Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive356

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Spacejam2 reported by User:Earthh (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: MTV Europe Music Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spacejam2 (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 11:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 13:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 11:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎List of ceremonies */"
    2. 13:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    3. 13:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    4. 13:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    5. 13:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 18:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    2. 18:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    3. 18:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    4. 18:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"
    5. 18:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811875260 by Fort esc (talk)"
    6. 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 18:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC) to 18:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 07:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811941308 by Earthh (talk) WANDALISM!!!"
    2. 07:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 811930040 by Fort esc (talk) WANDALISM"
  4. 11:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812019893 by Earthh (talk) Wikipedia:Vandalism"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 15:39, 27 November 2017‎ (UTC) to 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
    1. 15:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812177817 by Earthh (talk) VANDALISM!"
    2. 15:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎List of ceremonies and host cities */"
    3. 19:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎Award categories */"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 12:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC) "/* ‎November 2017: new section */"

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

Comments:
Spacejam2 was already blocked before for edit warring. He is repeatedly reverting edits now and is not willing to reply at his talk page. The user is trying to force his own styling which is not used anywhere on awards articles, like adding flags in tables or creating new tables for listing every single winner of an event with twenty editions. He added pointless maps, unreadable tables and trivial content, and replaced reliable sources with unreliable ones like IMDb and Daily Mail. All this edits are against WP:MOS and WP:V. He also started accusing me and User:Fort esc of vandalism.--Earthh (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Waiting for Spacejam2 to respond. Earthh, your first talk page post on this matter was a fourth level warning for vandalism which is not particularly optimal. NeilN talk to me 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I posted a fourth level warning for vandalism specifying that his edits are against the general MoS rules and fail WP:V. Despite this, the user refused to use the talk page, restored his edits and appeared to be uncivil in edit summaries. The article in question still features his version and this weights on its quality. I'll wait his response before reverting his edits to avoid further edit warring.--Earthh (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • NeilN, the user continued editing without any response. The article still needs to be fixed.--Earthh (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
@Earthh: Go ahead and make your changes. I'll warn them that any reverts without discussing will result in a block. But please read WP:NOTVAND. Editing against MOS and not providing cites may be disruptive and blockable, but it's not vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 23:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

List of most viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours reported by User:MGChecker (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: List of most viewed online trailers in the first 24 hours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Too many

I'm on the run, so I'm can't offer more information. It should be obvious that this page should be protected on an old revision to prevent further edit warring until we have proper sources. --MGChecker (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

User:78.150.162.105 reported by User:PaleCloudedWhite (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Clovelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.150.162.105 (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. [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: [diff]

Comments:
Shows no intention of stopping warring, despite requests in edit summaries and a clear warning on their talkpage. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. GABgab 16:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:MenofTomorrow reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indef)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 05:30, 1 December 2017 by MenofTomorrow, replaced "fascist" with "traditionalist"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 07:30, 1 December 2017 revert Toddy1
  2. 07:33, 1 December 2017 revert Volunteer Marek
  3. 15:34, 1 December 2017 revert Volunteer Marek
  4. 19:52, 1 December 2017 revert Lute88

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:03, 1 December 2017‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been no attempt to discuss this on the talk page. However, attempts to deny that Dugin is a fascist have been discussed on the article talk page many times, see Talk:Aleksandr Dugin. This particular dispute is about whether someone whose writings influenced Dugin was a fascist.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Guy (Help!) 22:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
And upped to indef looking at past contributions. WP:NOTHERE. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Talk:Patriot Prayer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
PeterTheFourth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Read WP:EW - Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring. James was specifically banned for posting on this talk page, so I think it's a violation of his topic ban."
  2. 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813007024 by James J. Lambden (talk) User is topic banned from Trump"
  3. 04:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 812936691 by James J. Lambden (talk) You're under a Trump topic ban, best stay away until you've served it"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Talk:Patriot Prayer */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by PeterTheFourth (talk): Article is not about Trump, nor is the rfc. (TW)"
Comments:

Article and TP are under a 1RR restriction reverting perceived violations of a TBAN of another editors comments are not an exemption. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Pardon my interruption, but per WP:EVASION, "[a]nyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." I should think that rationale applies even where 1RR is concerned. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The user was not blocked when the comment was made, there was no block evasion so that excuse is invalid Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
You're quite right! I got the block and the ban mixed up. My apologies. I believe there was a ban in place, which was actually the underlying reason for the later block. Per WP:BANREVERT, "[a]nyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule." Since the edits were determined to be in violation of a ban (hence the block), I'd say this rationale applies, even to 1RR. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That rational will not fly either, the editor is not banned, Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The section is now hatted, but I would invite you to have a look at this action [7] wherein the editor was blocked for the edit(s) in question--as the result of a topic ban from Donald Trump, broadly construed. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
A TBAN is not banned, citing a policy which does not support an argument is pointless, these reverts should not have been made, they are a violation of the restrictions on the page Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
From what I can read at WP:BANREVERT, the "ban" in question refers to both site bans and topic bans, especially seeing how the text "Edits by the editor or on his or her behalf that are clearly within the topic area may be reverted without question (exceptions)," at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF points to wp:banrevert for further explanation. ValarianB (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
(totally uninvolved comment) Ban is a ban. The wording of WP:BANBLOCKDIFF (see the last row of the table) supports the reading that a topic ban is a ban. However, I'm not even sure whether the talk page is under 1RR restriction. According to WP:DSLOG only the article is under 1RR. If I click Edit button on the talk page, there's an edit notice which says "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article" [emphasis added]. I.e. the edit notice specifically refers to the article. I have never heard a case where 1RR has ever applied to a talk page and I find it very unusual that the edit notice even appears on the talk page.
Perhaps Cyberpower678 could enlighten us whether 1RR applies to the talk page as well? Politrukki (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something obvious at BANREVERT, a topic ban is a ban, and edits of banned editors (For whatever reason) can be removed without comment. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
De minimis non curat lex, but Arkon certainly has a point. Dumuzid (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
NOTE: ...the parties are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other..." [9] I did not and will not violate the IBAN, and I only spoke to MASEM. Also, I was following User:PeterTheFourth and for some reason James J. Lambden which I can't figure out, but not anyone else. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I also made the explicit clarification on your IBAN that both of you are not to respond at all to discussions started by the other. This discussion was started by D.S. As for the talk page, why is edit warring going on the talk page? I haven’t looked into this case but here’s my official stance. A ban is a ban. Be it topic, interaction, or site ban, any that violates said ban can be reverted without question. WP:3RR/WP:1RR/WP:0RR does not apply in those cases just as it doesn’t apply when reverting obvious vandalism. IMO WP:1RR applies to the article only. I could be wrong in that stance. I really didn’t see the need to impose that restriction on a talk page.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 19:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Patriot Prayer A Trump article?Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can say that hasn't already been said, but I guess to summarise: James J. Lambden is both topic banned from Trump, and as a result of his edits to that article's talk page, actually blocked for 48 hours. He shouldn't be posting there, and as per WP:EVASION and WP:EW, removing his vote there is uncontroversial and does not count to any (non-existent) 1RR restriction on the talk page. I'd suggest a boomerang for Darkness Shines for edit warring to add a banned editors vote to their RfC. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Diffs please of my edit warring Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, looks like there's just the one here. I thought there were more, but I was mixing up James J. Lambden with you. My bad! PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Whether this a violation or not, I am more concerned that the bulk of PeterTheFourth's edits are reverts[10]. That's problematic behavior.--DHeyward (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't looked at his contributions before... I have had some discussions involving Peter and in my experience he is very careful not to break 3RR but has a very battleground approach to editing. In my last discussion with him, I decided to step away as the argument wasn't worth the aggravation for me, and when I said I wouldn't be engaging any further he responded with "Yay!". Looking at his top 20 edited articles and talk pages, he seems to only edit on controversial ideological and political articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 05:10, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Per the recent result of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#James J. Lambden, Patriot Prayer falls under James's ban from anything Trump-related. Hence WP:3RRNO item #3 applies and PeterTheFourth's reverts of James don't count. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:KalHolmann reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Joy-Ann Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
KalHolmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813170098 by Jaydogg1994 Revert unexplained removal of sourced content. Please discuss at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#Partisan_edits_by_Bernie_Supporters."
  2. 22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813120135 by 107.181.69.228 Revert unexplained removal of sourced content. Please discuss at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid#Partisan_edits_by_Bernie_Supporters."
  3. 21:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813117798 by Gati123 Revert third violation of WP:EDITWAR. You must allow time for editorial consensus to form."
  4. 21:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813117108 by Gati123 Revert second violation of WP:EDITWAR. You must allow time for editorial consensus to form."
  5. 21:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813116042 by Gati123 Revert violation of WP:EDITWAR. I repeat: explain yourself at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid and allow time for editorial consensus to form."
  6. 21:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813115038 by Special:Contributions/2001:983:44EA:1:280E:8AB1:8BF1:71DC Revert unexplained removal of sourced content."
  7. 21:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813110648 by Gati123 Please discuss at Talk:Joy-Ann_Reid why "These don't deserve a wikipedia entry" and allow time for editorial consensus to form."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

KalHolmann has received two recent EW notices 1) by Dyrnych and 2) by My very best wishes


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

A discussion, if it could be called that, is occurring on Talk:Joy-Ann Reid#Partisan edits by Bernie Supporters

Comments:

Repeatedly adding attack content to article primarily source by wp:selfpublished sources. i.e. twitter and blog.

