Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive362

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Tvx1 reported by User:No such user (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Yugoslavia national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tvx1 (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]

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

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

Comments:
Judging on his recent talk page contents, Tvx1 is no stranger to revert-warring, and continued with belligerent editing even after several warnings. I'm off to sleep so I won't be available for a while, but the diffs are IMO substantial evidence. No such user (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I had forgotten about the revert from around 4am last night/this morning, but I did indeed breach 3RR and won't deny that. However both the reporter and Bozalegenda have made a substantial number of reverts as well. I think there is unnecessary aggression here. These users show little intent to accept facts supported by reliable sources. Talk page discussion is underway and I'm sure we can resolve this there, though the aggresive language and swearing could be done away with. All in all, this just a massive overreaction.Tvx1 23:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tvx1, less than a week ago you were instructed to engage in dispute resolution instead of edit warring on another article. I see that advice didn't sink in so perhaps a block will prevent future breaches of 3RR. NeilN talk to me 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Fustos reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Warned user)[edit]

Page: List of military special forces units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9]
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]
  • (these two are outside the 24 hour window, but still recent reverts on same page, same content)
  1. [13]
  2. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [16]

Diff of 3RRNB notice posted to User:Fustos talk page: [17]

Comments:
This user refuses to engage on the article talk, or his user talk, pages, and instead just continues reverting. I’ve tried to encourage him to discuss this, repeatedly, as seen with my following edit summaries;

And with these notes added to template notices;

This user was just reported here a couple weeks for the same behaviour (edit-warring with another editor) and was blocked, but once the block expired, he quickly continued with his "revert everything and discuss nothing" approach to editing. Thank you - theWOLFchild 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

  • i gave my reasons multiple times. There is no such thing as a Special Air Service Reserve. Yet you keep on forcing it, despite there not being a source for it. All 3 regiment belong to the Special Air Service corps and the units reserve status within the core was already highlighted. Fustos (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, your assertion that i refuse to discuss before making a change is a blatant lie. On the Talk:List of military special forces units alone i posted 2 new sections before making a change just to be sure. Fustos (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • thirdly, you keep on spamming my page, despite me asking you at least a dozen times to stop posting on my profile. Fustos (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't "give reasons" by way of edit-warring edit-summaries. You are supposed to give your reasons on the article talk page, after the first time you're reverted, and before you revert again. You shouldn't be reverting at all after that unless an agreement or consensus in support of your edit is reached.
  • Furthermore, this is a bulleted list of units and sub-units. The 21st SAS (Artists)(R) and 23rd SAS(R) form the Special Air Service (Reserve), that's why it's on the list and as I explained, and is supported supported by link.
  • Thirdly, you did not start a discussion about this on the talk page, despite my repeatedly encouraging you. You just kept on reverting. Whether you're right or wrong, edit-warring is disruptive. You were told this just a couple weeks ago when you were blocked for edit-warring with another editor, and yet you just keep doing it.
  • I'm not "spamming your page". Those are notices that I'm required to place there if I intend to report your edit-warring. You already know this, it has been explained to you before. I haven't posted any individual comments, just the notices (that I wouldn't have to post in the first place if you would stop edit-warring all the time) - theWOLFchild 05:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Additionaly, if the link I added above isn't good enough for you, then here; 1, 2, 3 & 4. These are supporting refs (that I'll add when the content you removed goes back in). This took all of a minute and half on Google, something you should've done before you removed content for no reason, and certainly before you continued to edit war over it. - theWOLFchild 06:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I also wanted to add that despite your edit summary: "reverting unsourced edit. there is no SAS reserve core. thats just in your head", these sources say otherwise. So this was not only a rude comment, but an incorrect one. Please to be more civil. (as in, no more telling editors to "fuck off" when they try to get you to stop edit-warring). - theWOLFchild
  • Note: Another editor has reverted Fustos' last revert, with the edit summary: "Take it to talk. You have been reverted a number of times" (they are also trying to encourage Fustos to use talk pages and appear weary of his edit-warring as well). This edit has now re-added that content that Fustos was repeatedly removing, and I have added the sources I noted above to support it. FYI - theWOLFchild 17:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Fustos and Thewolfchild: Has the dispute died down? --NeilN talk to me 14:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Well, it appears that since he just came off a block for this behaviour, he knew had clearly violated 4RR and so has gone quiet in hopes it'll 'blow over' and he'll get a free pass. Is this particular "dispute" done? As I said above, another editor reverted his edit (6th revert), and then I added those sources. So there's really nothing "Fustos" can say about this edit, but he has had this "always revert and never discuss" attitude since he started editing, and that's not going to change anytime soon, unless he learns that it won't be tolerated. - theWOLFchild 15:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
it did from my part. although i still think it's unnecessary, at least it's sourced. i believe wolfchild is disapointed, since he likes to follow me around and comment on nearly every one of my edits. once he even tried to have me banned for not writing an edit summary, lol. Fustos (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
For someone hoping to avoid another block for edit-warring, right after he came off an edit warring block, your case would be better served if you tried to convince this admin (or any admin) that you will change your edit-warring ways. But instead, you still have this combative attitude, accusing me "following you around" (an WP:NPA vio) when in fact, you are editing and disrupting pages on my watchlist, something that has already been explained to you. Further accusing me of "trying to have you banned for not using an edit summary" is patent nonsense and yet another NPA vio. You clearly intent to carry on with the same uncooperative, combative attitude which will just lead to more disruption. - theWOLFchild 19:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I asked you at least a dozen times not to post on my profile. Also, you did follow me around. For a time you followed me and reverted any and all of my edits, even typos for not giving an edit summary. You even posted stats about my edits. Plus you you spammed my profile and threatened that i would be banned for not making edit summary. That is until another user came in and stated that he/she never saw someone get banned for not posting edit summary's. I do not engage with you, you engage and try to provoke me. Also, you promised you will stop posting on my profile, after i repeatedly asked you not to. Finally you made this post on your profile promising to keep of my page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thewolfchild&oldid=prev&diff=819793339). too bad you can't even keep your own promises. also i can't remember posting anything on your profile. like i said, i am not engaging or being combative with you, you are being provokative and combative towards me. Fustos (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Fustos, using article talk pages more will help your cause in these kinds of disputes. You'll do that in the future? And assertions like "threatened that i would be banned for not making edit summary" should really be accompanied by a diff. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
User:NeilN my mistake it was about bare references [[18]]. He followed me around nitpicking every edit i made so i confused it with the edit summary issue he came at me with. another example, [[19]]. Here he clearly states he spammed me at least 8 times even after i asked him not to. [[20]] needless to point out he spammed me after that as well despite me asking him to stay away from me. Another example, i linked the 75 ranger regiment to US army rangers. One edit, but i instantly got a warning disruptive editing [[21]] from wolfchild. he is clearly following me around and did so for at least a month, trying to provoke me and spamming my profile. Fustos (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Well, I guess start at beginning of your last comment here, and address it point by point;

