Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive360

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Radisani Drzava reported by User:Resnjari (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Radišani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Radisani Drzava (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] "I won't stop untill you delete this page"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] - i left comments on the editors talkpage regarding the matter

Comments:

I really didn't want to do this, as Radisani Drzava is a new editor to wikipedia. Dispute revolves around census data on the page about Radišani. Radisani Drzava, who hails from the town keeps tampering with the Macedonian census data which is fully cited and from 2002 while adding numbers based on their own observations of the current era (without citations) in the section containing the 2002 demographic data. I have tried to reason with him to no avail about desisting and the situation keeps persisting.Resnjari (talk)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 19:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bluebird207 reported by User:Zcarstvnz (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Vehicle registration plates of New Hampshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bluebird207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[8]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] All 44 reverts this user made on the same day are consolidated in the link above because he apparently bypassed all of my changes and reverted the entire page to an earlier version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[9]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have not reverted any of his work. I am afraid of this user as he appears to stalk me. I do not believe that I can have a meaningful discussion while I am afraid of his behavior towards me. Everything I do on the pages he watches, apparently does not meet his expectations.

Comments:

I have previously warned this editor about reverting three or more edits on the same day. They have hidden this from their Talk page, so I cannot see the warning and provide the exact date.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Stalking you?! Good heavens...
If I was stalking you, I'd be looking at every single one of your edits - not just the ones to articles on my watchlist, which includes most of the articles on license plates of US states and Canadian provinces and territories. These articles I added to my watchlist long before you started editing them, too.
I do appreciate that your ideas for how these license plate articles should look are not the same as mine. If I didn't, then I probably would be looking to start edit wars with you, and harassing you and deliberately making you feel uncomfortable. And I know very well that if I did that, I'd be blocked, and rightly so.
I'm more than willing to admit that undoing, in one go, all those edits you made to the New Hampshire article was not the smartest move. You obviously and understandably did not take this well, because you didn't edit any of these articles for a month and a half afterwards - not even adding images. And clearly, even after being away for so long, you're still not happy - hence your outburst on my talk page, and this report.
I will state once again that I am not, and never have been, out to intentionally cause trouble and make life difficult for other users whose ideas are different to mine. Any time I have made other users unhappy - you included - it has been the result of me not thinking clearly, not the result of malicious intent. And I do learn from these incidents - if I didn't, then far more users would be annoyed with me (and, again, I'd probably receive a block or two, and for good reason).
If you disagree, then that is your view and there isn't really anything else I can do to try to get you to change this view. In any case, I can see that it won't be a short time before enough proverbial water passes underneath the proverbial bridge. So I have decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and I am going to remove each and every one of these license plate articles from my watchlist, and only edit them when the most recent serial requires updating. Nothing else will be touched, including any of your edits.
In fact, I'm going to make it a promise. I promise only to edit these articles to update the most recent serial issued, and not to play around with any edits you make. In other words, I promise to leave you be - and if by chance I break this promise, feel perfectly free to call me out on it.
Just before I go, I think you may have slightly misunderstood the three-revert rule. As I understand it, undoing a whole sequence of edits by one user - with no intervening edits by another user - counts as one single revert, rather than one revert for each edit in the sequence. So when I undid all those edits you made to the New Hampshire article, that was one revert, rather than forty-plus reverts. Still no excuse on my part, mind.
Bluebird207 (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Thefinalchapter reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: EC protected)[edit]

Page
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Thefinalchapter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) to 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 06:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 06:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 23:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 23:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:39, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 16:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Two more from January 21 Twinkle didn't grab:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    2. 16:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
    3. 16:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012 TV series) (season 5). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"
  2. Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2012_TV_series)_(season_5)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_24_January_2018
  3. Talk:Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2012_TV_series)_(season_5)#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_24_January_2018_2
Comments:

Twinkle isn't helping much. Give me a minute to fill this out. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

See previous AN3 report here

I have major CIR concern with this user. Please review the discuss on the article talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Well u never answered my quest so how was I supposed to know

