Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive354

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:97.107.35.108 reported by User:32.218.44.214 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Honda CN250 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 97.107.35.108 (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: Honda CN250

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

Other disruptive editing: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] 32.218.44.214 (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by Drmies — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:46.107.119.195 reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Lajos Kossuth
User being reported: User:46.107.119.195

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]
  4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] -> after unsuccesfully asking the user to head to the talk page, only in the edit log the warning has been made...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:


Dear Administrators,

The IP sytematically tried to remove the Slovak naming from Lajos Kossuth article. The second time after my first restoration was reverted, I headed to the talk page and asked the subject also to do so...despite he made a revert again....I asked him again, and warned him....but again...I think now it has to be regarded as an edit war....maybe he is not aware without consensus or in ongoing disputes the status qou ante principle is maintaned, and in the talk page it has to be discussed...I ask kindly intervention to restore the page and explanation to the IP about WP rules that should be followed. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC))

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:32.218.44.214 reported by User:97.107.35.108 Result: declined[edit]

Page: Honda CN250 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 32.218.44.214 (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/edits: [21] [22] [23]

  • Blocked. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you put the "blocked" text in the wrong report... It should go here. 32.218.44.214 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Correct. This particular report is Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:212.178.216.30 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Don't know if it belongs here or in the disruption section, but the above user was reverting edits on talkpages. Any suggestions?--Biografer (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked by TonyBallioni — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2406:3003:2049:0:7281:EBFF:FEBB:390A reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Calvin Cheng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2406:3003:2049:0:7281:EBFF:FEBB:390A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff, add big bolus of PROMO content. Please see connected contributor tag on talk page; most recent in long line of editors with WP:APPARENTCOI promoting the subject. Was reverted by BukitBintang8888

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 16:47, 3 November 2017, reverted by BukitBintang8888
  2. diff 17:26, 3 November 2017, reverted by me
  3. diff 18:11, 3 November 2017, reverted by me
  4. diff 18:19, 3 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Calvin_Cheng#Recent_conflict_of_interest_editing_November_2017

Comments:
They are consistently misrepresnting their very large edit (the one they are trying to force in through edit warring above) saying it is saying it is "just" about the new company, when it is more extensive than that by far. 18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. GABgab 21:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

User:ViamarisBalbi reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

Page
Thales of Miletus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ViamarisBalbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808800209 by Khirurg (talk) Im not picking a battle. This edit was reached through a consensus. Modern authors are still citing the ancient authors (Herodotus et al) regarding Thales"
  2. 07:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808796685 by Dr.K. (talk) This was reached through consensus on October 2nd, in which Katolophyromai, the editor who reversed it, was a part of."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 06:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 06:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 06:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808779956 by Khirurg (talk) Dont try to make Thales seem Greek. His parents were Phoenicians. Just because something or someone has a greek name does not mean they are greeks"
    2. 06:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808774310 by Katolophyromai (talk)"
    3. 06:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808773435 by Katolophyromai (talk)This section took a lot of arguing between editors to reach a consensus. Leave it like it is and dont try to make Thales seem Greek beca"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 18:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC) to 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808644788 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
    2. 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "This section took a lot of arguing between editors to reach a consensus. Leave it like it is and dont try to make Thales seem Greek because he was not. He was a Phoenician or born to Pheonicians in Miletus. Not everything that has a Greek name is Greek"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 3RR warning
  2. 07:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Talk:Thales of Miletus. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Trash source */ tyx2"
Comments:

Relentless edit-warring on Thales and Archimedes. Nasty personal attacks, bullying and harassment on the talkpage of Thales. Also at 3RR on Archimedes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Will not stop. Dr. K. 07:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Sample of personal attacks, bullying and harassment by ViamarisBalbi

The above editor along with others are trying to revert an edit that was reached through a consensus a month ago. He is using his claim of "nasty personal attacks towards another editor a month ago" to revert an edit that took quite a lot of effort and a lot of citations to achieve a consensus. He also erased this defense.ViamarisBalbi (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I might not choose super nice words when I express myself but reverting edits that were reached through hard work consensus is equally as rude. This defense was erased by the editor below ViamarisBalbi (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