Jim1138 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mr.Exicornt reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Sockblocked)[edit]

Page
Damian Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mr.Exicornt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "Revert, this is sourced, and confirmed, per U.S. law. The sources may be deadlinks, but they're confirmed... leave it at that"
  2. 12:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "Reverting, sourced, confirmed"
  3. 12:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "reverting, sourced"
  4. 11:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "Revert, sourced info, and I'm going to the Daily Star, Daily Mail and New York Times anyway - so quit reverting me, fukkah"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • As a neutral third party.Master account is already well-aware of 3RR, as from his illustratious history. Winged Blades Godric 12:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah..>Wait, there is something more foul into this:)Winged Blades Godric 12:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. MPS1992 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:TaylanUB reported by User:80.6.59.134 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User keeps reverting to include paragraph deemed unfit in talk: "The use of the term was associated with a physical assault by transgender activists on a woman partaking in a feminist gathering in at Speaker's Corner in London on September 13, 2017.[83][84][85] Meghan Murphy, founder of Canadian website Feminist Current, opined afterwards that "TERF" is not only a slur but a form of hate speech.[86] The London Met have since began looking for three suspects related to the assault, one of whom is described as a man and the other two believed to be transgender.[87]"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

The user appears to be inserting content into the article to serve a political purpose. They claim that the people saying that the content should not be included are themselves being political, but in reality every other editor in talk has agreed that the inclusion of this content is non-neutral pov pushing. Despite this the user keeps re-inserting the content instead of arguing their case in talk. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The three edits were (coincidentally) over a 25-hour period, but thanks for letting me know about the rule before I actually broke it. :-\ As for the accusation that I'm being politically biased: everyone can see in Talk:Transphobia and the edit history of the article in question that every time my additions to the article were removed, it was either due to a misapplication or misinterpretation of Wikipedia's rules, or due to the personal bias of those removing the content, judging by how emotional they ultimately became (calling me a "hateful bigot" etc.) and hastily reporting me before I even broke this rule. Let this go on record as (further) evidence of how biased people editing transgender-related articles can be against those trying to make the article more neutral... Also, I shouldn't even need to say this but I fully support the humanity and dignity of transgender-identifying people. I just think they shouldn't assault feminists, and that they shouldn't try to pretend it didn't happen when three major British news outlets (Times, Guardian, New Statesman) have reported on it. TaylanUB (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool story. Still doesn't mean that we should include random paragraphs about it in unrelated articles to do with trans people. If your best response to the edit warring rule is "actually it was over 25 hours instead of 24" then I think that you're practically admitting that a problem does exist in your conduct here. Everyone but you has said that the inclusion is unfair emphasis. This isn't contributing to a more neutral point of view any more than including references to biblical creationism in science articles is. You also admit that you would revert further, and besides, none of this should matter, because again, there has been a consensus in the article talk that your contribution here does not belong in the article as it violates neutral point of view. Your continuing to re-add the content despite this is in itself misconduct. 80.6.59.134 (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Over the last 24 hours, you each have two reverts. Now that you're both clearly aware that the change is disputed, please resolve your discussion on the article's talk page before reverting again. Kuru (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Warned both)[edit]

Page: Australian rules football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (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. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

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

Comments:
User's justification for reverts made within 24 hours is not valid. e.g. saying: 1) "Restore consensus version (and no, 2 IP socks do not count aa "others")", when they are seemingly not socks. 2) Revert made without explanation. 3) Also Saying: "Others obviously disagree. That's why there's a talk page." User when requested refuses to get consensus by using talkpage, even though they know as I've openly stated: "Others obviously disagree, now 3:2. That's why there's a talk page, and use it to gain consensus please.'Opinion' is not good enough."

Previous reverted edits by Jenks24[21] and HappyWaldo[22], especially User:HappyWaldo who dismissively says: "condense material, rm pure conjecture and details on cancelled tour (never happened so who cares)" The editor adding the text has explained there position here[23], whose logic seems justified. They also added "And others also agree. And I've already reached out and explained why it's vailed. And it doesn't matter if you disagree, because it is a fact that games were of Australian rules were played in the 1888 Rugby tour & other things I mentioned, and sourced."[24] Arianewiki1 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Note. That fourth diff is not by Joefromrandb, it is from the IP/new editor, and the warning was given after his last revert. Joe probably needs to be a bit more careful, but he has not broken 3RR and I can understand his irritation (I also made a revert to the version Joe supports). Just because something is verified does not mean it must be added to the article, Australian rules football is a large topic and there are millions of things written about it that we don't include in our article. I can understand why the new editor/IP didn't know about our WP:BRD process and edit warred but I'm not sure why Arianewiki1 has supported them in this – once it was reverted once it should have gone to the talk page to discuss inclusion. Who knows, there's every chance there would have been agreement to add it, or maybe suggest a more appropriate article like History of Australian rules football or Origins of Australian rules football. Jenks24 (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.. Arianewiki1 and Joefromrandb you both look like you are edit warring. Joefromrandb, asking for page protection is the correct way to go. Arianewiki1 your fourth link is actually an IP reverting to your preferred version. I also note that several editors reverted you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: @Joefromrandb: A very poor decision IMO, that could have broader ramifications towards ignoring WP:GF. If anything, when an IP newbee posts material that is even sourced, but they are accused of being a sock with have zero attempts by those reverts then refuse to go to the article's talkpage nor reasonable explanation. What I question is especially Joefromrandb own behaviour here and in light of this cowardly action.[25] Considering the 'attitude' especially this.[26] it is clear "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period."Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule (they did), and they have used exemption "3. "Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." as justification. Also stated "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached."
As for CambridgeBayWeather saying "IP reverting to your preferred version." I have no preferred version. There seems no justification for the original revert, especially User:HappyWaldo who says: "condense material, rm pure conjecture and details on cancelled tour (never happened so who cares)" Worst Jenks24 (above) in saying "I can understand why the new editor/IP didn't know about our WP:BRD process and edit warred.." verifies Joefromrandb is ignoring "Don't bite the newbees."
As for my own "warning" in saying "I also note that several editors reverted you.", clearly I have reverted only twice with two editors regarding the contentious text here. There is absolutely no justification to bully others - especially newbees - into submission via the tactics displayed here. Joefromrandb IMO in not acting in a manner conducive to editing articles here. Technically this may or may not be 3RR, but it is sure avoiding the principles of having such rules.
To answer Jenks24 "I'm not sure why Arianewiki1 has supported them in this" This is why, and considering their own position, they should know better. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