  • "He followed me around..." I don't know how many times I have to explain this you, but many of the pages you've been editing are 'on my watchlist. If you don't understand what that is, look it up. I know NeilN knows what it is. So hopefully we can put these "following me around" accusations to rest.
  • The first diff you posted is only part of the entire discussion, and there is still no "threat from me to ban you for not filling in refs". Here is the rest of the comments that were posted, right before you deleted everything. Context. There was no "threat" to "ban" you for "not filling in refs".
  • The second diff you posted is a standard notice template. You made an edit that was incorrect and that's what these notices are for. I even added additional links in the optional comment section to help, as at that time I still was unsure if you just a new editor struggling with the policies and guidelines here, or someone who is obstinate and doesn't really care about the policies and guidelines here.
  • You third diff is a single, standard, edit summary notice. You had been asked by multiple editors (other than me) on no less than seven (7) different occasions to leave summaries with your edits, but you still wouldn't. I included diffs of all seven (7) of those requests, making my request the eighth (8th) time you were being asked to leave summaries with your edits. Leaving a single notice, (by way of a single edit) and adding seven (7) diffs with that single notice is not "spamming you eight times", it's still just a single edit. By the way, in the last 250 article edits you've made, you've still only added summaries to approx. 20%. I don't understand why you still refuse to leave a simple, brief note explaining the changes you've made, to 4 out of every 5 of your edits. That is a significant majority of changes where no has any idea what you've done, (if it's on their watchlist or they're patrolling changes) of course they're going to check, and if there's a problem, it has to be fixed and you need to be notified, so that hopefully you won't repeat the problem. But you act like people are out to get you and approach everything with hostility, and you refuse to discuss anything.
  • For your fourth diff, that is another notice template, and it includes the diff you were being warning about. It had nothing to do with you "... link[ing] the 75 ranger regiment to US army rangers.", it was about you removing sourced content, and not even explaining why because again you refuse to add edit summaries. The notice speaks for itself. And not only that, your edit was reverted 32 seconds later by another editor with the edit summary: "Undid revision 825617508 by Fustos (talk) Unexplained removal of sourced contact (Ranger is not an international military unit type". So between his summary and my notice, you still want to claim that edit was simple, harmless "link to another article"...?
  • And you end your comment with comment with a repeat of the accusation about me "following you around", which I've addressed.