I answered you many times. Another editor declined your edit request as well. I explained to you repeatedly the issues and you begged that I let you edit anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: EC protected two months. There is enough evidence for a block of the named account, but there are two other very new accounts who have joined in the reverting. Anyone (new or old) can still participate in the talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: thanks. If the CIR issues, begging, promises to continue disruption, and "I'm right" nonsense continues, I'll bring it up at ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Ma'az reported by User:Saqib (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Muhammad Arif Butt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ma'az (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:20, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Significant RS mentioned."
  2. 17:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "7-8 RS mentioned Significant RS mentioned."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Muhammad Arif Butt. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user repeatedly trying to remove necessary maintenance tags from a BLP. When I tried to explain him that the article contains OR and tags should remain, he replies saying that "Not each and everything can be referenced on Wikipedia." It is evident that he's trying to engage in edit warring. Saqib (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Can you also please tell what those tags were? Were those tags appropriate???  M A A Z   T A L K  17:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You're adding OR to a BLP. Even DoB is not cited. Tags must remain there unless either you remove the OR or cite each and everyhing via RS. --Saqib (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I asked you to remove the contents you find problematic. If you think dates are so controversial, I'm removing them. Lets settle it here.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
We should help each other on articles rather than engaging in edit wars.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ma'az: There are many other things in the page that is poorly sourced or unsourced. Merely removing the dates is not going to work. And by the way, It is you who is trying to engage in edit war, not me. --Saqib (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
If you are editing it yourself now, then at least remove the tags yourself.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Primary sources can be mentioned to support content of article. Please don't remove them. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Arif_Butt&diff=822645989&oldid=822645930  M A A Z   T A L K  17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
And edit warning is given after 3 times (3-vert rule).  M A A Z   T A L K  17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You have edited the page now, and still not removing tags.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I've removed some OR but the page still contains some. I'll resume working on it tomorrow and remove the tags when I am satisfied that there is no more original research. By the way, where in the world "pakistannewsreleases com" is a RS? I repeat you need to re-read WP policies. --Saqib (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You removed my similar tag in an article that had just 2 RS. And placing the same tag and giving me edit warnings on an article that has 7-8 RS or more. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sardar_Zahoor_Ahmad&diff=822644113&oldid=822644015 . Why this inconsistent criteria???  M A A Z   T A L K  18:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
The tag your placed on Sardar Zahoor Ahmad is not warranted. Each and everything is inline citiated via RS. You are unnecessary cluttering the Sardar Zahoor Ahmad page in retaliation. I am going to remove the tag which you have added for the second time in a row. I can see @Störm: has warned you as well not to clutter the pages with unnecessary tags. --Saqib (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Ma'az is warned. They may be blocked if they make any further reverts at Muhammad Arif Butt without receiving a prior consensus on the talk page. Note the provision of WP:BLP, that material which is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable citation. In case of disagreement on the reliability of a source, you can ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Issue0501 reported by User:Hhhhhkohhhhh (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
South Korea national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Issue0501 (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 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) to 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 11:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    2. 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    3. 13:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 05:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) to 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 05:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    2. 05:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    3. 05:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    4. 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    5. 05:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 11:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 11:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 11:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    2. 11:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 08:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 08:03, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    2. 08:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) to 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    1. 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Current squad */"
    2. 05:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
  6. 11:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent call-ups */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [12]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

edit without reasons Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours NeilN talk to me 14:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:JC1996 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page
Peter Rabbit (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JC1996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 03:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 01:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Most interaction is on edit history comments which seem to be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geraldo Perez (talkcontribs) 21:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned JC1996 is warned to get consensus on the talk page for their change. Further reverts may result in a block. NeilN talk to me 16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Lucullus19 and User:PiCo reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Authorship of the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lucullus19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]


Diffs of Lucullus19's reverts: On Authorship of the Bible

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]
  6. [19]
  7. [20]

On Gospel of Mark

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]
  6. [26]
  7. [27]
  8. [28]
  9. [29]

On Gospel of Luke

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]
  5. [34]
  6. [35]


Diffs of PiCo's reverts: On Authorship of the Bible

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]
  4. [39]
  5. [40]
  6. [41]
  7. [42]

On Gospel of Mark

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

On Gospel of Luke

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]
  6. [55]
  7. [56]