IP:91.125.132.178 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )[edit]

Page: Trichinosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.125.132.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27] (Dec 1 21:27)
  2. [28] (Dec 2 11:55)
  3. [29] (Dec 2 13:14)
  4. [30] (Dec 2 20:18)
  5. [31] (Dec 2 20:54)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:
What the hell is going on here? This could be a newbie good faith error - maybe it makes some sort of sense for "Epidemiology" to be at the top - and there's self-reversion going on as well as the obvious. There doesn't seem to be any real attempt to explain the problem to the user. The mentions on talk pages don't provide any real guidance. --Pete (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:MakinaterJones (Result: A warning (but not for David Eppstein)[edit]

THERE IS NOT BLOCK FOR EDIT WARRING, CERTAINLY NOT FOR DAVID EPPSTEIN SINCE THEY WEREN'T EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE TO EDIT WARRING. (Is that clear?) The person who started this, MakinaterJones, is indeed WARNED for disruptively filing needless report that take up valuable time from administrators and editors. (Is that clear?) Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User being reported: David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Mikhail Blagosklonny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Oncotarget (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

My name is Stacey. I have been doing small edits on wiki for a year or so now. When I saw this issue on the BLP noticeboard (which I mainly pay attention to) I saw Mikhail Blagosklonny BLP page needing the most serious attention. After I made a contribution to the BLP noticeboard, I made some small edits based on wiki policy and they were reverted with little or no explanation (one was reverted because I had an IP and no account)

So, I created an account ;)

I have put considerable time into this and I would like to have the discussion on the talk page and noticeboards rather than constantly edit war with this editor.

I am making every effort to simply make the pages more explanatory - as the publishing frequency was wrong, the MEDLINE delisting comment was very short, and not even a complete sentence - I am monitoring all pages connected with the BLP under attack.

He refuses to cite wiki policy and on other occasions makes no edit summary what-so-ever.

Dear David, I would you rather you just engage in the discussion on the talk page and notice board I have provided.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oncotarget

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mikhail_Blagosklonny

I am worried that this editors interest in this issue prevents them from remaining neutral, follow policy and willing to engage in finding consensus. David Eppstein is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, arguing in an extremely biased way, and not citing wiki policy to keep negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

MakinaterJones (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)65.244.36.158 (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

  • This report is nonsense, and the OP's idea [34] that Jeffrey_Beall should be deleted suggests a complete misunderstanding of... everything. EEng 04:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Two reverts in two weeks (and then letting the user's edits stand unreverted for the third time) counts as edit warring now? Also, MakinaterJones is merely the latest in a sequence of single-purpose accounts seemingly focused on whitewashing Oncotarget and Mikhail Blagosklonny; see Talk:Oncotarget for more. And I suppose it's pointless to note that MJ failed to follow the you-must-notify instructions here; thanks EdJohnston for the heads-up (I did see this from the Oncotarget talk page but it's helpful to have a talk page link). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:MakinaterJones, please make yourself more aware of our guidelines. This report is spurious. If you would like to remove Beall's article from Wikipedia, that is fine, but I warn you that it will likely be laughed out of court and might lead to a block for either disruption or lack of competence. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Woah there everyone!

Lets not get confused here this is a conversation about David Eppstein and edit warring.

My comments on the lack of proper application of Wiki policy have been placed in the respective areas for discussion (including proposed deletion and split to event page for Beall @EEng) please comment there and not in the discussion about edit warring. My interpretation of policy regarding Beall as a reliable source was posted on Oncotarget page this afternoon.

So on point, the editor here has reverted 6 times in the last 30 days 3 of which had no edit summary. Moreover, he is treating me (as a new editor) with extreme contempt as one of the edit summary he left was describing his personal viewpoints of the edits, not the change that he made..."primary sources, mealy-mouthed attempt to water down the delisting, and bad faith attempt to shut down reversion of these bad edits"

I vehemently disagree with this statement, I have made all edits in light and spirt of wiki policy and gone above and beyond to make my interpretation of how these facts apply to the policy perfectly clear and available (including comprehensive edit summaries).

