Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive359

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Claíomh Solais reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

Page
RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Claíomh Solais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "WP:BRD and stop disruptive Wikilaywering. See BBC Radio One and all other major radio station articles."
  2. 04:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819765403 by Davey2010 (talk) undoing removal of referenced material because WP:IDONTLIKEIT"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) to 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "general programming and presenters mentioned on BBC Radio One page so they can be mentioned here thanks"
    2. 04:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Controllers */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta. (TW)"
  2. 04:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */ +note"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor is edit warring over the content - Despite pointing them to WP:NOTGUIDE etc they seem insistent on sticking with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and are edit warring over it, They've also removed the warnings with the summary "-trolling", They have no interest in discussing this and so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor (Davey2010) has initiated edit warring with unconstructive Wikilaywering and content blanking. Previously on the article (before he or I edited it), a presentation of the general programming and presenters was on, as is standard on other radio station articles (see BBC Radio 1 as a major example on Wikipedia). He decided to remove this (but not on British radio station articles).

Recently, I have been expanding the content on the article in general and added back in the content Davey removed, from before either of us had edited it (he hasn't actually contributed to the article as such yet, just blanked content). And this morning, he decided again to remove it, as well as the controllers (requesting citation on the latter). I re-added the information, including a citation for the controllers directing him towards the BBC Radio One example. But for some reason he has decided to continue reverting and then adding smarmy and patronising "warnings" to my talkpage. For some reason, he is only targeting this Irish station, but not British stations which are laid out in the exact same way.

I don't see how Davey2010's editing (despite staying up all up through the night on Wikipedia) has actually benefited the content at all here. All I have seen is Wikilawyering and even when a citation has been provided for him as he requested, he still reverts, apparently just for the hell of it (ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Claíomh Solais (talk) 04:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Where have I wikilaywered or blanked content ? .... that's just over-exaggerating!,
Again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to edit war - Controllers isn't on Radio 1 and the list over there also fails NOTGUIDE however I do at some point plan on raising that issue up on that talkpage,
My edits here aren't solely on removing content - I do also add content and if you check my userpage you would see I've sourced and rescued quite a lot of articles so I'm not all for deleting everything far from it,
The warnings were given in an attempt to guide you and in all fairness I did add a personalised message after,
Again wrong - I've deleted this sort of information from every station in the world so yes that includes British, Irish, Japanese, German etc etc etc,
Again no wikilaywering's taken place, I've simply removed per the consensus and policies that we have in place here. –Davey2010Talk 05:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)(Updated 22:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
Also it's nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT - It's all about our readers and what they want to know and learn and gain knowledge from ..... Would they gain knowledge by seeing a list of "Controllers" in a table and with names they've never heard of ? No, Would they gain any knowledge from essentially a schedule ?... No, It's all about what our readers want to read and unfortunately those 2 items I've removed aren't it. –Davey2010Talk 05:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Warned and reverted to Davey's version until someone else takes a look. :) House1090 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn - I still think it's blatent edit warring however since this report was filed the content hasn't been readded and at this point I think blocking would be more punitive than preventative. –Davey2010Talk 20:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

User:222.116.118.64 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 222.116.118.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8]
  8. [9]
  9. [10]
  10. [11]
  11. [12]
  12. [13]

(yep... 12 consecutive reverts of the same edit, in one hour)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] & [16]

Comments:

User:217.46.79.151 (217.46.79.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) attempted to make the exact same edit to the same page. Then edit-warred on a second page and was blocked.

User:113.150.27.117 (113.150.27.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also attempted to make the exact same edit as the above IP to the same second page as above. Have since gone quiet.

User:112.222.238.5 (112.222.238.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also tried to make to make the exact same edit to the same page of this report. Have since gone quiet.