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

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

Comments:
For the past month, and especially the past week, Lucullus19 and PiCo have been reverting each other over and over across several different articles. In all my years at Wikipedia, I don't think I've seen an edit war as out of place as this one. While I'd tend to agree with PiCo on the actual content, and also agree that Lucullus19 is more to blame for blatant disrespect of WP:BRD, it's also obvious that with close to 50 reverts back and forth between the two users, both of guilty of some of the wildest edit warring I've seen. Jeppiz (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not being myself familiar with the situation here, based on the comment above I think page protection of some kind for some length of time might be better than blocking both parties, but if one is refusing to take part in discussion and just edit warring, some block there might be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
John Carter, that would mean full protection on several articles for months. Had it been IPs, sure... but when established users keep edit warring with each other for over a month and across many different articles, I don't think protection is an option. I'm not involved myself. Both users do use talk pages as well, but neither refrains from edit warring while talk is ongoing. Jeppiz (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be three articles. I'll voluntarily refrain from editing any of them for the indefinite future. This isn't contingent on anything, but I suggest Lucullus consider doing the same. Let other editors decide what what the article should say. PiCo (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2018 (UTC) (Correction: I think it's four articles, Authorship of the Bible, and the three gospel articles Matthew Mark and Luke - but not John?) PiCo (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Both of these editors should be topic banned from the Bible, broadly construed, for a good long time. Page protection is not appropriate when it's two disputants disrupting multiple articles.- MrX 🖋 23:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that.PiCo (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd hate to see PiCo topic banned from the Bible, and it would be a loss to Wikipedia. Clearly things went wrong here (hence my filing this report) but PiCo has been a tireless and constructive contributor for a long time. The interactions with Lucullus19 were an error, but to err is human. Jeppiz (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to second the opinion that losing PiCo from the entire Bible category for a long time would be a real loss to Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure what "the usual" administrator response would be in an incident like this, and I don't know if an editor's history really "counts" in one's favor, but that's how this editor sees the issue. Alephb (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I also believe topic banning PiCo would be a mistake. I am familiar with PiCo from his work on Cambodia-related topics. In my experience, PiCo is a very capable and level-headed editor and any sort of edit warring is out of character. Admin actions toward editor behavior should be preventative, not punitive. PiCo has voluntarily agreed to disengage. As long as he sticks to it (which I have no reason to doubt), any admin action against him would be strictly punitive. Lucullus19, on the other hand, appears less collegial and should they not likewise cease reverting, a short attention-getting block may be in order.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed Lucullus19 reverting a few different editors and am waiting to see how they respond to this report before deciding what action is needed here. --NeilN talk to me 04:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban would be ridiculous, in my opinion. I've rarely seen edits from PiCo that I did not support. I however agree that PiCo should have reported Lucullus19 after a few reverts. —PaleoNeonate – 16:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I trust that PiCo will use the talk pages and engage in the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. Lucullus19 has been reverted by a few different editors. They are warned to get consensus on the talk page for their changes. Further reverts may result in a block. NeilN talk to me 16:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jacobwsl reported by User:Black Kite (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: Multiple.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [59]
  2. [60]
  3. [61]
  4. [62]
  5. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page - long running

Comments:

Edit-warring to insert fringe views against multiple editors (at least four now) over a period of days. Also places EW warnings on user pages despite them having made no more than one or two reversions to his preferred versions. [65] [66]. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This editor's enthusiasm for fringe topics may require topic bans if the behavior recurs after the block expires. Acroterion (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

User:AContensor reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Jewish history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AContensor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 04:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Roman rule in the land of Israel (63 BCE – 324 CE) */"
  2. 23:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Just because he isn't accept as Messiah doesn't negate his importance since neither is Bar Kokhba accept as Messiah. Jesus was a religious Jew and so were his first followers who made great historical contributions"
  3. 23:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Jesus is apart of Jewish history, and Christians and Jews have been interacting since the start. Christianity began as a Jewish sect. Jesus lived entirely within the context of Jewish history. He is a Jewish figure."
  4. 23:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822866397 by Malik Shabazz (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jewish history. (TW)"
  2. 23:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Jewish history */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN talk to me 03:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Deepscooby reported by User:LeoFrank (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page: Rajiv Gandhi International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deepscooby (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. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70] (as an IP)
  5. [71] (as an IP)
  6. [72]
  7. [73] (as an IP along with a PA which I think should be rev del'd)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
User has been adding the same false info on O'Hare International Airport. Both in O'Hare International Airport and Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, they have been reverted by multiple editors and also explained on their talk page (diff provided above) on the error they are adding.  LeoFrank  Talk 07:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Coffee: Request you to semi O'Hare International Airport as well as rev del per this.  LeoFrank  Talk 08:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@LeoFrank: It has now been ☒N Deleted, and the article protected. Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