(ec) There was never any consensus. You just imposed your crude Phoenicianist POV through brute force edit-warring, bullying and intimidation. It won't work this time though. Khirurg (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Dont erase my defenses. You were not part of the consensus. The consensus was achieved through discussion and valid sources/citations from credible works. My statements can sound harsh but I despise distortionists and history stealing nationalists and negationists and I have no problem expressing that ViamarisBalbi (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't keep repeating the same falsehood. Look at my edit again to see that I warned you in my edit summary not to erase my warning to you. That's why I reverted you. As far as consensus, you reverted 3 editors at Thales. You have no consensus of any kind. Dr. K. 09:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week for personal attacks and 3RR violation with an obvious nationalist agenda. Bishonen | talk 09:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:AbdulQahaar (Result: being discussed at AN)[edit]

Page
Asfandyar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User continuosly is editing the article and refusing compromise. User is an Indian national who seems to be against Pakistan army and edits the article repeatedly. despiite offering compromise statements which dont violate any wikipedia policy the user seems adamant on editing the article without any reason. I request arbitration to resolve this dispute. I have mentioned the causes of my actions on the talk page of said user and my own talk page. Please restrain him from making offensive edits to muslim faith. i have tried my best to reason with him and my own version of edits is neither in violation of any policy nor offensive to anyone including the said user himself. We all want to share authentic info on wikipedia without offending anyone. please restrain said user from editing the article in an offensive way. Also i hereby declare to have no COI in regard to this article otherwise i would have declared it in accordance of wikipedia policy. Thanking you in anticipation.

User:Historicalchild reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: diff by IP 2406:3003:2049:0:7281:EBFF:FEBB:390A, see case above on same article, here. Note that article was protected in these diffs at 01:59, 4 November 2017. So this named account (inactive since March 2016 when there was a big sock investigation) showed up and...

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 07:38, 4 November 2017, continued the whitewashing and PROMO
  2. diff 07:47, 4 November 2017 same
  3. diff 18:32, 5 November 2017 same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see whole talk page but Talk:Calvin_Cheng#Discussion with this named account

Comments:

  • see case above. Article has been under severe promotional pressure since 2007 and there is confirmed sockpuppeting in the history. The behavior here is obviously continuing the edit warring by the IP editor. I suggest a very long if not indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing with an obvious agenda. I'm morally convinced they've done some socking, since they only turned up with this autoconfirmed account after the article was semi'd for a month, but I suppose it's theoretically possible that not all the IPs are theirs. Therefore, I'm blocking for disruptive editing rather than 3RR. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Oldstone James (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 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 23:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Added reference. Please start a discussion on the talk page if you disagree with my edit and provide references that contradict it."
    2. 23:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Now, you just can't revert this edit because I literally just swapped two words around. If THIS gets reverted, I give up my trust in fairness and reason."
  2. 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808875691 by Jim1138 (talk) So Young Earth creationists believe in flat earth, psychic powers, phrenology, etc? +Removed superfluous comma."
  3. 18:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Compromise"
  4. 13:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808739404 by PaleoNeonate (talk) The phrase "believe in pseudoscience" does not make sense in English - at least not the one intended."
  5. 20:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "They don't 'believe in pseudoscience' in general - they believe in a particular form of it"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* An article you have been editing is under discretionary sanctions */ ew notice"
  2. 00:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Header for ew notice"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Creationism & pseudoscience - moved conversation from my talk page. Retitled"
  2. 00:25, 6 November 2017 {UTC) "‎Flat earthism: new section"
Comments:

Creationism is under pseudoscience and fringe discretionary sanctions. Jim1138 (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm involved because I reverted one of the edits, but this is deliberate pointy editing as well as 3RR violation, and should receive a short block. Black Kite (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • A partial revert: diff "Revert by mistake, as admitted by the reverter on the talk page" Per Oldstone James's talk:Creationism comment here Jim1138 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hours, as he clearly breached 3RR. To be fair to Oldstone James, he did seem to be attempting to compromise and reach a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Olsen24 reported by User:Train2104 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olsen24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Olsen24#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2 (past instance)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet#Numerous issues with this article
Comments:

Long term pattern of article ownership and edit warring on this article, including repeatedly inserting their own images. I attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, one party responded, but the reported party ignores it. Have been blocked for edit warring in the past, a longer block is probably necessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the long-term disruption on this article I am convinced that a block is needed. As it is the second such block I have blocked for 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Fdrlwi reported by User:Dark-World25 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Golden Key International Honour Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Fdrlwi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808802428 by Dark-World25 (talk)"
  2. 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 808785512 by Duffbeerforme (talk) outdated material"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) to 17:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 14:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "Out dated information and has no bearing on the current Golden Key Society's operations."
    2. 15:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "removing non relevant information and questionable credentials. Adding information that relates to the current Golden Key activities."
    3. 15:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Membership and activities */"
    4. 16:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "correction to text"
    5. 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
    6. 16:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
    7. 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
    8. 16:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "correct typo and grammatical errors and links"
    9. 16:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC) ""
    10. 16:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "added BBB source"
    11. 17:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "removed typo errors"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Newest warning by Chubbles
  2. Previous warning by Chubbles
  3. Previous warning by Julietalphalima

Dark-World25 (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:37, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */"
  2. 05:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC) on User talk:Fdrlwi "/* Golden Key */ new section"
Comments:

Attempted whitewashing and adding promotional material, 2 warnings from User:Chubbles, 1 warning from User:Naraht, 1 warning from User:Julietdeltalima given with no attempt at resolution, only ad hominem attacks on the discussion page as well as constant reverts without explanation against the general consensus on the article talk page. Dark-World25 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ritu Yadav Ka reported by User:HindWIKI (Result: decline )[edit]

Page
Tenali Rama (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ritu Yadav Ka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

you can see on her talk page.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user made her edits in the same way after the many warnings are on her talk page. HindWiki (Love My India)Talk to Hindustani ! 12:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No evidence of edit warring has been presented. If there is a pattern of disruptive editing from this user I suggest you report to WP:AN where a more general discussion can take place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Sutherland Springs church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "re-added. He died during the "event". People who die later in hospital would also be included here."
  2. 23:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added to infobox"
  3. 23:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by ChocolateRabbit (talk) to last revision by Gaia Octavia Agrippa. (TW)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 23:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  5. 23:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ he's dead. So its noted in the infobox. This is getting stupid"
  6. 23:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ STOP removing this."
  7. 23:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ STOP removing this."
  8. 23:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added to infobox"
  9. 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added details"
  10. 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added cmmt"
  11. 23:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ perp included in death count"
  12. 23:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ 27 is referenced. Including perp because he died during the incident (not necessary to have been in the church)."
  13. 23:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ corrected"
  14. 23:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Casualties */ corrected with ref"
  15. 22:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ don't know where 28 came from"
  16. 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Victims */ change to neutral heading"
  17. 20:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by Muboshgu (talk): Follows layout of similer articles. (TW)"
  18. 20:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ corrected"
  19. 20:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* top */ added to infobox"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Sutherland Springs church shooting. (TW)"
  2. 23:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* November 2017 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
  2. 23:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* (including the perpetrator) */ edit warring"
  3. 23:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
  4. 23:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* User:ChocolateRabbit reverts at Sutherland Springs church shooting */"
  5. 23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* (including the perpetrator) */"
  6. 00:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* (including the perpetrator) */"
Comments:

By the users own admission a lot of people have changed their wording to include the perpetrator and they still continue to revert. I’m not sure all the edits noted are on the same issue (hard to do this on my phone) but 3RR seems to have been breached amd the editor refuses to relent. They got User:ChocolateRabbit blocked for opposing their position already. Legacypac (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Do I comment here? User:ChocolateRabbit was blocked because they refused on multiple occasion to enter any dialogue or to explain why they were reverting my edit. I am still discussing this with you on Talk:Sutherland Springs church shooting. Its late where I am (gone midnight) so I'm a bit slow/tired. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Time for discussion was before blowing through 3RR and then some. This is one of the more serious cases I’ve seen in a while. (Recognizing not all the diffs I posted with Twinkle are applicable). I’m happy to discuss after I changed one time what appeared to be a mistake and got reverted. You might want to look at the number of users you reverted before getting so sure you are following a standard. Legacypac (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Other than pointing out "Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you" and "My wording was better" (your words not mine), I shall now be disappearing as I need to sleep. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I warned you and offered an opportunity to reverse the edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(I'm back briefly) Having received your talk page notice and replied to it, I didn't make any more edits to infobox. I instead made a comment on the talk page of the article. You replied, ending with "Restore my wording now or I’ll file a 3RR against you". That is a threat rather than dialogue on your part. I then pointed you towards a page that showed "(including the perpetrator)" as standard to which you replied "My wording was better". I asked for your reasoning and you pointed me towards the Boston Marathon bombing article. I replied that that article was a special case and provided 5 commented on examples of articles using "(including the perpetrator)". You then decided you'd had enough "I’ve filed a report at 3RR because you refuse to work with various editors who disagree with an amalgamated number." I was attempting to work with you (and any other editors that may have been reading the talk page) but you decided to stop working with me. I made one more attempt at explaining my reasoning but you did not reply. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 12:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note: I confiorm that User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa breached 3RR on this article, and it was a fairly petty issue as well. A better response from him/her would be "My bad I'll self-revert immediately." Instead we got prevarication. A mitigating factor is that Gaia Octavia Agrippa stopped edit warring as soon as they were warned. They have also never been sanctioned for edit warring before. I'm inclined to close this with a warning that any further breaches of 3RR will result in a block, but will await comments from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Gaia Octavia Agrippa is warned that any further breaches of 3RR will result in a block, per the above comment by User:MSGJ. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting that User:MSGJ blocked me for 48 hours when I was not edit warring, was not in a content dispute, did not breach 3RR and had no warnings, just recently. I bring an editor that was edit warring, who got one of his opponants blocked via the vandal board, and continued arguing without accepting they were edit warring yet only a warning is issued. That is pretty inconsistent. Perhaps we need to discuss User:MSGJ’s hate on for me? Legacypac (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I apologise for overstepping the 3RR. I was caught up in the moment on a fast moving article and had been trying to keep at bay what I saw as disruptive editing. It won't happen again. Thank you for limiting this to a warning. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Page
Lilly Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
XJJRosebrook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809050249 by Davey2010 (talk) Let's discuss this current edit in the talk page then. Stop reverting it. People can't see it if it keeps getting reverted."
  2. 20:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809049780 by Davey2010 (talk) That talk page hasn't been used in a year. The changes that I made on this article satisfies Wikipedia guidelines relating to living persons."
  3. 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 809049333 by Davey2010 (talk) The last "clean version" you reverted to was in clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines relating to biographical living persons."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Lilly Singh. (TW)"
  2. 21:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lilly Singh. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor has drastically changed the article, I objected and so as per BRD I asked them to go to the talkpage to discuss their edits but so far they've refused and have continued to revert, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 21:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I was in compliance to the biographical living persons guidelines, in full compliance. The article in question was filled with poorly sourced material all the way to the names of her parents, among other things to the shameless promotion of her book in nearly every section of the article. Goodness gracious. Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with. ~ Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJJRosebrook (talkcontribs)
You'd pretty much removed a good chunk of the article without any sort of discussion beforehand - Changes as the ones you've made need discussing first,
"Also, the talk page hasn't been used in a year, and a lot of the disputes haven't been dealt with" is no excuse not to go yourself, As per WP:BRD you're meant to go to the talkpage the moment you're reverted.... which you failed to do. –Davey2010Talk 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
You're a troll, man. Did you read the article that I edited? Joshua (xJJRosebrook) 21:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJJRosebrook (talkcontribs)
Please read WP:NPA. –Davey2010Talk 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:212.200.205.42 reported by User:El cid, el campeador (Result: Both blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page
List of wars involving Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
212.200.205.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  2. 15:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  3. 14:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  4. 13:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  5. 02:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 16:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 16:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
    2. 17:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
    3. 17:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
    4. 17:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 13:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) to 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 13:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Late modern period */"
    2. 13:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Contemporary history */"
  8. 18:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Late modern period */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also see user Nikola910. Both were warned after several reverts - both continued afterward and show no attempts at cooperating with each other. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2405:204:D28A:8581:ACBA:37F6:86F8:E101 reported by User:Let There Be Sunshine (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Villain (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2405:204:D28A:8581:ACBA:37F6:86F8:E101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Content dispute. Dynamic IP editor repeatedly altering content without consensus. Frequently reverting to his changes without participating in talk discussion for resolution. Editor comes in both IP and IPv6, both geolocate to the same place, Kochi, Kerala.

Note: Since he returned for making the same edit, I started a discussion in his talk page [User talk:49.15.204.90 here].

Note: Maybe the user may have not seen the discussion since he's using dynamic IP. So I notified it.