@NeilN: Above, is my reply to Fusto's last comment. I addressed it point-by-point, explaining every diff he added and (I believe) clearly refuting all the accusations included. The important thing (again, I believe) is he says nothing about his edit-warring or the 4RR vio that brought us here. You have been exceptionally patient here, giving him ample opportunity to admit where he went wrong, explain that he is now clear on the edit-warring policy here and won't do it again. It's even more remarkable considering he just came off a block for edit-warring, (given by you), only 4 weeks ago. And yet, he takes zero responsibility for his actions here. He doesn't even address then, he instead just conjures up this list of accusations, blaming me for all his troubles here. Well, I clearly addressed those. And a look at his talk page history will show others have tried discussing both his problematic editing with him, and that I've respected his wish to not post comments on his talk page, my only posts there have been notice templates when his edits needed correcting or the required warnings when he engaged in disruptive editing and edit-warring. It's clear he doesn't think he's done anything wrong here, that he escaped a block, and he using this as an opportunity to use 'offence as a defence'.

How does anything he's posted here assure you that won't disrupt the project again with, among the other issues raised, further edit warring? - theWOLFchild 07:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:ANI territory. Fustos, I just want to see a commitment from you to use article pages and dispute resolution more and revert less. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
already done. the only unreasonable user i came across is wolfchild. Fustos (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Fustos is warned to use article pages and dispute resolution more and revert less. Any amount of edit warring without engaging in discussion may result in a block. NeilN talk to me 00:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Tedickey reported by User:Evrik (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Template:Montgomery County, Maryland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tedickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
I'm really not interested in edit warring over such a minor point. Tedickey is driving one, and I can't fathom why. --evrik (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale No action there since 28 February. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MrDankMeme and User:FibonacciYYC reported by User:Theinstantmatrix (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Westmount Charter School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the MrDankMeme's reverts:

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

Diffs of the FibonacciYYC's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42], [43]. Done by Meters.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Neither users have made an attempt to resolve this dispute on talk page, instead: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]

Comments:

Uninvolved user here. This looks like an image dispute; the war started when FibonacciYYC removed the logo recently added by MrDankMeme as "it's not fair use", confusing it with the Commons policy of "No fair use"; in here, we do allow it. MrDankMeme and FibonacciYYC then started repeatedly reverting each other, reverting past WP:3RR. Meters warned them later saying they're both at 5RR. theinstantmatrix (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I have moved the conversation to the Westmount Charter School talk page. I am a new user so I was unaware of this rule and I hope that this doesn't happen in the future because of my foolish mistakes. FibonacciYYC (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
See [50] for Dankmeme making yet another revert (whether it's a good edit or not it's a really bad idea to go to 6RR 20 minutes after an AN3 report had been opened).
I think this is two kids from the same school messing around. One is definitely from the school, and he seems to know the other editor. See [51] for FibonacciYYC now using the article's talk page to try and set up some game with his buddy. Meters (talk) 08:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The simplest would be to block both parties unless they will make a clear promise to stop reverting. However, only User:MrDankMeme has continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I won't war. I just added the picture because I saw FibonacciYYC conceded that the picture falls under Wikipedia's guidlines. I will not war. MrDankMeme (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No blocks since the dispute is over a misunderstanding which is now resolved. FibonacciYYC misunderstood enwiki's rules about fair use. But both of the reported editors broke 3RR and if that occurs again, there may be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Brandmeister reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brandmeister (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. Attempt #1 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:Dandamayev)
  2. Attempt #2 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:LouisAragon)
  3. Attempt #3 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:LouisAragon)
  4. Attempt #4 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; (note the feigned edit summary as well); reverted by User:LouisAragon)
  5. Attempt #5 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; reverted by User:Rye-96)
  6. Attempt #6 (Brandmeister had reached no consensus; not yet reverted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]-[53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:
"Brandmeister" made the first POV tweaks to the article on 13 February 2018 ("attempt #1"). He was reverted by User:Dandamayev on 14 February 2018.[55] As you can see on the talk page, "Brandmeister" didn't reach consensus, yet he just continued; on 16 February 2018 he made another series of POV tweaks/removals/changes; I then reverted him ("attempt #2").