BigBoyJayFee reported by Iamthemostwanted2015 (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

User continues to vandalize Canopy Bed, after being warned by 72. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BigBoyJayFee
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopy_bed&diff=822990988&oldid=822990711
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopy_bed&diff=822988583&oldid=822988447
Also could someone rollback his edits? I can't do that. Thanks. Iamthemostwanted2015 (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)Iamthemostwanted2015
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely @Iamthemostwanted2015: WP:AIV is the better place for this kind of report. And you can go back to any version of the article in history and save that. NeilN talk to me 18:08, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Bbossoxx & User:Fustos reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Danny Amendola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbossoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of Bbossoxx's reverts:

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

Diffs of Fustos' reverts:

  1. [81]
  2. [82]
  3. [83]
  4. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] (placed on Bbossex's talk page by Fustos)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86] (placed on Fustos's talk page by me}

(diff of warning on Fustos' talk page being reverted by Fustos with the edit summary: "fuck off wolfchild")

Diff of attempt by Fustos to resolve dispute on Bbossoxx's talk page: [87]

Diff of attempt by Bbossoxx to resolve dispute on Fustos' talk page: [88]

Diff of 3RRNB notice on Fustos' talk page: [89]

Diff of 3RRNB notice on Bbossoxx's talk page: [90]

Comments:
I'm not involved, just a third party observer reporting disruption. Neither editor appears likely to stop anytime soon, - theWOLFchild 18:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:KINGPORUS reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Karna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
KINGPORUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 05:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  6. 15:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  7. 14:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  8. 14:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  9. 06:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ""

NB: see also recent 3RR investigation at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive358#User:KINGPORUS_reported_by_User:Crawford88_(Result:_Stale)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Karna. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--regentspark (comment) 19:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:TheRealBoognish reported by User:R9tgokunks (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. "NPOV"
  2. "Last edit added a bunch of trivia, removed sourced info and sources, and changed the lead to a considerably less encyclopedic prose"
  3. "Revert ridiculous change back to fansite-quality writing"
  4. "Revert vandalism"
  5. "Revert removal of content"
  6. "I didn't remove anything sourced; stop trying to control the article "

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [92]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [93] [94]

Comments:

(He claims he did not violate 3RR. "Edit warring requires a content disagreement.... I only took out unsourced content.") Anyway, I saw his edits as unencyclopedic and needing consensus. They had also removed alot of sources and valid information, and generally made some sections of the article look unencyclopedic. I didn't accuse the user of it, but reminded him that Wikipedia is a group effort and that no one owns articles. I attempted to de-escalate the situation and discuss the changes at length with the user on his talk page, and he started reverting, after which TJH2018 (talk · contribs) stepped in to attempt to revert the changes ~3 times before the page was protected. The user continued to revert ~5 times, possibly more based on criteria. The user has deleted all warnings to his talk page and discussions [95] [96] [97] and has claimed that other users, including myself, are "trying to control the article" or are not being neutral. [98], [99] -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I kept the personal life section after the initial conflict. I also added back a couple poinys I thought were trivial (the sex tape and the Romney campaign theme). The main issue with what to keep as I rewote the article was whether it seemed encyclopedic. I tried to only remove trivia. I did not make any controversial changes to the article. I am trying to keep things civilized here but it is difficult to protect the integrity of the article when people come in and treat it like a fan page and try to include every minute detail of his life. As I researched the subject, I considered articles about performances and collaborations and whether the material was encyclopedic enough or if the source was reluable. I decided against some materjal only backed by PR statements. I don't understand why the lead was written how it was originally so I rewote it to properly summarize the contents and sound less like a PR firm with the mention of the multiatinum sales of Devil Without a Cause. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would argue the opposite. Much content you added seemed a little on the line in regards to that. The lede especially seemed promotional after you changed it. "lyrics ranging from rambunctious and bravado" just doesn't sound encyclopedic to me, and it sounds like it is trying to portray the artist in an overly elevated sense, but maybe that's just me. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to explain the contents of his lyrics. The lead section is supposed to summarize an artist's work, and under the artistry section, I was trying to explain the body of the musician's work encyclopedically to someone who might not be familiar with the subject. No discussion was brought up about my additions or the cleanup. You can't just revert massive amounts of content without discussing first. That's vandalism. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Precisely my point on the "Personal Life" section. You removed large amounts of content without any discussion or consensus. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't. If you look at the edits, I kept all reliably sourced information.TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the suggestions:
  • I agree about changing the section name from "Biography" to "early life".

