Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive355

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Humas.ptdi reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Indonesian Aerospace N-219 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Humas.ptdi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810097418 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  2. 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810097028 by Marc Lacoste (talk)"
  3. 09:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810096667 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  4. 09:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810092793 by Marc Lacoste (talk)"
  5. 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  6. 07:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Adding references"
  2. 09:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "EW notice"
  3. 09:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC) "Level 3 warning re. Indonesian Aerospace N-219 (HG) (3.3.2)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Humas.ptdi is a wp:SPA, only edited Indonesian Aerospace N-219 and is removing sources and adding unsourced content w/o comment. Jim1138 (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I de-archived this report as Humas.ptdi has started again after block expired. Jim1138 (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Diffs since block expired.

  1. 06:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "m"
  2. 06:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810435924 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Jim1138 (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Widr (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:46.186.244.93 reported by User:Kintetsubuffalo (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Ummah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.186.244.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff
  6. diff

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

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

Comments:
Blocked 72 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@MSGJ: please note User:94.129.98.121 is a sockpuppet and is continuing the edit war, identical edits. Can we get the article protected?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:94.177.78.186 (Result: blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [797608990]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

reported user warned by User:Kansas Bear and User:EdJohnston to stop edit warring. even Kansas Bear asked him to discuss his edit on talk page [8] but after 48 hours he did edit warring again [9] another user reverted his edit [10] but he repeated it again [11]94.177.78.186 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no edit warring going on. Just check my edit there, it was simply to improve the article by properly placing the two (too big pictures) and adding squared brackets to some terms, to link inside Wiki. I answered in the talk page too (only noticed it now since I didn't know), but that's another issue. Doesn't have to do with the edits above. It's suspicious that an IP account with no history shows up out of nowhere and is using this as an opportunity to report me for something which I didn't do. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
it's a crystal clear edit warring. you just waited for 48 hours and then repeated your previous edits which were reverted by User:LouisAragon. after i have reported you to this board, you went to article talk page! and i'm the ip who reverted your edits before. since another user opened a topic on talk page, i didn't do it by myself again. i opened two other [12] [13] but you ignored one of them and just did another edit on Bayandur[14]. an admin and another user warned you but ignored all of them and talk page.94.177.78.186 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring after clear warning. Blocked for 72 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Dingle mcdoogers reported by User:Argento Surfer (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Beta Ray Bill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dingle mcdoogers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Swarm 22:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial reported by User:Skyring (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Barassi Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boomer Vial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 06:59, 17 November 2017
  2. 07:10, 17 November 2017
  3. 07:13, 17 November 2017
  4. 07:21, 17 November 2017

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

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

Comments:

That's four reverts in 22 minutes! In a rich display of irony, Boomer Vial notes in edit summaries:

  • Regardless of what that article says; you are still edit-warring. Stop, and take it to the talk page before I report you WP:AN3.
  • Just because you did take it to the talk page does not mean you have the right to continually edit-war. Until a consensus is reached, stop.

He also participates in a 3RRR above on the same article, so can hardly claim to be unaware of procedures. The edit-warring partner received a 24 block, so should (s)he. --Pete (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that this editor filed this report not only long after the edit warring had ceased, but after I filed an SPI investigation against the editor. Obviously filed in retaliation. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 10:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Boomer Vial has instigated a frivolous SPI even after I have reminded him that a previous SPI investigation resulted in the case being closed with no action. I have reminded Boomer Vial that his actions are frivolous to which he has responded with a deny of recognition. User Boomer Vial needs to be reminded that at bare minimum bringing frivolous action to ANI can end up with a boomerang effect. That is at the very minimum, I wont go into detail of what can further happen as a result. Boomer Vial should be aware of this already. --2001:8003:645C:9200:D0AD:F41E:C1E6:9A0F (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question why you filed the case as Skyring, yet you're an IP address that claims to not be socking. Also, the SPI case you mentioned is still pending a behavioral check. This[23] case you linked above is not even the correct SPI case. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 11:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I filed this case, Boomer, because when I started investigating some of your untruthful claims I found that while the IP editor had made ten reverts within thirteen hours, and thus richly deserved a block, you had made the first four, whilst demonstrating that you were well aware of 3RR and this noticeboard.
Speaking of blocks, why is this guy still posting? --Pete (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Socialpsychfollower reported by User:Natureium (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Power posing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Socialpsychfollower (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]
  5. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
They are aware of the 3RR, because they came to this page to complain about User:Jytdog. Natureium (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mclovin'tosh reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Davao City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mclovin'tosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

