit warring. It is clear that you do not see the problem with what you are doing (18 reverts across two articles). EdJohnston is the only admin who has handled this noticeboard on a continual basis recently. I've never even interacted with him before. Please focus on your edit warring. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The edit history of these articles is confused because there are conflicting news bulletins about the church's response to Hurricane Harvey and there's a lot of IP warring. I recommend that both Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church be placed under semiprotection. (For example, 1-3 months). After that's done and a day or two goes by, if we actually see continued warring by defenders of Osteen (who aren't waiting for the result of discussion) then it will be easier to see the pattern and if necessary take further steps. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Joel Osteen was under full protection for a while, mostly due to Niteshift36. As soon as it expired he came back and just removed anything he did not like with very little on the talk page. So the idea that protecting it will help did not work the first time with him being the main instigator. ContentEditman (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: That's inappropriate. There is one editor who is pushing POV and edit warring to hell and back. You know well enough that blocks are meant for that behavior. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There have been lots of people reverting in the last ten days. I especially notice this revert by User:Niteshift36 (marked as *NEW* in the first list above) because it happened while this AN3 report was open. But if we are going to block for that, why not also block User:ContentEditman who within two hours undid Niteshift36's change? (ContentEditman was probably aware of the AN3 filing because he has already commented in this thread). EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't believe he should be blocked as he was active in the talk page discussions and trying to reach a consensus. However, his reverts don't mitigate the actions of Niteshift36. You have myself, ContentEditman, Rhode Island Red, and Veritas Solum on one side and Niteshift36 on the other. It looks messy on the surface, but there are only two sides. It's a 4v1 situation, which normally results in a block of the 1, especially when the main edit–warmonger is the 1. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

At least Ed is bothering to acknowledge that the actions of others are a likely edit-warring as well. So we have 4 editors who came to those articles for the sole purpose of getting this material added, have opposed any non-negative additions and now solicit a specific admin to become involved. You know what? I'll make this simple for you all. I will topic ban myself for 7 days. I will not edit the articles on Joel Osteen or Lakewood Church for 7 days. Happy now? I have my own hurricane to prepare for. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No, you need to be blocked. You still do not see anything you did as wrong, and you will continue that behavior. Whether it's now or in 7 days, you will continue it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh... This has been popping up on my watchlist entirely too often today. Can we settle on a trout for one side, who should damn well know better, a gratuitous link to WP:NOPUNISH for the other, and just call the whole thing a day? Is there any imminent threat of damage? Eight days from now seems pretty not-imminent. Is there plenty enough here to open an ANI if it starts again? Sure, and that's where threads that require more than counting should usually go anyway.
If you listen to the night wind, you can hear the shrill cry of a stub longing for sources. Oh, that poor dear neglected stub. TimothyJosephWood 21:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Niteshift36 is warned for edit warring at Joel Osteen and Lakewood Church. They have agreed not to edit either of those articles for seven days. If the war resumes after that time, the next admin may find it necessary to issue blocks. Between now and then, anyone who can get consensus via WP:RFC on one of the talk pages will be in the best position if their edits are questioned. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • All you've done is postpone a block for him. I'm truly disappointed. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:162.104.80.31 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Identity Evropa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
162.104.80.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Fixed false content"
  2. 05:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Views */Deleted false information"
  3. 05:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Views */"
  4. 05:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* History */"
  5. 05:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Views */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Identity Evropa. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Semi-protected for one month by CambridgeBayWeather Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:98.191.196.7 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 1 week )[edit]

Just to name a few articles that have been disrupted, there are more: Page: Racism in Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Qatar and state-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sooreh Hera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Byzantine–Sasanian wars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Azadbeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: America at a Crossroads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


User being reported: 98.191.196.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:multiple versions due to multiple articles being disrupted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]
  5. [47]
  6. [48]
  7. [49]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP in question has chosen not to use the talk page, no indication what their issue truly is.

Comments:

IP98.191.196.7 = IP72.198.49.108:
No sooner than IP72.198 was blocked until November, than IP98.191 began the exact same edits at America at the Crossroads and numerous other articles.