The Career section is not too long. Your view of his "influence" is an opinion, and there is no rule that an article has to be shorter or longer based on his "influence". The length was based on the amount of encyclopedic information I could find in research, not opinions about the subject.

  • I restored the "personal life" section. I took out the sub-sections because the linear approach looks better and many of the political activity parts were unsourced. Previous edits removed sourced information about his political views such as the Reason sourced bits on his liberal social views and the citations for his libertarianism. I initially considered not including the information on his political views if it couldn't be written encyclopedically (and therefore fell under trivia) but kept it eventually because it explains why he is categorized as a Republican and a libertarian. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. But, I think the elephant in the room is you also removed much of the Personal Life section and subsection of public controversies associated with him, which there are many of, and which are well reported, and warrant their own section. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The personal life details that were sourced were not removed, they were reorganized into the Biography section which was split up after reverts were made moving it. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Gokunks made no attempt to discuss changes before vandalizing the article. He simply reverted repeatedly without consideration to the quality of the writing or the encyclopedic nature of what was being written, or added, or what he was removing. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, my revision of the article sat dormant for two days until these massive revisions were made today. TheRealBoognish (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that TonyBallioni did not suspend my account because there are three editors involved in this dispute. I do not feel my actions violated 3RR because my edits were against massive, undiscussed changes in grammar and writung quality. 3RR is when someone wants specific content. My only goal is that the article is written professionally and encyclopedic and properly sourced. My additions were not controversial, and I did not remove any reliably sourced, non-trivial content. Overall, none of my edits were controversial enough to warrant a dispute. The other two editors involved should have brought up on the talk page why they were reverting and discussed what they felt should've been changed in the article.

Of the unsourced content taken out, the only one that is noticeably not visible was the filmography section which had a tag on it saying it was unsourced. I addef bits on Joe Dirt and Osmosis Jones to the career section because they had significant coverage. I didn't discuss his appearances in Larry the Cable Guy movies because the only sources I could find were press releases.TheRealBoognish (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I'd already protected the page before this report was filed. Blocking now serves no purpose as far as edit warring is concerned. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Jeffh3360 reported by User:Galatz (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Page: WWE Fastlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: [[User:<Jeffh3360|<Jeffh3360]] ([[User talk:<Jeffh3360|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/<Jeffh3360|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/<Jeffh3360|deleted contribs]] · logs · edit filter log · [[Special:Block/<Jeffh3360|block user]] · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [100]
  2. [101]
  3. [102]
  4. [103]
  5. [104]
  6. [105]
  7. [106]
  8. [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments: The user first went to talk to suggest the edit. When he was told why it was not valid he chose to ignore it and add it anyway. Despite three separate users reverting it he has chosen to readd it anyway. - GalatzTalk 02:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note I have had to add 4 more edits to this after the user was notified of this listing. He has apparently deemed my notification as vandalism here [110], rather than looking to contribute in a meaningful way - GalatzTalk 02:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN talk to me 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1017:B01B:26EE:90AC:F18B:2DFB:F884 reported by User:Clubjustin (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Naan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:1017:B01B:26EE:90AC:F18B:2DFB:F884 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823053728 by Clubjustin (talk) read the reference"
  2. 00:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823053436 by Clubjustin (talk) look at the reference: “Qmin: A Fresh New Approach to Indian Cuisine”"
  3. 00:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823053057 by Clubjustin (talk) last clean version"
  4. 00:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 823045224 by N0n3up (talk) again, that was the last clean version"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Naan. (TW)"
  2. 00:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Naan. (TW)"
  3. 00:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Naan. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Bijanii reported by User:UCaetano (Result: Declined Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Arabian Gulf Oil Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bijanii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Please see the category description as this is an obvious case of the Persian Gulf naming dispute"
  2. 01:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822995442 by UCaetano (talk) rv blocked sock puppet"
  3. 06:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822737010 by Maxvermillion (talk)"
  4. 23:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 822572678 by 2.48.70.54 (talk) rv block evasion"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Arabian Gulf Cup redirect */"
  2. 04:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Sockpuppet */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is systematically pushing POV across a very large number of pages (such as redirecting all pages about the Arabian Gulf Cup to "Gulf Cup" as well as renaming them). When reverted, user continues to engage in edit warring instead of engaging in the civil WP dispute resolution process.