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

Comments:

This user was responsible for Wikipedia being used to spread the propaganda that Rodrigo Duterte made Davao into one of the world's safest cities for years, then when an RFC at Davao rejected that (he did not bother to contribute to that RFC), he continued to maintain it in the lead section at Rodrigo Duterte. See Talk:Rodrigo_Duterte#Safest_city zzz (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I was already enlightened by then and stick to responsible journalism instead. Im a former Duterte supporter (not a fan) but now Im neither a hater nor a supporter. Just pure responsible journalism. Look at my edits. Im sticking with the sources. Im not owning articles unlike others out there. Thank you very much. Mclovin'tosh (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
But you didn't think it was a good idea to remove the propaganda you had added to the lead of his article, which you knew an RFC had unanimously rejected. Interesting. zzz (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
To the admin, please take a look at where I'm coming from and look closely at my edits first before making any decision. I humbly accept whatever it is but first, check the other side of the coin. I'm doing my part as a Wikipedian, and that's to edit. I didn't engage this edit war in the Davao City article first and I believe I am free to edit as long as I see fit. I also believe I'm not violating any rules such as vandalism, using unreliable sources, owning articles and the like. I thank u so much for this opportunity. Mclovin'tosh (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
i did not consider it as a propaganda and if it was then that was a long time ago and i didnt bother to remove the info that i added on his lead because you already rejected and removed it. it doesnt make sense. i did not insist and continue the war because i respect u. if you dont like to give second chances then you're just like Duterte himself. respect! User:Mclovin'tosh 16:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused: is that a good thing or a bad thing? You started out by saying a minute ago that you are not a "hater". It seems like you are prepared to say just about anything you think might help your case. Anyway, it's not up to me. zzz (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Again, I will humbly accept whatever the admin's verdict will be. Ive already explained my side and I believe there's nothing wrong with my recent edit on the Davao City lead as per its sources. I firmly stand with responsible journalism and this has nothing to do with my previous edit history as ive already learned a lot of things as of late.Thank you.

~mcLovin. 14:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. User:Mclovin'tosh removed 'In reality' four times. The editor was warned at AN3 last year in another dispute about crime in Davao CIty. If the wording is contentious, you should wait to get consensus before reverting. Having good intentions is not enough. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:PolarYukon (Result: Declined (see report against nominator))[edit]

Please assist on the page Posttraumatic stress disorder as Jytdog has been removing valid sources and changing the summary statement of the sources in a biased manner.

Thanks in advance, PolarYukon (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Is also conducting similar vandalism on the power posing page. He generally seems to be in a downward spiral and is damaging existing articles, preventing others from editing articles and repeatedly posting defamatory content alleging a source provides evidence for academic misconduct when the source says nothing of the sort.
socialpsychfollower (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined (see report against nominator) Swarm 18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:RexxS reported by User:PolarYukon (Result: Declined (see report against nominator))[edit]

User:RexxS is also engaging in arbitrary deletion, and summarily deleting peer-reviewed secondary source articles, such as from Harvard Medical School, while a discussion on the talk page for Posttraumatic stress disorder is still ongoing.

Thanks for your help, PolarYukon (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

PolarYukon is edit-warring at Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) against two other editors to insert biomedical claims using primary and junk sources:
Note that there is no dispute that female genital mutilation (FGM) is a risk factor for PTSD, and secondary sources support that.
However, PolarYukon has an agenda: to mix up the evidence concerning FGM with that for circumcision, where there are no reliable secondary sources supporting the position they are trying to force into the article using sources that do not meet the requirement of WP:MEDRS ("all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources". I have made that clear to them at Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder #Circumcision and PTSD, a discussion that PolarYukon did not join until 15:05, 16 November 2017, i.e. until after their third addition of the unsupported material.
I have made exactly one edit to the article so far, although I will be reverting PolarYukon's last piece of POV-pushing soon, if somebody else doesn't beat me to it.
Per WP:BOOMERANG, I suggest that PolarYukon is the one who is edit-warring, and is blatantly misusing this noticeboard to advance their POV-pushing. I don't believe they are here to build a neutral encyclopedia and have become a time-sink for the regular editors of medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
User:RexxS I filed a formal report below and just ignored this one and the one above. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined (see report against nominator) Swarm 18:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:PolarYukon reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned user)[edit]