Note: And this time he reverted with full knowledge that a discussion is there, indicating that he is not willing to participate.

From his edit summaries, it can be understood that the editor very well knows that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and sometimes consensus are made to reach at conclusions, but still the editor doesn't want to join in discussion. The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Let There Be Sunshine (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jionakeli reported by User:Raymond3023 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: AltNews.in (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jionakeli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
4 reverts in 30 minutes: went to this article by WP:WIKIHOUNDING my contribution history and his motive his nothing other than to cause disruption, per WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the talk page.[44] Raymond3023 (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

And I should mention, it is me who started the talk page discussion[46]. The user using WP:POLSHOP to avoid the discussion. The article's talk page can be checked. Jionakeli (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

So you have agreed that you are edit warring? I am not sure why you want to get back to your usual disruptive edit warring once again. Capitals00 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Capitals00, I was being WP:BRD and I am not being disruptive. I guess you know the differences between disruption and content dispute. You falsely reported me here in the past and we know the outcome. Your false accusations because of different opinions did not work so better we drop the stick here now. Goodbye! Jionakeli (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You were doing nothing but WP:WIKIHOUNDING and edit warring even after warning. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. User has previously been warned about edit warring and shows no signs of changing their editing behaviour. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Bojackh reported by User:MrX (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Sutherland Springs church shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bojackh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC) "A consensus was reached it just wasn't added to the talk page"
  2. 01:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC) "This is not like his interest in dogs. The man was constantly "trying to preach his atheism" it is materially evident why this was added by someone."
  3. 03:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Deletions require reasons"
  4. 03:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "yes"
  5. 02:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "Unless wikipedia specifically forbids this source there's no reason not to include it"
  6. 02:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Perpetrator */"
  7. 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Perpetrator */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Bojackh is repeatedly inserting the came content about the shooter's interest in atheism, and each time it has been removed by other editors, including once by myself. After at least five reverts yesterday and a warning, the edit warring over this material continues. Also, the talk page discussion seems weighted against inclusion.- MrX 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought I was working with other editors to keep what other editors had today included for reasons we agreed on. If I was in error I do apologize for this Bojackh (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
You claimed in your edit summary that there is a consensus, which is not true. I will be happy to cancel this edit warring report if you will self-revert and promise not to insert this material until there is WP:CONSENSUS.- MrX 04:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bojackh: I see that someone has already reverted the material. I am still willing to drop this if you will promise not to restore the material. If consensus is reached on the talk page, someone else can restore it.- MrX 04:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Per the majority of editors contributions I believed a consensus had been reached. Why was this part of the article removed? Bojackh (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
the material looks relevent and well sourced. I don’t see concensus for not including it amd I’m going to restore it. We already established above that 3RR does not fully apply to this article, so no blocks. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure you know that's not how consensus works. If not, have a read at WP:ONUS and please wait until there is consensus before restoring the disputed material.- MrX 04:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
discussion continues but the info is good or better than many of the life details added. MrX has no more right to remove than others have to restore. It is being widely reported in major media outlets. Exclusion because “I don’t like it” is not going to cut it. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the rule 3RR, not 6RR? If I'm correct in my understanding then this is an open-and-shut case. Bojackh is arguing that they thought they wre doing the right thing; however, WP:EW explicitly states "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: 'but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." If the closing admin states they're willing to look the other way that's fine (per WP:IAR) but let's not pretend there wasn't a violation. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Have good faith. I stopped editing at the first warning and the next day began to defend someone else's work. --Bojackh (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Gaia_Octavia_Agrippa_reported_by_User:Legacypac_.28Result:_Warned.29 Legacypac (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. User previously warned about edit warring in September so "I stopped editing at the first warning" is not a valid defence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Unite the Right rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DHeyward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Already removed with edit summary of 'No')