I have asked the editor 3 times to bring his concerns to the talk page, I have made two comments on the talk page - he has ignored requests and my talk page comments and continued reverting.

I am the one that stopped reverting and I am now trying to get a legitimate discussion started here.

However, David Eppstein is clearly ignoring the requests and is on a bit of a run adding, reverting, showing bias, and not citing wiki policy in an effort to to keep and add negative information on articles related to Mikhail Blagosklonny and specifically content sourced to Beall.

Overall, I have explained how I got here, what my interests are and I have made posts on all appropriate talk pages, and noticeboards - It is okay to disagree, it is not okay to attack - I want to talk about the cold hard policy facts - Wiki and myself deserve you to take your time and engage the discussions instead of trying to bully me into accepting your position on these issues or act like the decisions have already been made.

I am asking for independent outside administrator evaluation of the issues on the talk pages and noticeboards - and in the meantime, it would be nice to stop reverting every edit I preform. We might also need independent evaluation here (seems like Eppstien keeps calling friends over to help and support him rather than relying on policy application and consensus from neutral parties)

Drmies I am not making a statement about his edit warring, I am here looking for consensus and evaluation of the facts and actions of this senior editor in light of the page changes and discussions I am asking for as a new editor. ALSO THO How is it disruptive to think differently about this topic than you, am I not allowed to raise concerns? Are we not in a world of eventualism where all things are open for discussion? Why are you acting like you know the end result before we start the discussion ? MakinaterJones (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please help me find independent review of the issues I am dealing with here and at these places -[[37]] [[38]] [Beall Split]

Is it possible to call in other people with an interest and/or expertise in policy?

I believe some of the editors, specially Eppstien are too close to the issue and might not be able to properly engage in discussions to seek consensus with 1. a new editor and 2. someone who disagrees with him from a policy perspective, not the perspective of Academic Journals.

MakinaterJones (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • The first thing you need to understand is that when you raise a complaint about another editor, your conduct will be reviewed as well. You need to read and think about what people are telling you. Right now what you're doing is called WP:FORUMSHOPPING – raising your complaints in multiple places until you get the result you want. And this [39] shows how confused you are – this page is swarming with admins, including Drmies, who is a member of the Arbitration Committee. So stop saying you're being mistreated and go back to the article talk pages. EEng 08:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Eng

I am comfortable being reviewed.

I have only raised this issue here because I was told to. - I have, however, brought this issue up in response to allegations that I am edit warring.

I have been told to bring this to a dispute resolution noticeboard - are you going to accuse me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING if I do that now?

Is no one going to actually respond to my last message above in a proper analysis as to edit warring?

MakinaterJones (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

To the matter of edit warring, I don't see anything that rises to the level of edit warring at either reported page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred,

Thank you of your attention on this - I appreciate and respect your response. As we (the other editor and I) do not agree, do you also suggest bringing this to dispute resolution?

MakinaterJones (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@MakinaterJones: If you've discussed the matter at the articles' talk pages and cannot agree, then your next step is a process like third opinion, RFC, or formal dispute resolution. —C.Fred (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred,

Great contribution here, I have been seeking information about how to properly invite a RFC - this helps!

As I mentioned above, I am not getting engagement from the editor on any talk page or noticeboard - they just want to continue reverting and I do not want to approach a third revert (I only revert once)

Overall, I am satisfied with the suggestions here and appreciate all the insight - I understand David Eppstein is not currently edit warring (Drmies are you warning me for edit warring? It is not quite clear the "result" you had indicated before the discussion was had)

I will take middle action and RFC before going to dispute resolution.

Sincerely, MakinaterJones (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Can we have this closed and archived, please? EEng 07:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes ma'am. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Drmies please do not archive until you can make overtly clear the "result" you had indicated before the discussion was had. ...are you warning me for edit warring? MakinaterJones (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

  • No, for disruption, for being a time since, and...I don't know, filing a report for edit warring when you don't know what edit warring is. And please stop inserting all these line breaks here. And listen to those who you are asking to be in charge. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kulprit001 reported by User:Ifnord (Result:Blocked)[edit]

Page
Mersenne prime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kulprit001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813330969 by Anita5192 (talk) Please understand what is written before removing."
  2. 03:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813327889 by C.Fred (talk) It is not necessary to cite a source for alt text of an image that verifies the fact. please understand before undoing."
  3. 02:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813315399 by PrimeHunter (talk) It is a physical property of the universe that is immediatly verifiable by anyone who creates a pyramid chart. Stop"
  4. 00:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813308826 by PrimeHunter (talk) There is no source. It is obvious with a series of simple images. if you really want i can create a source but is unneccessary."
  5. 00:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813202602 by PrimeHunter (talk) This is a literal use of the theorum. if you dont understand it, try drawing some pyramid charts. This is useful for programmers."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mersenne prime. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[40] Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