Page: Posttraumatic stress disorder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PolarYukon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff at 08:22, 15 November 2017

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 10:36, 16 November 2017, reverted by me
  2. diff 14:53, 16 November 2017, reverted by me
  3. diff 15:24, 16 November 2017, reverted by Rexxx
  4. diff 18:23, 16 November 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link, see of course also the two kind-of reports above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Circumcision_and_PTSD (started by me)

Comments:

This user is unfortunately bringing an anti-circumcision campaign to WP (see for example this from last summer) and is following on edits made by an also-campaigning sockfarm, reported at SPI (I do not believe this user is a sock, but rather was sparked by the socks' separate campaigning).

In any case, they do not understand MEDRS and are edit warring to restore content that does not comply with MEDRS by miles.

They are also doing the typical tendentious things, like mispreresenting what they are doing in edit notes, as they did here at 14:53; their first comment at talk was here 15 minutes later. Jytdog (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


Hello, please see my above incident report. No, I am not acting in concert with any user / group / organization / other. I am acting in good faith to find agreeable sources on the talk page. Sorry if I bunged an edit summary but all my edits are in good faith.

The unprofessional WP:NPA conduct on the talk page and summary deletions of PubMed, Harvard Medical School, magazine, and scholarly book sources is not helpful to fair resolution of this discussion.

Thanks! PolarYukon (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Noting here the AN/I report made by PY, and somewhat swiftly closed. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving pings. Bizarre. 19:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Geez glad you closed the discussion before I could even comment. cheers PolarYukon (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. There is just you ignoring MEDRS and edit warring to retain unacceptable content. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned on talk page.[38] Swarm 19:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Xargaga reported by User:Kzl55 (Result: Page protected, both users warned)[edit]

Page
Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Xargaga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810790514 by Koodbuur (talk) As per talk page information contained in the source, sool region almost exclusively Dhulhahante occupied. Please stop the disruptive reverts."
  2. 11:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Clan system */ corrected error to match information contained within the source at page 7."
  3. 10:43, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "This is not disruptive editing. The source provided states that Sool is almost exlusively inhabitted by Dhulbahante."
  4. 10:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Clan system */ added relevant information and provided sources."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* clans sub-sectin */ r"
  2. 12:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* clans sub-sectin */ reply"
  3. 14:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* clans sub-sectin */ reply"
Comments:

User continue to edit war over contentious additions after numerous warnings and prompts to use the talk page instead by myself and other editors. They are not a new member, they've previously caused similar disruption to articles and had multiple accounts permanently blocked (I do understand this avenue is only for reporting 3RR behaviour but this additional information added for context). With that being said they were asked a number of times ([39], [40], [41]) to stop and perform a self-revert and they refused. -- Kzl55 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The edits were in good faith. No further edits will be made if an administrator judges disruptive edits on my part. The User:Kzl55 has been engaged with in the talk page of the article, however, they are still persistently accusing me of disruptive editing although an explanation has been given for the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xargaga (talkcontribs) 16:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You have violated Wikipedia's 3RR policy, you were warned and repeatedly given a chance to stop and discuss your contentious additions in the talk page, and then repeatedly asked to perform a self-revert, and you refused to do so. You have been permanently blocked in the past for exactly the same disruptive behaviour, on multiple accounts. This is unacceptable. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Am more than willing to discuss the matter in the talk page. I have not added any further information on the article except for a link to a source which further supports my previous edit.Xargaga (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You've added the link right after you've reverted editor Koodbuur [42]. You have violated Wikipedia policy after repeated warnings, and repeated requests to perform a self-revert. This same disruptive behaviour is the reason why you were permanently blocked on multiple accounts previously. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected, both users Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned on article talk page. Swarm 19:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Simply-the-truth reported by User:135.23.202.24 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Michelle McManus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simply-the-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Since this seems to be a long going edit war between the mentioned editor and many others, I suggest you look at the page history - almost all of last 150 (yes, that's the right number) edits look like partial or complete reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.202.24 (talkcontribs)