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:
Article is under 1RR. Editor was summoned to page by MONGO after MONGO was reverted, and proceeded to revert two times in under 24 hours to attempt to restore MONGO's preferred version. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just more harassment by PtF. He's been warned before. He's not even participating in the discussion. As for this report, it's stale and resolved [52]. The above diffs show my edit and one revert as well as me initiating the talk page dialog. There is no edit warring and after multiple talk page edits with no article edits, it's certainly not disruptive. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Rather than criticising others, admitting your own mistake and undertaking not to repeat it would be a more effective way to avoid a block here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:48, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
DHeyward wasn't summoned as I merely asked him a question about the issues on that article and if he had any background info about why the event was categorized as it was. Considering the number of times PeterTheFourth has filed almost exclusively petty complaints about DHeyward, I'd say an interaction ban is now needed to stop this ongoing harassment.--MONGO 03:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments:
As someone that has been watching this page from it's start, it appears to me that DHeyward has been pushing a POV, more than most peoples latent bias, this has been disruptive. I have no opinion beyond this observation. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You need glasses. I believe the edit above are the sum total of my entire contribution to that page so please retract your aspersions. Here's all (both) my edits to that page.[53]. However, your edit history is, shall we say, "interesting" in a quacking duck sort of way. 2000 edits in 3 months after sleeping for 6 years - about 100 edits (mostly revdelled) from 2011 until August 2017). Quack. --DHeyward (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

While this was a breach of the 1RR restriction on this article, this report is now stale. DHeyward is encouraged to observe article restrictions and avoid edit warring in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Every breach is stale if nobody acts on it until it's stale. This is frustrating- not the first time DHeyward has been warned, and I don't think it'll be the last. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
It was stale when you filed it because you went there after stalking my edits. It's why the warning you listed above wasn't by you and was after the two edits. You weren't involved and injected yourself hours after it was resolved. your purpose here and everywhere else seems to be to stir up drama with very little contributions. --DHeyward (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Opus33 reported by User:TonyTheTiger (Result: Editors advised)[edit]

At Template:The Magic Flute, Opus33 has unilaterally decided that only scholarly topics should be included in the template regardless of what WP:NAV says. I see WP:NAV as a guideline supplement in support of including related topics rather than only instructive scholarly topics. In addition to edit warring see discussion at Template_talk:The_Magic_Flute#Removal_of_content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think editor TonyTheTiger has unilaterally decided to strew the WP's classical music coverage with templates of his own creation emphasizing pop culture items that have little relevance to their main topics. I don't believe he ever consulted with the WP Classical Music Project on whether this is desirable, and I think it's unfortunate he's been allowed to do this. That's my side of the story! Opus33 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I was in constant communication with various projects as I created the templates, including WP:OPERA and I seem to have had the blessing of those involved in the discussions at the time the templates were created. Look through the archives at the project and you will see my interaction with various discussants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Randy Kryn reported by User:Tahc (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Template:Christianity footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Christianity sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Randy Kryn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
For years, consensus has been at these too limit links to these (two) templates to those agreed to at a third place: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Topic list. It seems fairly clear there is no new consensus to add Saint Joseph to them. Randy Kryn has not violated any 3RR, but keeps adding it back to them, and merely claims there was a new consensus in his edit summaries.

I have discussed this (or tried) with him but no progress is made. He only wants to discuss other changes to the template list. What else can I do to resolve this? tahc chat 14:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Hello, and thanks for asking other eyes to look at this. Joseph has been nominated on the core list talk page and after a discussion seems to have obtained consensus from myself and Chicbyaccident, as has John the Baptist. We may be looking at an ownership situation here, as the consensus seems obtained and the nominator seems to have not accepted that topics other than the ones they chose can somehow make it past the firewall. I think I've upset the editor further by asking them to add Joseph to the list (I haven't done it because of, well, upsetting the editor). Can others weigh in on this and judge if Saint Joseph has been deemed list-worthy from reading the entire discussion, and not just the truncated links that Tahc has linked to above? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
When you created this report, you removed another report. Could you please fix this mistake? I would, but it'd be rather difficult on a mobile phone. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
PeterTheFourth I restored the report that you mentioned - however there were a lot of edits in between its removal and my edit. If I missed something please feel free to fix it and my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors warned. User:Tahc and User:Randy Kryn have been steadily reverting each other at Template:Christianity footer since October 16, and they are now up to four or five reverts each. The next person who reverts is risking a block. To announce that a two editors-to-one vote is decisive enough to justify widespread changes to common templates is risky. It is better to open a WP:Request for comment at a suitable place so that a wider group can give their opinions. A suitable place could be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard. After you have gathered some opinions you have the option of asking for an admin to close the discussion and decide the result. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: Nominator blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Answers in Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments: Reverting edit which was agreed upon in this discussion on the talk page with no reason provided. The summary only reads, "No way. Nope". I was even warned of myself attempting to edit-war on my talk page. It has only been one edit, but the user shows no intention of discussing rather edit-warring.