I opened a talkpage discussion after this AN3 was opened, Meters (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

And another revert (RR6) since the AN3 was opened [41] 04:33, December 3, 2017‎ "Undid revision 813336998 by Meters (talk) Please stop undoing, i talked to everyone, i created a talk page. if you are not going to prove me wrong (which is impossible) then do not undo this." Meters (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Two more reverts by Kulprit001 have occurred. Kulprit001 does respond to edit summaries and talk page comments (not always in a civil manner) but continues to edit war, and appears unwilling to obtain consensus. Gap9551 (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Kulprit001 has made 10 reverts in just over 5 hours now. Gap9551 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --joe deckertalk 06:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Agricolae reported by User:D1gggg (Result: )[edit]

Page: Chicken or the egg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agricolae (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. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: before 3rd revert: [45] after 3rd revert: [46]

Discussions:

Statements by Agricolae after warnings at their page:

  • "sorry no - play your games somewhere else" [47]

Comments:

  • This is not a surprise to me: Agricolae is obsessed with such unimportant article and uncollaborative as before
    • In addition, user insists that removed content should be explained by other users, but WP:VD is quite clear: "The unexplained removal of encyclopedic content..." D1gggg (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
For the last go-round of this dispute, see User talk:D1gggg#Edit warring at Chicken or the egg. There is also some discussion on the article talk at Talk:Chicken or the egg#latest edit by Agricolae and in the section below that. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Just finding that this case has been opened in spite of there being no 3RR violation (not that one is necessary for it to be edit warring) and substantial though rather unproductive Talk page activity prior to the report. As EdJohnston pointed out, this is Act 2, and the article Talk page pretty much speaks for itself regarding the breakdown in communication, but that is not for want of me trying, both there and on my Talk page, to get the editor to engage over content [48] [49] [50], [51] [52] but the reporting editor seems more interested in re-litigating Act 1 and complaining about my edits (example: reporting editor twice condemned my removal of a specific See Also link [53] [54], which they couldn't be bothered to notice was actually still in the article at that time - since removed by a different editor). The editor also took to inappropriate template- and policy-bombing of my User Talk page [55] [56] [57] (and the article Talk page [58] [59]), my removal of which from my Talk page was accompanied by the edit summary quoted above. I tried to explain my edits: [60] [61] [62] [63] (all before this report), all the while wrestling with this editor's borderline-incoherence [64] [65], and what I get for my trouble is attempted brow-beatings [66], accusations of incompetency, bad faith [67] [68], vandalism (above and [69] [70], and obsession (above), culminating in this report. At a minimum it belies the suggestion above by the reporting editor that they consider this to be an "unimportant article". Anyhow, a combination of an overly-pusillanimous attitude, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some clear difficulties with English-language communication, and a precipitous decline in my willingness to subject myself to more of same have resulted in what could have been a simple content dispute ending up here, again (sigh). Agricolae (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:DENY "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and some clear difficulties with English-language communication, and a precipitous decline in my willingness"
1 December 2017 [71]:
"Explanation about "chicken" word ambiguity in any form you would accept"
You had month to answer: [72]
Other users stopped such edits like Deacon Vorbis with Aristotle quotation and removal of Sorensen. D1gggg (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
User was reported because as before he doesn't create discussions after their edits are contested WP:BRD
Blaming other party for starting a discussion is WP:LAME
WP:DENY D1gggg (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I rest my case. Agricolae (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
[73] D1gggg (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm asking previous editors @Math and Katolophyromai: to have a look on what person does
and make their decision D1gggg (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I was really hoping that this whole dispute was over and that I would not get pulled back into it. I will clarify right away that I do not know what the full situation is between D1gggg and Agricolae, but, based on what I do understand of it, I am going to side with Agricolae. I see no evidence that he is acting in bad faith and, although I do not doubt D1gggg's good intentions, I think that he is being ridiculously monomaniacal over this whole issue with Aristotle and the "chicken-or-the-egg" question, which started off on November seventh (almost a month ago) when D1gggg deleted a mention of Aristotle discussing the issue at Moralia#Origins dilemma, because the statement was cited to a secondary source rather than Aristotle himself. This resulted in a bit of an argument between the two of us, which involved me determining that the source cited was outdated anyways and digging up a large number of references to include in the article as replacements (see the changes that were made to the article here: [74]). None of these satisfied D1gggg because he kept insisting that we needed the actual quote from Aristotle. I traced it back to a passage from Aristotle's Metaphysics, which seemed to be discussing the same basic philosophical question, but did not specifically use the words "chicken" and "egg". The conclusion of the argument was essentially a consensus that the argument was going nowhere, followed by a mutual agreement to stop arguing. That is the full extent of my involvement in this issue. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I would appreciate if we would discuss changes and finish it ASAP.
> to a secondary source rather than Aristotle himself.
Difficult to count secondary-tertiary when we don't have exact quotes between them.
In modern papers it can be wrong quote from François Fénelon (no quotation of Aristotle)
> actual quote from Aristotle
> but did not specifically use the words "chicken" and "egg"
That's whole point of suggestion from Math [75]
It felt wrong to me to leave it without reflection in article: WP:PRIMARY don't have evidence for such claim WP:V
It was clearly Plutarch who actually wrote chicken-egg in their works - we don't know if he was first ever to say this.
QUESTION III.: Which was First, the Bird or the Egg?
PLUTARCH, ALEXANDER, SYLLA, FIRMUS, SOSSIUS SENECIO, AND OTHERS
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1213#lf0062-03_label_477
It is strange to attribute it only to Aristotle based on Moralia
D1gggg (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC):
  • What news say: "For there could not have been a first egg to give a beginning to birds, or there should have been a first bird which gave a beginning to eggs; for a bird comes from an egg," wrote Aristotle (384–322 BC), according to an 1825 English translation of Lives of the Ancient Philosophers by François Fénelon.
  • can we actually find these words in his works?..
D1gggg (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
D1gggg, this is not the place to carry out a content dispute. The discussion that you initiated here is for one reason, and one reason only. To decide whether my actions yesterday constituted edit warring. This is not the place to try to win the disagreement over what should be on the page, and nothing of value to the question that this noticeboard cares about can come from you summoning people here in this manner to metastasize the content dispute to yet another venue. It is entirely inappropriate. Agricolae (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Not just yesterday, you were unassertive in providing references about Aristotle (or not Aristotle). I don't have inters in anything else WP:HERE. Discussion could be moved afterwards. D1gggg (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm skeptical of any ANEW report which has to get Aristotle and Plutarch into it somehow. EEng 07:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
D1gggg is accurate in one respect: "Not just yesterday" (now several days back, the day this report was made). The three reverts listed didn't even fall within 24 hours. This wasn't a 3RR violation. It wasn't even a 2RR violation (were there such a thing, and the article was not under 1RR sanction), and I had already explained my rationale on Talk, both the article's and my own. This whole complaint, like the more recent vandalism4-templating of my Talk page [76], amounts to nothing more than a cynical attempt to suppress opposition or extreme cluelessness. Agricolae (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User:71.174.133.249 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked and protected)[edit]