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

Comments:

I have only added sourced refs and removed unsourced ones to tidy the page up. Any that are incorrect please let me know and we can discuss. I have made this request on the talk page as well many time. The ip address just wants to add unsourced claims im afraid. I am of the opinion that I have improved the page immensly, and as I mentioned, I have asked for help and refs for this many times on the talk page with no response. If the complainer actually read the changes made, rather than look the number, they may have a different oppinionSimply-the-truth (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am in disagreement that you have made the article better. I have just had to minor tidy up the article due to the complex edits you have made which resulted in part of the text being added to a wider text box. Your edits have not been beneficial as constantly changing "studio albums" to "studio album" cannot be classed as making an article better. Other articles, such as Ben Haenow and Leon Jackson, where only one album has been released by both these articles, say studio albums, so that particular edit is not being constructive at all. In regards to references, as previously highlighted to you in support of the McManni records claim, five sources have been added which to you were not good enough. To the user who has reported you, I think it goes much further than an edit war and more of a personal problem with myself. You seem to have being going about Wikipedia for a few months now and reverting near enough all my edits, sometimes even reverting back to the wrong information, such as your recent edit on Marr College which I have previously highlighted to you. I have tried working with you and reasoning but you continued to edit war which has lead exactly to your behaviour being flagged up to the administrators on Wikipedia, something that you were warned about. Wikipedia is a supportive community where all users work hard together to make the community a better and accessible place to all users and readers. It certainly does not help when some users engage in an edit war for no reason at all other than what appears to be to spite several users. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
As for a rather crude example of edit war (between reported user and another IP), this pretty much warrants a gold medal in reverting - 16 edits by the both of them (reverts, all of them) in the span of just 15 minutes. As for the talk page issue, there was an attempt at communication, however most of it evolved into fallacious reasoning (as I pointed out in my brief comment - at the time I concluded the matter didn't need more of my attention since my remarks were clearly falling on deaf ears - however, lack of progress led me to file a report here in the hope that the discussion would reach somebody able to force a calmer and more respectful discussion), (falsely) claiming the other had no sources for their claims and accusing others of being vandals, in clear violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND (or, just plain ol' common sense and respect). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Goodreg, please show 1 example where you tried to "work" with me please, just the one? You wont find one im afraid, just constant reverts to what your opinion is, threats, attacks and childish games. The most recent example, the record company. Just provide 1 source for this, but all you did was quote one gossip mag from 10 years ago where the subject said she was thinking of setting this up. You then used this as a source! Re the Albumn, just because you found 1 example that agrees with you does not make it so. There has been 1 albumn, not albumns, simple really. You have quite a few warnings and bans yourself for constant edit wars and trying to force your opinions on an article. I have asked you time and again to help with this article one the talk page, but all you do is threaten that you have to powers to instant ban me lol! Show just 1 edit on this page where I have not improved the article and/or corrected a unsourced claim? Simply-the-truth (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Beginning of comical interlude. (in response to your earlier comment) So, because I'm an IP, my 360 edits across french and english WP are all just vandalism? End of comical interlude. As for your taunt that "Show just 1 edit on this page where I have not improved the article and/or corrected a unsourced claim" - Dear sir, please look here and, an example of removing sourced information (which could have been removed on the grounds it trivia, but you instead kept attacking the other involved editors): here. You seem to be missing the big picture here, with most of your edits being focused on minor issues (instead of improving the article, you have mostly removed the contributions of other, without much talk page discussion other than name calling), which led to this petty and childish dispute. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
please stop the personal attacks unregistered IP, keep it civil. The changes you quote are my removeal of a UNSOURCED claim from 10 years ago. So you think I am in the wrong for doing that, please expand on that? I have never forced my view on this article, please see the talk page where I pratically beg the other ediditor to work with me on it and provide sources? I actually found the sources for the actress claims myself and added to the article. Again, I state 100% that anyone who checks the article now as opposed to before the edist will see that all rules were adhered to and the article is a lot better. Seperatly, I find tha fact that you have made so many edits bit wont register strange and a bit iffy. And as for the childish digs, please see how you started your last response, kettle and pot? PLEASE NOTE: Do NOT change my replies on here in any way at all, even indents. This is agianst wiki rules, if it bothers you, you have to deal with itSimply-the-truth (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week. This seems to be an intense war over minor issues. Try to use the talk page to create a compromise version of the text. If warring continues after protection expires, blocks may be needed. Consider opening an WP:RFC to see if McManni Records exists or not. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the page protection, it was needed. Also, this complaint was closed by the OP, why has it been reopended?Simply-the-truth (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Goodreg3 reported by User:Simply-the-truth (Result: )[edit]