Also, consistently attacks other editors and widely accuses them of being sockpuppets. User continuously uses "rv blocked sockpuppet" to revert other user's changes. Other pages where the user is edit warring: - Arabian Gulf Oil Company - Arabian Gulf University - Arabian Gulf rugby union team - Arabian Gulf rugby sevens team - Arabian Gulf Rugby Football Union

And far more. UCaetano (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined At least two of the accounts Bijanii reverted were sockpuppets. POV-pushing and attacks on good faith editors should be dealt with at WP:ANI. NeilN talk to me 04:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Can you advise on how to proceed? User is systematically reverting any reverts to his editions per BRD, across dozens of pages and doesn't seem willing to engage in the normal dispute resolution. I can revert another time or so and it will trigger his 3RR, but I don't want to follow that path. Got it, thanks! UCaetano (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Dealt with at ANI by being blocked for one week. --Calton | Talk 10:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Pelmeen10 reported by User:Prisonermonkeys (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: 2018 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pelmeen10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [112]
  2. [113]
  3. [114]
  4. [115]
  5. [116]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

Pelmeen10 has made several reversions to this page (and others, including other championship articles, Volkswagen Polo R WRC and Ford Fiesta WRC) over the past month. There have been multiple attempts to discuss the issue on the article talk page, his talk page and at WP:MOTOR. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This report is a bit of a below-the-belt action. The WT:MOTOR discussion has run for 20 days already, during which the reporter did not make any meaningful argument as to why it is necessary to keep the contested format in the affected article and other similar ones. Given that there was considerable support to change it and no meaningful arguments were made against, Pelmeen10 made the good-faith as I far as I'm concerned correct decision to apply the changes to this and other articles. Those actions were only reverted on this article twice by the reporter and twice by another user. Given that the article had already stabilized before the posting of this report, I suggest no action is taken against the reported user (as I'm sure there is no bad-faith and there shouldn't be more disruption) and that this be close with a WP:TROUT or maybe even WP:BOOMERANG against the reporter.Tvx1 05:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about me. Pelmeen10 edit-warred and was warned. He ignored it and broke 3RR.
"that there was considerable support to change it"
Hardly. At last count, there were three in support and three opposed, and most of the support came from previously-uninvolved editors.
"no meaningful arguments were made against"
And as I outlined in the WT:MOTOR discussion, I had concerns about some editors misidentifying sources. Some editors claimed that the sources provided came from event organisers when they did not. Please explain how I am supposed to provide a satisfactory argument to someone who cannot identify where a source comes from and when pressed about this decides to go on the attack rather than ask for clarification.
"Pelmeen10 made the good-faith as I far as I'm concerned correct decision to apply the changes to this and other articles"
Which is no excuse for edit-warring. When I received one of my blocks for edit-warring, I was clearly told that thinking or even being in the right does not give me the right to edit-war. The same goes for Pelmeen10
"Given that the article had already stabilized before the posting of this report"
You also know perfectly well that the article stabilised because Pelmeen10 is Estonian and I am Australian. I posted the 3RR report at 2pm local time, which is 5am in Estonia. Is it really that much of a surprise that an article stabilises when an editor involved is asleep? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Is it really that much of a surprise that an article stabilises when an editor involved is asleep?
— User:Prisonermonkeys

Really? When I reported you a long while ago and there was a similar inconvenience of time, you ridiculously accused me of deliberately reporting you when you were asleep in order to prevent you from responding to the report. But apparently when you make a report timing is no problem at all. If you knew so well that the other user was asleep then why did you make the report at that point? You could have easily waited a couple of hours and would have noticed that the article was still stable and this is utterly unnecessary. Blocks are intended to prevent further disruption, not to punish users. There clearly is no scope for further disruption from the reported person, so a block does not serve anyone.