Oldstone James Jytdog has made one edit so this report is going to be closed. I note that other editors have reverted your edit so you need to watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG. This is a content dispute so I recommend you look into WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. MarnetteD|Talk 22:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
MarnetteD I don't understand how this can possibly be WP:BOOMERANG if I have followed three of the four guidelines on WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION, while the other party has followed none. The fact that other editors have reverted my edits may mean they are involved in an edit-war, too. It is indeed only one edit, but, as I said in the report, the user shows no intention of resolving the conflict by the means of a discussion. Furthermore, my edit has been reverted more than once by other users, so the edit-war is definitely taking place.OlJa 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, the OP has just finished an edit warring block, so I suggest that they duck quickly, to avoid the bent stick. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) Assuming (with significant faith) that Oldstone James is a new editor, errors happen and I don't suggest immediate boomerang action. I would still suggest being careful about making frivolous reports, which could be construed as trolling. In relation to the recent editing at that article, please also see WP:ONUS and WP:YESPOV. Something that is important to understand too is that editor time is precious, administrator time even more so. Actions which result in unnecessary waste of time are not constructive. —PaleoNeonate – 22:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @PaleoNeonate: Just an advice: it's not always necessary to have faith, as, in some instances, you can just check whether your assumption is true or not - as in this case, where you could've just checked my user page instead of having 'significant faith'. If that was a crafty attempt at hinting that you don't agree with all my actions on Wikipedia, I already had time to understand that, anyways, so there wasn't a need to bother :) Another important thing is that my time is precious, too, and I don't want to spend it edit-warring with another user - nay being blocked from editing for an alleged edit-war that I never intended.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talkcontribs) 23:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • note that:
  • at 22:07, 7 November 2017, I gave an edit warning to Oldstone James ("OJ") at their TP
  • at 22:22, 7 November 2017, "OJ" slapped a note on my TP (this is the diff they give above, as being "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"...which this is diff is not an example of, seeing how they immediately filed this case, per...
  • at 22:27, 7 November 2017, "OJ" filed this case, in this diff.
In the real world, at the article, we have:
  • diff 18:45, 5 November 2017, OJ adds pseudoscience-pushing content.
  • diff 22:15, 5 November 2017 , OJ restores that after it was reverted.
  • diff 08:35, 6 November 2017, OJ tries a slightly different way
  • diff 21:55, 7 November 2017 , OJ restores that after it was reverted.
  • diff 22:23, 7 November 2017, again
  • diff 23:31, 7 November 2017, again
This has been under discussion at the TP, in this section.
Given that their very recent block was for edit warring on creationist topics, and given that they have been notified of the DS on pseudoscience (here), I invite any patrolling admin to give a very long block or any other remedy available under the DS.Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Oldstone James has edit warred on the article by making 5 reverts in 2 days. They have not broken the bright-line 3RR, which forbids more than 3 reverts in 24 hours, but have certainly edit warred, and have shown no sign of stopping. Per WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." OJ's behaviour does not indicate they have any intention of stopping, and they were recently blocked for 24 hours for 3RR vio, so are obviously aware of the edit warring rules. Oldstone James, I certainly think you should be aware of the rules; but perhaps not, since you have filed a complaint against Jytdog here, and done so at a time when Jytdog had reverted once. (Jytdog has now reverted again, bringing his grand total up to two reverts.) No editor other than OJ has edit warred beyond making two reverts. OJ, I suggest you study the edit warrning policy, because it looks like you need to refresh your knowledge of it. There's a bomerang coming your way. The next time you edit war on, or otherwise disruptively edit, a creationism-related topic, you run a very great risk of being topic banned from these topics. Bishonen | talk 04:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC).