Page: Michelle McManus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simply-the-truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Constant forcing of npov on article, wont discuss on talk, reverts none stop with no sources at all

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Please can you look at the constant harassment and threats this user is making against me, even reverting my talk page and threatening time and again that he has the powers to instant block me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simply-the-truth&diff=810841170&oldid=810841081Simply-the-truth (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:BOOMERANG Please, can we stop WP:AGF and just ban the above (i.e. Simply-the-truth) for being clearly WP:NOTHERE? Demonstrably, editor is treating editing as a battleground (by holding to very narrow points and disrupting Wikipedia and other users (by their constant edit warring) simply to prove a point - often ignoring the big picture (as EdJohnston states, it is edit warring over very minor points)); has little or no interest in working collaboratively (multiple edit wars on Michelle McManus and South Ayrshire, stalking on Air Berlin) and has repeatedly lied in edit summaries, in talk page discussions (WP:OR claiming subject is not an actress despite reliable sources saying otherwise here, stating another user has not participated on talk page discussion or provided sources while both are false (example, sources here), and by deliberately introducing false information (here, claiming subject album was a failure while it was no. 3 on the charts... - and reinstating the information when disputed here). I'm sick of this - either somebody is here to help or he isn't not, and in my opinion, the above editor has caused much trouble without making any significant changes and should at least get a very stern warning. 135.23.202.24 (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:132.198.18.255 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
The Center for Medical Progress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
132.198.18.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810649773 by Ravensfire (talk) there are two in support, there is nothing to contest, strictly factual information"
  2. 15:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "strictly factual update from FBI, with source and with fixed formatting; this should not be controversial, please use talk page before removing"
  3. 14:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "update from FBI without Fox News interpretation, please don't edit war and use talk page"
  4. 13:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810598778 by Binksternet (talk) please do not revert until consensus"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Center for Medical Progress. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [[44]]
Comments:

Editor has participated some in the talk page discussion, but still forcing views in main article. May be best handled by semi-protection to force IP user to work through talk page. Ravensfire (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't support semi-prot as a complete solution in this particular situation. A brand new editor, Redsetter22, has picked up where 132.198.18.255. This may be the same person creating an account, which would be great, but I wouldn't want them using it to circumvent semi-prot. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The IP user is on a dynamic address and shifted to 132.198.18.252 shortly after the report, but certainly wasn't trying to hide or disguise anything. Redsetter22 says they are the original IP 73.114.23.15 who added this information, but they promptly continued to push the material that multiple editors have challenged (see [45] and [46] while at the same time making a fairly hostile comment towards DrFleischman (see [47]). Semi protection would stop the IP users, and if Redsetter22 continues to push the same challenged text then a block would handle that problem. Either way, some action is needed here. Ravensfire (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that they were using a dynamic address. On second thought semi-prot is necessary if not sufficient. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week by User:Dlohcierekim. If fluctuating IPs continue to make controversial edits when protection expires, we may need further steps. The Center for Medical Progress is an anti-abortion organization. Admins have the ability to apply restrictions to this article under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment I added a brief message and the DS template to the talk page. Feel free to revert me if I've overstepped myself. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I think the temporary full prot is reasonable and Dlohcierekim DS warning was appropriate--but isn't the additional 1RR restriction overkill, at least at this point? The current disruption is fully addressed by the full prot, and the article hasn't seen persistent prior disruption. Before yesterday, the only significant edit warring was short, quickly resolved flare-ups in April and May. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Back to 3rr. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3 reported by User:Jevansen (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Barassi Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810691807 by Darkness Shines (talk)
  2. 20:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810690322 by Jevansen (talk) I did not remove 17 citations, there was no formal discussion so I reverted to the last version we have discussed. You must discuss, and prove claims."
  3. 20:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810687949 by Jevansen (talk) WP:PROVEIT please refer to the talk page."
  4. 20:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810685403 by Boomer Vial (talk) Further missue of BRD will have you up for an ANI award."
  5. 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810684055 by Boomer Vial (talk) I already did."
  6. 20:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810683602 by Boomer Vial (talk) You cannot claim edit warring when I have already stated this. Tendentious use of BRD is also otherwise known as filibustering."
  7. 20:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810682076 by Boomer Vial (talk) please read WP:HUMAN"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) to 19:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 19:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810650917 by The-Pope (talk) This is a cear missuse of BRD policy for the purposes of filibustering. Original research tags must not be removed until the problems are fixed."
    2. 19:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810611492 by TripleRoryFan (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continues to remove large amounts of sourced content. Subject has been warned on talk page but continues to revert. Attempts by User:Boomer Vial to resolve this on the IP's talk page have been met with claims of talk page "harassment". Jevansen (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The unwillingness to not only not reach consensus, but not engage in any debate[48], willingness to play the victim[49], as well as the indication that they feel the need to be "right"[50] leads to believe this editor is intentionally gaming the system. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:54, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Note that it's a dynamic IP (see the slight variants in IPv6 addresses in the history and this AN/I report from last week at the start of his/her agitating on this article. The-Pope (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


Request to any admin[edit]

A glance at the page history here shows that large chunks of text are being blanked and restored, tags are being added and deleted, and it's just a big game of football with editors kicking each other and rolling over claiming serious injury. Can we lock this article for a week - doesn't matter which version, though perhaps revert to whatever the last stable version was - while discussion progresses? --Pete (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it was Skyring/Pete who started the deletion of large chunks, not the IP. The-Pope (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't bloody care. That was BRD, I had a good reason for getting rid of irrelevant material - which is most of this ridiculous article - and we're discussing how to proceed towards understanding and consensus. Discussion, rather than edit-warring is how we progress. We can go to an RfC to get more eyes on the thing, and it really doesn't matter what version the article is in right now. It's hardly urgent or of overwhelming importance. Geez. --Pete (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@The-Pope: I have a suspicion that the IP editor is Pete. The consistency between the edits of Pete and the IP editor sure are close. It would also make sense why he, not the IP editor is here responding. As well as the fact that the edits of the IP have since ceased. @GoodDay: I'd like to know what you think. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Why not raise it at WP:SPI? I'm seeing multiple massive reverts by several editors, none of which is me in any guise, but clearly this needs to stop. Sockpuppets, meatpuppets, tag-teaming; it's all disruptive and counter-productive. --Pete (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sockpuppets, meatpuppets, tag-teaming..." See, that's exactly what leads me to think that you're the one sockpuppeting. One accusation of sockpuppetry, and you're immediately projecting the blame onto others. User:The-Pope pointed out above that you were the one that started deleting mass chunks of text. It's just happenstance that the IP picked up right where you left off? You were being reverted by multiple editors because nobody agrees with your disruptive removal of sourced content. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
The article should be semi-protected, so that IPs can't edit. IMHO, the mobile editor is likely a sock of somebody who is currently banned from Wikipedia. I don't believe the sock is Skyring/Pete. If an SPI will clear his name? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Care to check Pete's blocklist? I see multiple blocks already for edit-warring, sockpuppets, disruptive editing, etc. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of Skyring/Pete's block history. For different reasons entirely, I too, was banned from the 'pedia for a whole (2013-14) year. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the reasons for his extensive block history isn't entirely different. Actually, it's directly related. I mean he comes in here[51] not only defending the edits of the IP editor, but casting the blame upon others. That, coupled with the fact that the IP editor/Pete seems to pick off where the other left off screams "I'm a sock". Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:55, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Do like Skyring/Pete says, go to SPI. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You've got your head up your bum, Boomer, but it's fun to watch. The IP editor has clearly breached 3RR and deserves a block. The whole article should be protected for a bit, and I'll repeat that I don't care which version it is. --Pete (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me? You're the one with an extensive block history, dude. Not me. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 02:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolution[edit]