IP98.191, whilst busy disrupting articles, also has a history of personal attacks:

IP72.198.49.108, also has a history of personal attacks:

Editor Interaction Analyser for 98.191.196.7 & 72.198.49.108

Clearly this IP is not here to build an encyclopedia, any reversion of their edit(s) are met with personal attacks, trolling, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:RevertSJW reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Merle Dixon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
RevertSJW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799637274 by DSmurf (talk)"
  2. 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Revert edit bot"
  3. 22:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "OK try this without controversial language"
  4. 21:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Opinion piece from Slate is not a source"
  5. 07:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""racist" and "misogynist" require discriminatory actions. Merle didn't really act such. Undid revision 799461277 by 65.126.152.254 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Merle Dixon. (TW)"
  2. 22:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Merle Dixon. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Rv, why */ new section"
Comments:

User has reverted a sixth time. [51] Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:50.123.198.38 reported by User:32.218.46.163 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Gordon Hintz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.123.198.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Copyright and BLP issues. Consider working this out on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Shamsul Islam Author reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Page
Shehla Rashid Shora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Shamsul Islam Author (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 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 22:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Life and education */"
    3. 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Life and education */"
    4. 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Life and education */"
    5. 22:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    6. 22:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    7. 22:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    1. 20:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    4. 20:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    5. 20:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) to 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    1. 12:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shehla Rashid Shora. (TW)"
  2. 13:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Shehla Rashid Shora. (TW)"
  3. 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC) "/* September 2017 */ Reply"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is basically clueless and obsessive about this page. And this is probably a throw-away account too because he is masquerading as a well-known author, with whom he has no connection at all. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Boopy troopy reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Denialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Boopy troopy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799767912 by North Shoreman (talk) look at the sources given"
  2. 18:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799765351 by Theroadislong (talk) the qualifier is neccessary. These are not psychologists, just some random scientific organisations."
  3. 18:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799764320 by Home Lander (talk) just look at the sources already there."
  4. 18:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Evolution */"
  5. 17:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Evolution */ per source"
  6. 17:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "/* Evolution */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [60] (first insertion of challenged material)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61] first revert, not part of a formal 3RR violation (although it's only an hour ahead of comprising one with the next three reverts)
  2. [62] second, at 21:22 8 Sept
  3. [63] third, 07:22 9 Sept
  4. [64] fourth, 15:11 9 Sept
  5. [65] fifth, 21:10 9 Sept and hence within 24 hours of second, third, and fourth reverts.
  6. [66] sixth, 22:20 9 Sept

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Regrettably not. We are in the usual situation with Tarook97 where every other editor with eyes on the page appears to agree the material being reverted is well cited and warrants inclusion. Since I have also never known them to be persuaded of anything in a talk page discussion, it seems a bit redundant.

Comments:
Here is Tarook97's last trip (one of a series) to ANEW, where they had also violated 3RR, but were not blocked.

It seems attempts to lead for a discussion and a general agreement for Soupforone's additions in the talk page is seen a 'edit warring' by Pinkbeast. Soupforone presented WP:Conflicting sources and my edits were to restore the section to status ante and discuss the issue in the talk page. Tarook97 (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayymach15 reported by User:Location (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Fred Hampton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jayymach15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff, link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:
Although the first edit is technically outside the 24 hour window, the editor has been reverted by multiple editors and refuses to discuss on the article talk page or his/her user page. Location (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

User:86.132.168.137 reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: IPs blocked)[edit]

Page
The Hudsucker Proxy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.132.168.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799897529 by Pkbwcgs (talk)"
  2. 13:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 799897219 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
  3. 13:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796428048 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Hudsucker Proxy. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warred on The Man Who Wasn't There (2001 film), List of British films of 2015 and The Hudsucker Proxy.

Apparently, 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has started to edit war at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Help! This IP hadn't stopped even after numerous warnings. An administrator must urgently put a block on 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The problem is becoming even more serious. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 72 hours. I notice that User:There'sNoTime has blocked 81.156.137.36 (talk · contribs). Some of the other IPs listed in the report have not been active since 1 September so the data does not call for an immediate 3RR block. Though I see a number of BT Central dynamic IPs in the list, this geographic origin is not very distinctive.