You also know perfectly well that the article stabilised because Pelmeen10 is Estonian and I am Australian.
— User:Prisonermonkeys

No I didn't know perfectly well that Pelmeen10 is Estonian at all. I don't understand why you would think that. I haven't made any comment to that effect anywhere at all. You're claim also appears to imply that you would have continued reverting if their had been more reverts from Pelmeen10. Given the latest responses here, I now strongly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG here because it's very clear that the disruption here comes from the reporter who was the actual one who started reverting good-faith actions and who keeps fighting in the related discussions to get things their preferred way, despite the clear disagreement with them.Tvx1 16:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what would be the gain from getting me blocked? All my edits are always in good faith are nobody has ever questioned that. The question is - why did Prisonermonkeys revert my edit in the first place? I was simply removing unsourced and invented titles. These links clearly show the actual official names. We did have a long discussion about this before I made these changes. Prisonermonkeys starting the edit war was disruptive. My 4th and last revert had a edit summary that finished the edit war. But I'm sorry for breaking the 3RR rule. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no "gain" in having you blocked. This is not some ploy to sway the course of the discussion. I started this ANI because you broke 3RR. I warned you that you were potentially edit-warring, and you ignored it, deleting the notification two minutes after you received it. 3RR is one of the most important Wikipedia policies because it preserves the stability of an article. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note: @Pelmeen10: this is a clear violation of 3RR and as you do not seem to understand that, a short block seems to be needed. Of course if you were to acknowledge your mistake and give assurances that you will not edit war in future, then a different course of action may be appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand my violation and promise not to edit was in future. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No block. Pelmeen10 is warned for breaking 3RR, but they have agreed to stop edit warring per the above comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6CF0:61F0:DD36:DAB8:2639:B3D1 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Los Angeles Chargers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:1700:6CF0:61F0:DD36:DAB8:2639:B3D1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "I am stating the truth... stop editing my posts"
  2. 20:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "truth"
  3. 20:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "truth"
  4. 19:57, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "fixed typos"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Breakglass reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
Ben Roberts-Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Breakglass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ the arguments made in this section are based on tabloid journalism that is not factual and was designed to boost book sales. It is slanderous, untrue, and shouldn’t be published."
  2. 11:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC) "This information is based on opinion found in tabloid articles designed to promote a book - it is not factual, and the subject has denied all claims. There is no proof of these claims, and they are slanderous."
  3. 11:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 11:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ben Roberts-Smith. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

@HaeB:@Terrariola:@Boomer Vial:IVORK Discuss 05:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely I'm marginally involved as I reverted one of this editor's many reverts. As this disruption is continuing, with no attempts by the editor to discuss their concerns, despite multiple warnings and the existence of this report I've implemented the block to stop it. I don't think it's likely that any other admin would have imposed a time-limited block given that this is an edit warring only account removing well sourced material. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:URunICon reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Finnish presidential election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: URunICon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:30, 30 January 2018 Reinstates election results table I had replaced here
  2. 14:11, 30 January 2018 Reinstates same results table (now in the format of a template)
  3. 17:20, 30 January 2018 Reinstates again
  4. 03:34, 31 January 2018 Reinstates again

Number 57 11:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
I was not informed of any rule break until the very last minute. I've now restored User:Number 57's edit and consider this to be over. --URunICon (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

User:3PJ3W & User:37.169.107.92 Reported by User:DJ-Joker16 (Result: 3PJ3W blocked)[edit]

Users: 3PJ3W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) & 37.169.107.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Catacombs of Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

diffs of 3PJ3W's reverts:

  1. [119]
  2. [120]
  3. [121]

diffs of 37.169.107.92's reverts:

  1. [122]
  2. [123]

Messages left on talk pages:

  1. [124]
  2. [125]

Notices left on talk pages:

  1. [126]
  2. [127]

Explanation: The movie As Above, So Below was FILMED within the catacombs. They claim it is a commercial advertisement and that it was not filmed there which isn't true. Read about the production of the movie on the film's article and the source it comes from. Both say it was filmed in the catacombs of Paris, therefore making it an event there. Even after leaving messages on their talk pages, with one editor backing me up, they continue to revert my edits. Update: Even after I posted the warning, message, and this, they revert again.

User:2607:FEA8:41DF:F746:219C:4A20:A293:3F90 reported by User:Bellezzasolo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[