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours If the edit warring continues, we may need to look at protection, additional/longer blocks, or rangeblocks. SQLQuery me! 04:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
SQL, it seems that this guy is still posting. Is a rangeblock possible? --Pete (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Any further concerns should be taken to the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/2001:8003:645C:9200:DC9D:6010:5848:49B3. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
@Skyring: Sorry - I just got home from work. Looks like a rangeblock is already in place. SQLQuery me! 02:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed reported by User:Saqib (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Moonis Elahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Muhamamd Aziz Saeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 810784913 by Saqib (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Moonis Elahi. (TW)"
  2. 12:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Moonis Elahi. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

adding unsourced material to a BLP. the edits of this newbie are promotional in nature. Saqib (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Muhamamd Aziz Saeed is warned they may be blocked if they change the article again before getting a consensus in their favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Ilyasien seven10 reported by User:Tommy1933 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
Bhayangkara F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ilyasien seven10 (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:

Harrasment in his user talk. Tommy1933 (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined this page is for edit warring not for two editors who want to call each other vandals incorrectly. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:QuietestMoments reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Give a Little Bit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QuietestMoments (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] 04:16, November 19
  2. [54] 07:43, 07:51, November 19
  3. [55] 08:04, November 19
  4. [56] 08:13, November 19

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

  • QuietestMoments reverted the same infobox material four times in one day, after being warned not to do so. Binksternet (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:74.12.125.178 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Ark of the Covenant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
74.12.125.178 (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

The entire dang talk page


Comments:

Edit warring of weird religious stuff, aggressively failing WP:OR WP:POV WP:COMPETENCY WP:ICANTHEARYOU. See the history of everything this user has ever submitted. And apparently this is linked to this account. Everything he's ever written has been reverted by many editors. — Smuckola(talk) 18:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Since you seem intent on linking the complete set of WP policies, might as well give WP:PRIMARY since additions are clearly interpretations of primary sources (i.e. religious/mythological texts being of course primary sources). 135.23.202.24 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Mark Imanuel Granados reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Constantine the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mark Imanuel Granados (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 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC) to 08:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    2. 07:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    3. 07:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    4. 07:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    5. 08:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "restoring this pages"
  2. 07:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "restoring this page from vandalism"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC) to 07:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    2. 07:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  4. Consecutive edits made from 07:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC) to 07:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    2. 07:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    3. 07:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 07:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC) to 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    2. 07:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    3. 07:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    4. 07:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    5. 07:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    6. 07:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    7. 07:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
    8. 07:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "/* Sainthood */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC) to 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    2. 00:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
    3. 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Constantine the Great. (TWTW)"
  2. 07:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Constantine the Great. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring, adding unsourced cruft into the infobox. Making multiple minor edits, often reverting himself and continuing for days. Seems confused as to what he wants to add. Makes similar bad edits to related articles. Clogs the article history. When challenged, he calls other editors' edits "vandalism". Unresponsive, and CIR is an issue. Watch especially for edit-warring of cruft such as "patronage = converts, new discoveries, christian faith" and "attributes = Christogram" in the infobox. Dr. K. 08:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • OK, I'll drop my note here instead of on my talk page. Let me just say that the Christogram isn't cruft, though much of the rest is--in hoc signo vinces etc.: the chi-ro comes from Eusebius already. Anyway, yeah, this editor is troubling--there were licensing issues too with those images, and I wonder (haven't checked yet) if the images they were adding to Constantine and Helena were theirs as well. I do think that CIR is an issue, as is (obviously) the edit warring; as a reminder, we've also blocked people for being incommunicado. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm File:Byzantineiconofholycross.jpg is troubling: the license seems to be false. Does anyone know a Commons admin? Should this be escalated? I've been tinkering with those articles but I'm not going to bring down the hammer--however, I'm thinking that a block, an indef-block, is maybe proper. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
The user has been here since August. They have never posted to a talk page, and their own talk is full of image warnings. (Some of their uploads are marked 'Source pinterest author unknown', which is ironic since these are presumably famous icons). They were previously blocked back in August by User:Materialscientist for addition of unsourced content. This looks like a person who is very sure they are right and isn't planning to listen to advice. I would support an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Obviously yes, the christogram is not cruft per se, but adding it in the infobox, as an attribute of the emperor, without a citation, looks to me at least, as religious cruft. Dr. K. 18:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Just now once again changing the same image and marked as minor [59] - I don't mind the new image, but that is beside the point. Seraphim System (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree. But it gets even worse. Latest cruft from Helena (empress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): quote: patronage archaeologists, converts, difficult marriages, divorced people, empresses, Saint Helena island, new discoveries Noveleta, Cavite. No references, just an arbitrary list of esoteric cruft. He is single-handedly converting these articles into superstition manuals. No response from this user either. An indef is needed asap. Dr. K. 07:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Akocsg reported by User:188.158.72.50 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Aq Qoyunlu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akocsg (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:

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

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

Comments:
User just repeated his edit warring after 72 hours block. before block [60] after 72 hours block [61] previous report and result [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive355#User:Akocsg_reported_by_User:94.177.78.186_.28Result:_blocked.29 ] 188.158.72.50 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

To matters worse, this user is no stranger to foul play. Other than this recent edit warring, this user has been blocked indefinitely on the German Wikipedia 8 years ago, although it's hard to really translate why. Slasher405 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
What has that to do with anything? Or with this case, which is absolutely pointless? Akocsg (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

What is this about even? There is no edit-warring going on. Just an edit by me to improve the article by adding categories and placing two pictures into a better place. I mean what's the point? This IP account should be checked with the other one which reported me about 3 days ago. Akocsg (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see here. The only one reverting an edit without reason is this IP account. The tag in the summary (Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits) says all. Akocsg (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:2601:191:8402:5F89:2829:5B1F:640A:7010 reported by User:Jiten D (Result:Blocked, article protected)[edit]

Page: Little Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:191:8402:5F89:2829:5B1F:640A:7010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [63] (restoration of previous info as opposed to a clear revert)
  2. [64]
  3. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] (warning placed by Oshwah).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67] (on the IP's talk page as opposed to the article talk page)

Comments:

Although the primary report states the page on which edit warring took place to be Little Russia, the warring in this case stems from the addition (or changes) to articles with a motive to push a point of view (a better terminology would be that the changes are non-neutral) and so it spans over another article, namely Novorossiya. The first edit to the latter of the two pages was: diff which was reverted by Oshwah. This was followed by a reversion by the IP which I undid after providing my rationale on their talk page. There was a third edit by the IP to the same page (which currently stands).

The problem with the edits made to the two pages was explained to the IP in the link I've provided for my "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". The IP responded to my message with the following reply: diff in which they explicitly stated that they're "pro-Ukranian" along with slurs flung at editors who engaged with them. Another concern I share is that there has been a fourth revert on the page Little Russia by a different IP 2601:191:8402:5F89:E969:AC63:A652:3A90. Looking through the contributions of this IP, there is a similar problem of non-neutral edits that spans a different set of articles (except the one common article 'Little Russia'). It is possible that the two IP's belong to the same person, which can be clarified by them if they wish to do so. I gather my suspicion from the repeated use of the phrase "pathetic Ukrainophobic dogwhistles" by both the IP's (used 2 times by the IP reported and 1 time by the other IP) and similarity in the type of edits. Jiten talk contribs 18:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

courtesy pinging User:Oshwah Jiten talk contribs 18:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I blocked the IP for 24h earlier for the same edits; now I see they started massive edit-warring and socking. I blocked them for a week and protected the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Grangehilllover reported by User:86.136.76.190 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Bobby Beale (EastEnders) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grangehilllover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [69]
  2. [70]