Page
Abomination of desolation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
71.174.133.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "still waiting for you to enter the "discuss" portion of the "revert/discuss" cycle same for Mr.New Engalander"
  2. 21:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Still waiting for someone else to post something on the talk page in order to have a civilized discussion - how about you? are you willing?"
  3. 20:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "please use talk page in order to have a civilized discussion"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC) to 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 19:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "please use talk page for a civilized discussion before continuing this"
    2. 20:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
  5. 19:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "not original research - vast majority of material comes from skolfields book used as a reference. Please use talk page to discuss."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ Warning 1"
  2. 21:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ spam warning"
  3. 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ notification"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ about sealed"
  2. 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ not WP:RS"
  3. 21:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ expanded"
  4. 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SPAM"
  5. 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ fanciful"
  6. 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:BURDEN"
  7. 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
  8. 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:BLOGS"
  9. 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ not a real person"
  10. 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:PAGs"
  11. 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
  12. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
  13. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ typo"
  14. 21:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC) on User talk:71.174.133.249 "Warning 1"
Comments:

Also very much WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP, maybe WP:SPAM, too. Sock of 71.174.129.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and * Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected: page semi-protected for one month since the IP appears to be dynamic.Acroterion (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:71.174.129.238 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked and protected)[edit]

Page
Abomination of desolation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
71.174.129.238 (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 16:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC) to 21:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 16:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 813233087 by Mahveotm (talk)"
    2. 16:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
    3. 16:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
    4. 17:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ fixing page number- I was looking at the pdf. The printed page number is 17"
    5. 17:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
    6. 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ typo fix"
    7. 21:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ added a reference from Jeremiah showing that some sort of ceremonies took place up to the time of the murder of Gadaliah"
    8. 21:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */"
  2. 16:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ added a reference"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ warning"
  2. 09:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ spam warning"
  3. 21:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* December 2017 */ notification"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 09:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ about sealed"
  2. 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ not WP:RS"
  3. 21:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ expanded"
  4. 21:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SPAM"
  5. 21:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ fanciful"
  6. 21:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:BURDEN"
  7. 22:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ WP:SCHOLARSHIP"
  8. 22:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:BLOGS"
  9. 22:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ not a real person"
  10. 22:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Islam */ WP:PAGs"
  11. 22:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
  12. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ reply"
  13. 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "/* Daniel is considred fictional by some secular historians */ typo"
Comments:

Sock of 71.174.133.249 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected: page semi-protected for one month since the IP appears to be dynamic.Acroterion (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:40.134.67.50 reported by User:EEng (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Mikhail Blagosklonny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
40.134.67.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC) to 22:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
    1. 22:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "What consesus?"
    2. 22:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "All I see is WP:ILIKEIT"
  2. 22:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Discussion on Talk:Oncotarget does not apply here. This entire article is protected by WP:BLP. Undid revision 813525160 by Pengortm (talk)"
  3. 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "No discussion necessary to remove violations of WP:BLP. You need to take to talk page to restore. Undid revision 813522987 by Pengortm (talk)"
  4. 21:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:NOT3RR"
  5. 21:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, Onus is on the editor restoring contested material. YOU need to go to WP:BLPN. Undid revision 813520691 by Johnuniq (talk)"
  6. 21:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""
  7. 21:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) "WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • This is WP:NOT3RR. I have been trying to remove the use of a self-published blog on this biography of a living person. (WP:BLPSPS makes no exceptions for experts. Per WP:SPS, "NEVER use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
Per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, Onus is on the editor restoring contested material to establish consesus. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Those would be acceptable defense if not for the fact that it is the consensus of four five six seven other editors that you're wrong about this. EEng 23:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT A DEMOCRACY. Not a single argument against WP:SPS has been made. How do you justify using a self-published blog written, edited, and published by an expert to add contentious material to a BLP? Wikipedia policy makes NO exceptions for experts when it comes to living people. That is because even experts are people. They have personal biases, they hold grudges, and sometimes LIE. This is exactly why WP:BLPSPS exists. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The reported editor is engaged in similar activities on other pages and I suspect is also a sockpuppet (sorry, don't have the time or energy to file a report right now). Help dealing with this issue would be appreciated. Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Same IP is now edit warring at Aging (journal) too. Pengortm (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The edit warring has continued even after his post in this thread. Time for a longish block, since the one in November didn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is so obviously a sock of MakinaterJones and yes I have done the obvious thing, which is also awaiting attention. Jytdog (talk) 05:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The IP is deleting references to Jeffrey Beall thoughout Wikipedia and edit warring to try to keep those mentions and citations deleted. This is a frenzy and is vandalism by now; I will try AIV, i suppose. Jytdog (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week for long term edit warring across multiple articles.—SpacemanSpiff 08:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:174.192.15.151 reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result:Blocked; page protected )[edit]

Page: Steve Carell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.192.15.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/813261815

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [77]
  2. [78]
  3. [79]
  4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User is a thoroughly unreasonable edit warrior. I'm not going to try to politely have a discussion that's guaranteed to both immediately stack a ton of consensus against them and, in terms of curtailing their bad behavior, accomplish nothing.

Comments:
They've also edited as 174.192.14.7. Is a range block possible?

Also just vandalized Talk:Steve Carell as 174.192.0.196. Gotta love these underpatrolled noticeboards.

CityOfSilver 01:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Blocked the range and also protected the page fully for 5 days due to the content dispute that is on-going. Continue discussion on that talk page thread. If consensus is gained before 5 days is up, you can seek unprotection. only (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Nurmsook and User:GoodDay reported by User:Fhsig13 (Result:No violation )[edit]

Page: List of current NHL captains and alternate captains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Nurmsook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [83]
  2. [84]
  3. [85]
  4. [86]
  5. [87]
  6. [88]
  7. [89]
  8. [90]
  9. [91]
  10. [92]
  11. [93]
  12. [94]
  13. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see "Diffs of the user's reverts".

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:
Hello, I am an avid Vancouver Canucks fan, that noticed a mistake on the page (that'd I previously fixed), that being that Bo Horvat was not included as an Alternate Captain. I provided sources to show that he wore the "A" on his jersey in rotation with teamates Christopher Tanev, Brandon Sutter, Alexander Edler, and Michael Del Zotto between last season ( the 2016-17 NHL season) and now, however the two editors I stated insist that last season is not relevant, however I believe that Bo Horvat deserves inclusion on the list, on the grounds that he has served as an alternate captain in rotation since it's last permanent assignment, (Alexandre Burrows, ~2009-10 NHL season). I have made this all very clear in the article's talk page, however these two and Ravenswing, whom I did not report as he did not make any reversions to the content in question), insisted upon starting an edit war. I thank the admins in advance for their help in resolving this matter. Fhsig13 (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading this, but I don't believe it. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I fear that Fhsig13, is somewhat new on Wikipedia & doesn't fully understand WP:V & WP:Consensus. Sources have been provided that Horvat is not an alternate captain with the Canucks this season. Three vet editors (including myself) back this position. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

For your information, "Sir" I am not new on Wikipedia, and have made the case clear on why Horvat should be included, and thus implor you to allow the admins to judge the fate of this dispute. Thank you, Fhsig13 (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The article-in-question, deals with the current NHL season. It's quite possible that you're misunderstanding the inclusion criteria of that article. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'll first note that neither myself, nor User:GoodDay have violated WP:3RR, so I'm not sure why this was brought to the edit warring noticeboard. I have further clarified to this user that should they disagree with the three users named here who have opposed the edits, that WP:RFC might be a better medium for discussion. Outside of that, the arguments made at the Talk page of the article named here, as well as at User talk:Fhsig13#List of current NHL captains and alternate captains, clearly show that the edits made by myself and User:GoodDay are well meaning, and that the User has not provided a source to show that the player in question is an alternate captain this year, whereas source have been identi