User:89.204.135.67 reported by User:Biografer (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Plenty of reasons for a block here alone.--Biografer (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious Kay Uwe Böhm sock blocked. WP:AIV is best for this sort of thing. Acroterion (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:James J. Lambden (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22:59, 6 November 2017 (unsourced. IP accounts keep shoehorning this into the article, just like how IP accounts kept removing "lobbyist" intermittently. campaign for your candidate outside of Wikipedia.)
  2. 23:03, 6 November 2017 (unsourced. IP accounts keep shoehorning this into the article, just like how IP accounts kept removing "lobbyist" intermittently. campaign for your candidate outside of Wikipedia)
  3. 00:32, 7 November 2017 (restore language on scientific consensus, per WP:FRINGE (and shame on the editor who changed it). reverted again the baseless "bipartisan" claim that the IP number keeps adding.)
  4. 01:18, 7 November 2017 (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for the unsourced "bipartisan" claim that an IP user keeps edit warring in. i fixed language in existing that either did not adhere to sources or that copied them verbatim. i added more issues from a comprehensive WaPo overview.)
  5. 01:22, 7 November 2017 (Undid revision 809085158 by Special:Contributions/2600:100F:B020:B3D7:ECA7:402F:10FB:A0FD WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for the unsourced "bipartisan" claim that an IP user keeps edit warring in.)
  6. 01:31, 7 November 2017 (Undid revision 809086203 by Special:Contributions/2600:100F:B020:B3D7:ECA7:402F:10FB:A0FD WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE for the unsourced "bipartisan" claim that an IP user keeps edit warring in.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: none

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Snooganssnoogans' justification

Comments:
I was not involved in this dispute. WP:CRYBLP begins after the 3rd revert. This claim is uncontroversial and easily sourced FactCheck.org, Politifact, Washington Post, Politico, etc. It does not meet the requirements of WP:3RRBLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Response 1 by Snooganssnoogans: Several IP numbers edit-warred the disputed text into the article, even though this text was removed and a source requested on 21 October 2017 (by me)[63], then on 1 November 2017 (by Jytdog )[64], and then on 6 November 2017 (by me). Upon reaching WP:3RR and starting a talk (even though the edit summaries by both me and Jytdog outlined what the problem was), I thoroughly read both WP:BLP and WP:3RR, and believed that further reverts were consistent with the guidelines on WP:BLP and the exemptions on WP:3RR until the IP account would source the text. That is to say if the text could be sourced: note that I have read countless articles about Gillespie, several of them on his lobbying career, and never stumbled upon the "bipartisan" label that was under dispute. This was an (1) unsourced claim in the lede of a WP:BLP article that was (2) edit-warred in by an (3) IP number that was (4) unwilling to talk about the edits, (5) unwilling to provide a source for the edit and (5) adhere to the rules on Wikipedia (the rules that confirmed accounts had to adhere to). As a consequence, I believed and still believe that my reverts beyond the WP:3RR threshold are totally in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Response 2 by Snooganssnoogans: The only reason why these charges are levied against me is because the accuser (James J. Lambden) has it in for me, so to speak. He has been obsessively stalking my edits for months, repeatedly pleaded with admins to ban or sanction me, and followed me to pages that he's never edited before only to indiscriminately revert me for spurious reasons (I count 10 such instances - in almost every instance my edits were fully restored by other editors). The user has been desperately looking for infractions, and now believes that this weak bullshit is it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This complaint is nonsense, but if anyone cares to take the time to document James' habit of stalking, snarking, and disparaging various editors, there could be a boomerang. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • WP:ASPERSIONS:
  • "obsessively stalking my edits for months" (no diffs)
  • "repeatedly pleaded with admins to ban or sanction me" (no diffs)
As expected the same group of politics editors use aspersions and deceit to distract from valid complaints. I can predict with reasonable confidence the next editors to appear. It is a mockery of policy and dispute resolution. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
James, you have a right to be treated fairly. If you're so inclined, you could ping the "group of politics editors" and see whether any of them cares to document the alleged stalking and harassment. I don't know who all of them are. I've seen you tangle with @Volunteer Marek: and I believe @Black Kite: but you would know best who's in your group. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Snoog's assessment of this report has merits, in that its filing may be driven by personal animus rather than by the desire to uphold the rules. I’ve participated in an RSN discussion where OP has engaged in similar behaviour. His comment to me was: “I understand you may feel Snoogans is helpful to your cause but encouraging his behaviour is detrimental to the encyclopedia”. [65] I inquired with the OP what [my] cause was, but did not get an answer. Having been accused of abetting Snoog’s detrimental behaviour, I added his talk page to my watch list, and saw the link to this discussion. I believe that this report should be dismissed and the OP advised to reconsider. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:5