- theWOLFchild 07:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Nybygger reported by User:AmedeeVanGasse (Result: Declined)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:
OpenPDF is one of the many forks of iText. The notability of the iText page is already disputed, the mention of forks may even be more disputed. Also, why highlight this one particular fork and none of the others? Additionally, User:Nybygger is assumed to be a core contributor of OpenPDF, so there is a WP:COI. Disclosure: I am an employee of iText Software, so I also have a WP:COI. I want an independent third party to take a look at this. My preferred solution would be that Nybygger contacts iText Software directly, contact details are on our website, and that we work with them to come to a solution where they can have their fork, without of any of their current IP infringements. I already tried to contact them last year but that didn't lead to a productive conversation: https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF/issues/18. We don't object against friendly forks, but hijacking Wikipedia pages to promote your own project is not friendly behavior. I don't want Wikipedia to be a battlefield between two open source projects.

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined @AmedeeVanGasse: There's no evidence that Nybygger knew about WP:3RR before being reported here. Editors need to know they're breaking our policies and guidelines before being blocked for breaking them. NeilN talk to me 18:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Prokaryotes (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff1
  2. diff2
  3. diff3
  4. diff4
  5. diff5

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

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

Comments:
Jytdog in just a few minutes made 3 reverts of two different users, went to my talk page posted 3 warnings about COI, edit warring and reliable sourcing. He also took the discussion to the reliable noticeboard and the article talk page, i replied to him at the reliable noticeboard, since he instructed me to discuss it there in one of his reverts. Because this all went so fast and he is well aware of 3RR i did not posted the 3RR on his talk page. It is unclear to me why exactly he posted the notifications on my talk page, and why he reverted me, after my input was made. Another editor who re-added my addition was also reverted by Jytdog. I had a dispute with the editor about two years ago in an un-releated topic, which resulted at the time of him getting topic banned. So to sum the current incident up, I made exactly two reverts on the article today, from two different users, related to two different article contents, during heavily extending the article, sorting, and removing content. I don't think that's unreasonable or comes close to edit warring. However, Jytdog made 5 reverts, and did not responds to arguments made. prokaryotes (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

It should be noted that Prokaryotes was also topic banned from the same topic, a fact that was conveniently left out. I haven't followed what happened here, but I think I see a boomerang coming this way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Left out because it was related to a different incident, an incident a year later or so, after Tryptofish reported me for breaking 1RR. prokaryotes (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes this article has been subject of edit warring between Prokaryotes and me. As is their wont, they have swept in and aggressively edited, and badly. This article and related crytpocurrencies have been beset by exactly this kind of aggressive, low quality editing.
Diffs of Prokaryotes also violating 3RR:
initial edit: diff 11:36, 11 January 2018 initial addition of "merkle tree"
  1. diff 18:34, 12 January 2018, restored
  2. diff 19:19, 12 January 2018, restored, part of this diff series
  3. diff restored 19:19, 12 January 20118 , restored, part of this diff series
  4. diff, reverting my removal of etymology 22:45, 12 January 2018
The section Prokaryotes mentions above was opened by me (not prokaryotes), of course, and I (not prokaryotes) also posted at RSN here. So you can block us both which would be fair, or lock the article, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Above cited diff2 is a different url with different text, after the first was removed on grounds of WP:RS. And diff 3 is the same as diff 2 .... prokaryotes (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
ah thanks yes Dif #2 is same as dif #3. fixed. The edit warring is still blatant, but not formally breaking 3 reverts on any of these points. I didn't count this removal of content about overhypedness, which would probably formally put you over. but whatever. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Same as with diff1, this is a basic page edit I made, no revert. Where is the revert in diff1, or in above removal of unrelated content? I've made 29 edits in 24 hrs to that page, edited the page substantially, improved content, made section sorting more clear, added a infobox, key content, and did two unrelated reverts, to call this blatant edit warring and to suggest my edits show a tendency of adding badly sourced content, or promotional content, as you did here on my talk page, is in contrast of the actual sourcing and contributions. prokaryotes (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I've looked further at the page history, and a few things are unclear to me (and if they can be made more clear to me, that presumably should also make things clearer to the admin who will evaluate this report). About Prokaryotes' Diff 1, in which Jytdog removes the "Address format" section on the grounds that it is unsourced, it looks to me to follow this edit by Prokaryotes: [24], in which Prokaryotes tags that section with a CN tag. Am I missing something, or is that not really a revert? And for Prokaryotes' Diff 5, it looks to me like the edit that was putatively reverted was: [25], but Jytdog did not really revert it, but removed only a selected part of it, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a mess. Both the complainant and the accursed are established, constructive editors who are capable of working things out. Instead of a painstaking parsing of the edit history to see who is technically right or wrong, suggest protecting the article a bit so they can talk it through without the temptation to edit war. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Which both of them should be doing regardless of page protection. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:75.161.53.1 reported by User:William Avery (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Oscar Wilde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
75.161.53.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820252954 by MarnetteD (talk)"
  2. 21:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820241290 by MarnetteD (talk) revert to neutral version."
  3. 20:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "chauvinism is chauvinism..PS appropriately look at bio section for info on ancestry...including Italian.....want Italo-Anglo-Irish? This is indeed an encyclopedia. perhaps tis you that does not understand."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Oscar Wilde. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "/* POV / chauvinist to say Wildes's parents were Anglo-Irish? */"
Comments:

Have no idea what is going on. And little faith that will be treated fairly. Read the edits and reverts and see i was reverted 3 times first with a tag team who would not address why I made edit. Other than that...have a nice day folks. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The filer of this thingy is now attempting to get me to say things on the talk page that would be prejudicial in his favour. How long has this guy been contaminating this thing? 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Page protected to stop me from editing and then reverted without previous guy clocking 4 reverts? By consensus: Two guys never addressing the issue that discussion of ancestry properly belongs in bio section? Let us then follow this report of nefarious activities to its conclusion. Block me for objecting. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


Is anyone going to review this case or shall we just say: thanks for playing chumps.75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Bishonen A birdy told me to draw your attention. 75.161.53.1 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

User:46.198.138.49 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Turkish coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
46.198.138.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:09, 13 januari 2018 (UTC) "Absurd accusation of origin, missing proof."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Third time removing content on the same page Dan Koehl (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Correctman reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Lombardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page
Sicily (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Correctman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

Lombardy

  1. [26] 04:05, 14 January 2018‎
  2. 04:09, 14 January 2018‎ (UTC) (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
  3. [27] 04:12, 14 January 2018‎ " (Anthem of Lombardy recognized by the Government of Lombardy check references before deleting something)"
  4. 04:14, 14 January 2018‎ (Undid revision 820316514 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk)

I've warned him countless times about their disruptive editing at Lombardy citing YouTube, which is frowned upon per WP:YOUTUBE, and adding a non parameter to the info box, which I've told him does not exist, but they keep reverting after my pleas fall on deaf ears. They then go on to Sicily, likely out of spite, and causing more disruptive editing with unexplained removal of content in the lead which is a general statement about Sicily's culture, cuisine, etc supported by wikilinks, but I've stopped editing. He then goes on to say Sicily cannot have a culture because they aren't a country on my talk page. I've noticed they've had other edit warring incidents in the recent past, and think they are not understanding by the processes we take here. I think a short block may do this user good to learn about using the talk page and trying to communicate better. Thank you. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 05:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Karl.i.biased reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Karl.i.biased (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819913563 by Chris troutman (talk) Again, the data is from the world bank's website linked in the infobox. You may not like it, but that's a fact. You can't just revert i"
  2. 00:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819912946 by Chris troutman (talk) Argh.... Check the freaking refernce (wb website) or even the article list of countries by gini. Jesus christ, these people...."
  3. 00:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819912366 by Chris troutman (talk) Ahem, just go to the World Bank's website and check the rating if you disagree, or is it because of the sex tourism?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "/* January 2018 */ reply"
  2. 00:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ukraine. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "/* GINI rank */ new section"
Comments:

I've tried to discuss the matter but Karl insists on having their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Waiting for a response from Karl.i.biased. This account was created last November and already has three blocks for edit warring. --NeilN talk to me 14:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
He doesn’t seem to be replying. Wonder if he’s just trying to wait it out to avoid the block? JoeyRuss (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one month We've waited long enough so I've blocked them. I've also alerted them to discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)[edit]

Page
Family Research Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Statements on homosexuality */ Again, this is a consensus statement within reliable sources - we do not give equal validity to fringe theories such as those the FRC is purveying."
  2. 06:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC) "rv removal of reliably-sourced discussion of the fact that the organization the FRC is citing is a fringe group"
  3. 20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "It is, by definition, defamatory to describe LGBT people as a danger to children, and the claims have been widely rejected."
  4. 08:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Not apparently in dispute - no source says the FRC isn't promoting false and discredited claims about gay people - article extensively discusses their statements which have been debunked by medical authorities. Do you have a source which says otherwise?"
  5. 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "It's literally a political action committee. These are civil rights, appropriately linked. Discuss on talk if you disagree."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor is edit warring with 2 other editors. I posted a warning on article talk page [28]. Northbysouth saw it: they commented underneath. Another editor, SunCrow may be at 3RR. – Lionel(talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite clearly, these reverts are not within 24 hours - 17:30 12 January to 06:14 14 January is more like 36 hours. Moreover, the edits at 6:11 and 6:14 are part of a single consecutive edit string, which makes it a single revert (so yes, I am now *at* the limit, but I have not breached it). Nor is this merely a stale edit war - rather, there has been significant give and take, though it is unfortunate that SunCrow has chosen not to engage in the multiple talk page discussions which are ongoing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Swarm 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:YantarCoast reported by User:Benyamin-ln (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

  1. YantarCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 109.173.93.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 16:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  2. 17:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  3. 17:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  4. 17:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC) (The user logged out for this edit)
  5. 17:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC) (The user logged out for this edit)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
The edit warring concerns on longevity of heading of state of Iran by Ali Khamenei. He elected as President of Iran on 1981. He assumed that office until 1989, while Rouhollah Khomeini was Supreme Leader of Iran (Head of state) and Mir-Hossein Mousavi was the Prime minister of Iran (Head of government). The office of Prime minister abolished by Constitutional referendum of 1989, and then President became head of government. before that referendum, the president was not leader of state (neither head of state, nor head of government). Benyamin-ln (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Benyamin-ln, your report has one revert diff and you have not notified the editor(s) of this report are you are required to do. NeilN talk to me 22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Violetriga (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Bernie Leadon (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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820253722&oldid=817757134

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820254989&oldid=820253722
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820258703&oldid=820257231
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820263772&oldid=820261315
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bernie_Leadon&diff=820415185&oldid=820388193

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: User_talk:Joefromrandb#3RR

Comments:

I'd rather not have to go through AN but this user is refusing civil discussion. He does not believe that the 3RR has been violated and is likely to undo things again. violet/riga [talk] 21:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that this user comes here with egregiously unclean hands. I don't deny edit-warring, but this user who has performed an equal number of reverts is here playing the victim. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have edit-warred but not broken 3RR whereas you have. violet/riga [talk] 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Repeating it doesn't make it true. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
That is why I have brought it for a third-party to examine. violet/riga [talk] 21:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to point something out but violetriga you made this edit and then Joe reverted ..... as per WP:BRD You are then required to go to the talkpage which you didn't do so I personally would say you edit-warred and not Joe - Sure Joe should've noted BRD but at the end of the day you changed the content and Joe disagreed so you should've gone to the talkpage, Your next edits after that were to change various content whilst again sneakily changing the whole "sophomore effort", As I said personally I think the blame is entirely on you for not following BRD. –Davey2010Talk 21:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I hoped that an explanation in the edit summary would be sufficient, engaging the other user. When it was clear that he wanted to keep it up I engaged with him directly. violet/riga [talk] 21:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Davey2010 is right but mostly wrong. The best course of action was to go to the talk page after the first revert. However to say Joefromrandb did not edit war is absolutely incorrect. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I don't agree with Joe's revert not at all but for me I still think atleast 90% of the blame is at Violet but then again I'm not an admin thank the lord :), –Davey2010Talk 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
While I appreciate and understand your POV, I hope you'll see my attempted discussion and accept that this is a specifically user-based dispute which doesn't need to take place on the article talk page. I don't think you can fairly blame me "entirely". violet/riga [talk] 21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at four clear reverts from Joefromrandb and three, maybe four, from Violetriga. I prefer to handle this without blocking so can both editors agree not to touch the article for the next 72 hours and work out the dispute on the talk page? --NeilN talk to me 21:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
What I assume you refer to as "maybe four" is my initial edit. To my knowledge it is a new change rather than a revert but I haven't gone into the history. I'd like to engage with discussion but I'm coming up against a wall of abuse rather than civilised dialogue. violet/riga [talk] 21:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Violetriga: I would expect talk page discussion to focus on content rather than editor behavior. --NeilN talk to me 21:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
As would I, yet my attempts are being ignored. violet/riga [talk] 21:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Absolute bullshit. This user actually refused to take it to the talk page, insisting on discussing it at my page, where it didn't belong. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Joefromrandb self-reverted to avoid breaking WP:3RR. Violetriga reminded to use the article talk page to discuss content issues before escalating. NeilN talk to me 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I self-reverted upon seeing the opinion of a Wikipedian I respect. It had nothing to do with any numbers game. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ilovetopaint reported by User:Dave Dial (Result: Page protected )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments: I have locked it - get outside opinions please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The dispute is whether the category "European White Nationalists" should be added to the article. It is not sourced, and so I removed it, because there is not a single ref in the article labeling the subject a white nationalist.
Per WP:BLPREMOVE: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that [is] is unsourced or poorly sourced [or] is a conjectural interpretation of a source.
I opened a discussion on the talk page after Dave Dial reverted my edit the first time, and s/he did not respond until directly before writing this 3RR complaint. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Bullshit. You keep trying to claim BLP protection & reverting it out, but I showed on the article Talk page there are already at least two sources stating he is a Neo-Nazi & White Nationalist. Casliber can lock the article on the whitewashed version you seem to love, protect the Nazis once again. Wikipedia seems to be the same as ever. The only reason this guy even has an English language article is because he is a Nazi white nationalist who killed people & burned a church. Smh... Dave Dial (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really. All the members of Mayhem (band) have their own articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:73.75.63.212 reported by User:Nihlus (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
LJN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
73.75.63.212 (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 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) to 13:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 13:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820585205 by Nihlus (talk) Why don't you discuss the issue on the TALK page like the rest of us do? thank you."
    2. 13:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820585139 by Nihlus (talk) Actually, I think we need to follow the dispute resolution process here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution"
  2. 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820584672 by Nihlus (talk) In response to Nihlus, I think you need to quit censoring this page and use the TALK page regarding the article. We have a consensus. We've had it for 4 years."
  3. 13:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 819486346 by Nihlus (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on LJN. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Relationship with James Rolfe */ re"
Comments:

Kind of a slow burn edit war with this supposedly random IP restoring information added by PseudoSkull (possibly logged out). Multiple reverts on January 9 as well. Ignoring established policy with WP:BRD and WP:RS. IP is trying to go off consensus from spotty discussion on the talk page. I have no wish to continue this further until they try to gain consensus. Nihlus 13:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I have also requested a dispute resolution on this.

And also, I'm not PseudoSkull logged out. Just to make that clear.

You can find the dispute resolution at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:LJN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.75.63.212 (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As the coordinator of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I can tell you that this is not something that will be handled there. You can find the reasons in my comment there. Nihlus 14:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I also have only just now heard about this. I had nothing to do with this edit war. That IP is not me logged out. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Start a RFC or something similar. NeilN talk to me 18:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Peter Dunkan reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Peter Dunkan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820435087 by Mhhossein (talk) consensus so far is that this extant version stays"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "/* "Although Reuters found no evidence" -- WP:CHERRY */ don't revert"
  2. 18:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Questionable use of WP:OR and WP:ONUS to remove well-cited background material */ cmt"
  3. 18:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Questionable use of WP:OR and WP:ONUS to remove well-cited background material */ there's a clear disagreement"
Comments:
  • @NeilN: Despite your clear warning, The user has engaged editwarring once again. He insists on pushing a highly disputed material into the article. -- Mhhossein talk 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Please note that there was also another 3rr warning by another user after you warned him. --Mhhossein talk 05:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • 1 Revert per 24 hours The article is constantly being warred over. Banning one editor when a number of others are reverting whole scale, or just gaming the 24 hour mark is just not fair. A better option is to enforce 1 revert per 24 hours. This way the wave of reverts will be prevented. Elektricity (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you defending an edit warrior who has got plenty of warnings till now? That "1 Revert per 24 hours" has nothing to with this board, AFAIK. Seek a suitable place for the proposal. --Mhhossein talk 07:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Glass houses:
  1. Revision as of 18:58, 14 January 2018 revert by Mhhossein
  2. Revision as of 10:09, 14 January 2018 + Revision as of 09:55, 14 January 2018 - previous revert by Mhhossein
  3. Revision as of 18:52, 13 January 2018 + Revision as of 18:17, 13 January 2018 - previous revert by Mhhossein
  4. Revision as of 12:41, 13 January 2018 - previous revert by Mhhossein.
  • I wouldn't have reported these - as they do not violate 3RR (there are however, 4 reverts in 31 hours, and 3 in 24) - but seeing as 2 reverts are being reported here - this is due. I would also argue, in Peter Dunkan defense, that the talk page consensus is actually in his direction.Icewhiz (talk) 07:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Icewhiz I have proposed a 1 revert per 24 restriction, so that editors who game the 24 hour limit can cool down as well. Any thoughts? Peter Duncan being singled out for a block doesn't seem right in my opinion with lots of reverts going on. Elektricity (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Wrong venue - I think you need Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Personally, I think it would make sense if Iranian (and possibly Turkish) politics/foreign-affairs were under a DS system with 1RR - but they're not.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Comment - I agree with User:Icewhiz that discretionary sanctions would be useful, but they are only imposed after the ArbCom has looked into battleground editing, often in areas that have been historically real battlegrounds. Iran lies between Pakistan and Palestine, both of which have their own DS regimes. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh, let's see who's here! You should open a separate report, if you find my edits problematic. Also, I see that you have been unable to drop those old sticks you were supposed to drop. Can you abide by the warnings you received by the admins please? That will not have a good outcome for you. BTW, There's absolutely no consensus over those disputed materials restored by the warrior. --Mhhossein talk 08:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The article has already been fully protected twice. Do we need to go for a third time while you all work it out? Have you considered using WP:DRN? --NeilN talk to me 09:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I tried to make some of the things clear by going to OR:NOTICEBOARD and an uninvolved third party user just brought up the same concern I was stressing. Despite this, those users are insisting on pushing OR materials from the sources which are not directly mentioned by the article. In other cases, they push highly disputed materials into the article without trying to build a consensus. How many DRN topics should be opened? Just imagine one of those users were persistently insisting that using a 2016 source for a writing factors leading to a 2018 incident was allowed since it was a simple math.
I think, there should be an admin or two, managing the discussions and selecting the policy-based ones!
Are you going to let the warrior go even after your warning? --Mhhossein talk 13:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I've said this before - none of your hands are clean. Yes, you've been using the talk page but so have the others (including Peter). Yes, Peter has been reverting but so have you. This is just like the American Politics articles where one side is frequently calling for editors on the other side to be sanctioned. If you cannot resolve the issues on the talk page then you'll need to use the slower processes of various noticeboards and formal dispute resolution mechanisms. No admin is going to settle content disputes and still act as admin in this area. If you want a third party to moderate the disputes then you'll have to find that person together. I can suggest Robert McClenon who is experienced in dispute resolution. --NeilN talk to me 14:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've dealt with User:Mhhossein before, and would not be neutral. In view of the long history of problematic editing in the area of Iran, I would suggest asking for an experienced mediator at Requests for Mediation, but only if they really want to resolve the dispute. (If they all want to impose their own point of view on the article or articles, topic-bans might be in order to let other editors deal with the article or articles.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Thanks, Robert. Use Mediation to settle content disputes, ANI for behavioral issues if you must. Reflexive reverting may still result in blocks. NeilN talk to me 17:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
That's interesting to see that Robert McClenon is commenting without knowing anything about what had happened. --Mhhossein talk 19:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not wondering to see this comment by Robert McClenon's given his background of acting against me. @NeilN:: I know this won't change anything, but would like to have others reading your warning to the reported user: "Please note you are editing in a contentious area and editors who come in and immediately start edit warring tend to earn a quick block. The article is fully protected right now but any resumption of edit warring after it expires may get you blocked even if you don't cross WP:3RR.(1)". Let the warriors enjoy the free atmosphere. Good luck. --Mhhossein talk 20:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Truthteller12345asap reported by User:Vaselineeeeeeee (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
Culture of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Truthteller12345asap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:12, 15 January 2018 (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
  2. 22:25, 15 January 2018 (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
  3. 23:22, 15 January 2018 (Undid revision 820315350 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))
  4. 23:35, 15 January 2018 (Undid revision 820316514 by Vaselineeeeeeee (talk))

Provides no sources, or explanations for controversial content at Culture of Italy and over 3RR. This user may also be a sock of User:Correctman who was blocked for two days yesterday for similar edit warring at Lombardy. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Sock indeffed, master blocked one week. NeilN talk to me 00:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Julioxo reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Venezuela (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Julioxo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 00:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 20:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 21:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  6. 23:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Venezuela. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Editor has been conducting a slow-speed edit war at this article since January 10, repeatedly reverting to a much-outdated version from mid-December, and has failed to discuss any of their edits on this article's (nor any other) Talk page despite being reverted by multiple editors. Though I have not reverted the editor myself, their version contains factual errors (Julio Borges is no longer President of the Venezuelan National Assembly) and adds multiple photo galleries to what is already a bloated article. In any case, editor apparently refuses to accept the consensus version nor to make any effort to change consensus. General Ization Talk 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We are not sure why this editor is reverting to an older version that is out dated ...nor why they are adding 60 plus images. Editor is simply not here - despite many edit summaries to join talks the editor has not ONE time used talk pages...nor have they even tried to explain their edits with edit summaries. My guess is English is not their mother tong so they cant reply as they have no clue the problem.--Moxy (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I have now reverted the editor's latest reversion, after they have (now twice) reverted since I placed a warning on their talk page, and once since they were notified of this report. General Ization Talk 22:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours To start. NeilN talk to me 22:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Merlin Immanuel reported by User:James Allison (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)[edit]

Page: 28 Fundamental Beliefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Merlin Immanuel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [37]
  2. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

Merlin Immanuel repeatedly removed appropriate scholarly context to this article's topic and replaces it with close paraphrasing that violates the copyright of the denomination discussed in the article. They describe said context as "in grievance" or "hurting [...] belief[s]" [sic] and do not appear to understand WP's encyclopedic purpose or WP:NOTCENSORED. James (talk/contribs) 17:25, 16 January 2018 (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. These reverts also happened six days ago. Consider dispute resolution if the talk page discussion is not proving fruitful. clpo13(talk) 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Trevor800 reported by User:Jd22292 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Bill Goldberg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Trevor800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "I SAID STOP FUCKING CHANGING MYFUCKING EDIT SHITFACE ORELSE I BLOCK YOU FROM EDITING SHITFACE YOU FUCKING JERK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
  2. 23:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "STOP FUCKING CHANGING !!!!!!!!!"
  3. 23:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "EVERYBODY STOP SAYING THAT HE IS NOT INDUCTED TO THW HALL OF FAME PLEASE"
  4. 22:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "He is A WWE Hall of Famer Dummy"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Bill Goldberg. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Hall of Fame */ new section"
Comments:

User continues to edit war their preferred version; also appears to be resorting to making personal attacks when they don't get their way. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 00:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I blocked this user 24 hours for the abusive edit summaries before seeing this report. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Marking this report as blocked. clpo13(talk) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Demong reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)[edit]

Page
The Satanic Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Demong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "There is plenty of discussion. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or *restores* material; if you think it should be restored, please comment on the Talk page."
  2. 20:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC) "removing instead of rewording, discussion on Talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  • Members do not necessarily identify as Satanists
    • 1 The objection has nothing to do with public relations, it's about the question, and the fact that the answer is taken out of its context. Please address that on the Talk page, and stop unilaterally adding this. ("This edit has been debated at length" is m
    • 2 please do not revert this edit; see Talk page
    • 3 removing instead of rewording, discussion on Talk page
    • 4 There is plenty of discussion. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds or *restores* material; if you think it should be restored, please comment on the Talk page
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Long, drawn-out "discussions" on:


Comments:

This article appears to be the target of wp:MEAT - see WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Concerns about Church of Satan POV and messy RfC at Talk:The Satanic Temple

Discussion that Demong disagrees with are, well, irrelevant. i.e wp:Tendentious editing

User Demong repeatedly removes well-sourced content such as:

  • User Demong considers stating that the name "Greaves" and others are pseudonyms is not acceptable even though well-sourced and Greaves is open about it. That is also sourced.
    • 1 Reverting this edit would be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and etiquette. Please comment on the Talk page instead.
    • 2 This is unnecessary and vaguely negative. Many creators and performers use a pen- or stage-name; the article about them can list their given name, it is not mentioned whenever the name is, on other articles.
    • 3 Please point to any other article that includes such a parenthetical note. I predict no such example exists.

Jim1138 (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

These are 4 edits over 3 days. Jim, I have to say I've not really understood some of your actions at this article. We had one SPA come in and start heavily editing the article with a particular point running through all of his edits: to remove the idea that TST=Satanism and/or a religion. When an editor (another SPA) contested some of those (this is back in November), providing clear reasons, you reverted with edit summary "unexplained content removal" rather than going with BRD (i.e. newly added material should be justified on the talk page and something like consensus emerge before restoring). You then, along with both of the other editors, violated 3RR on that day. Here we have 4 edits over 3 days contesting the same material, along with active talk page discussions, but it's still the other party's fault for challenging it? I'm not saying you're doing anything in bad faith here, but the initial POV-push and majority of MEAT puppetry is going on on the "other side". That's not to say there's no problem to see here, but that 3RR isn't one of them at this point. This page still desperately needs more voices, and not to block one side of a very MEATy dispute (the side that is challenging the changes). Update: Nevermind what I said about problems on either "side" -- there are clearly issues on all "sides" here, and there's it's a stretch to say there are more problems on one side... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:52, 16 January 2018 (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. This situation is better suited for dispute resolution. clpo13(talk) 00:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Postcard Cathy reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Both blocked for 3RR violations)[edit]

Page
Carter Page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Postcard Cathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
[41]
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820883995 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
  2. 04:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820883486 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
  3. 04:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820883054 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
  4. 04:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820880646 by ScrapIronIV School’s website indicates that degree is awarded at Walsh School. Subcategory fits."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thad McIntosh Guyer. (TW)"
  2. 04:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Thad McIntosh Guyer. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Refusal to discuss issues per WP:NONDEF; tried to engage, without any constructive response - simply reverting ScrpIronIV 04:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:SounderBruce reported by User:Gilligphantom (Result: Declined – malformed report)[edit]

He keeps editing wrong information on en.wikipedia.org/Cherriots and keeps reverting in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilligphantom (talkcontribs) 04:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gilligphantom reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Cherriots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Gilligphantom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820875196 by SounderBruce (talk)"
  2. 03:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820875112 by SounderBruce (talk)"
  3. 03:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 820870093 by SounderBruce (talk) Your info is NOT correct. STOP editing this before I get moderators involved."
  4. 02:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Fleet */ Source used was not a reliable source and contained incorrect info. Please do not edit further until new buses come in May 2018."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cherriots. (