You'd think he'd stop hitting that trigger and reach a consensus first, but no! He just continued to edit war ("attempt #3"). On 20 February 2018 he tried adjusting the section again; once again "Brandmeister" didn't reach any consensus on the talk page, and was thus reverted ("attempt #4"). You'd think that he'd stop by, but nope; on 26 February 2018, in spite of not having reached any sort of consensus with the 3-4 users he's edit warring against, "Brandmeister" just continued to tweak the section once more ("attempt #4").

He then posted another comment (i.e. proposal) on the talk page. Even though multiple users clearly expressed their dissatisfaction with the edits he has made so far, he continued his edit-war fest once more ("attempt #5"). This one was reverted by User:Rye-96. Two days later, having reached no consensus once again, he just decided to edit-war once more; bringing the number to a staggering six attempts [56].

"Brandmeister" is edit-warring against multiple people, ignoring any sort of consensus, ignoring every warning,[57] and hitting that trigger as soon as he can. He has been reverted on numerous occassions by various users. These same users have opposed his edits on the talk page; it can be clearly seen that no one ever agreed with any of his edits up to this day.[58] Yet he just continued each single time. Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say this is textbook tendentious editing by "Brandmeister". - LouisAragon (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm honestly baffled by this report. There has been an ongoing discussion on this where I put various proposals to resolve the WP:NPOV issue and avoid the edit war. Instead LouisAragon preferred to jump the gun without addressing my concerns at talk: here, for example, he reverts and only then replies to a two-day-old unanswered concern. Here is another revert, five days after my unaswered concern. Overall, the approach of the reverting users at that article has been unconstructive and uncompromising at best, where they preferred to revert instead of replying and achieving consensus at talk. On several occasions I WP:PINGed and waited for any reply, but the involved users chose to revert first and only then reply to unanswered concerns. And I think all of them were aware of the active discussion, as I cited talk concerns in nearly every edit summary, yet they chose to revert first. Now, when I've implemented another unanswered, two-day-old suggestion, LouisAragon reports me. I can't help but suspect the possible involvement of a tag team/meatpuppets (or socks) to override the talk discussion and game the system. Brandmeistertalk 22:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
User:Brandmeister has been previously sanctioned under WP:ARBAA2, and they do appear to be edit warring at Azerbaijan. I recommend closing this with a warning to Brandmeister that they may be blocked if they make any further reverts at Azerbaijan that don't have prior consensus on the talk page. You should consider using the steps of WP:DR if necessary to reach agreement. In answer to Brandmeister's comment "five days after my unaswered concern.." you can't assume that the mere passage of time awards consensus. You need to have actual people saying 'I agree'. EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No, Ed, with due respect other editors who are aware of the discussion are supposed to join the talk page before reverting. Ignoring the concerns at talk and jumpinng to revert is not how it is supposed to work. Anyway, as a matter of fact, the issue appears to have been resolved, so this is moot by now. Brandmeistertalk 21:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd note that WP:AA2 is an area of sockpuppetry and several accounts with which I and some other users interacted in the past turned out to be socks. Particularly, in the 2016 case that I filed a total of 11 socks separated in two groups were discovered. Brandmeistertalk 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I left a note for User:LouisAragon, the filer of this report, to see if they agree the issue is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Similar to the response I gave on my talk page; this is a classic example of someone who's been caught redhanded and now tries to "evade" any blame by saying that "everthing was already solved". Any uninvolved editor may check the talk page and then tell me that a consensus was reached. Pure bollocks. Some steps were made, but every single time I (and probably others) checked the page, I saw that BM had been unilaterally misinterpeting my words and those of the other TP participants in order to push his POV for the dozenth time into the article. Textbook example of a user who's trying to override any consensus forming by forcing others to kow-tow, by means of pure edit-warring. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow. When it comes to "override any consensus", for the record and closing admin I'll show who is overriding. This, this and this is a clear evidence of WP:MEATPUPPETing and WP:VOTESTACK (at the very least) summoning others. My suspicion above turned to be true. I will not wonder if there are socks as well. Brandmeistertalk 13:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see anything that's even remotely connected to "votestacking". "Dandamayev" asked me about the topic after he reverted your unconstructive edits, and after he created the section on the talk page of the article. I only responded. He didn't ask me to edit/vote/join him in anything. I have this article on my watchlist for ages, and have edited the talk page on earlier occasions as well.
@EdJohnston:, this is the third time that "Brandmeister" is throwing around meat/sockpuppet accusations in a case about his own editorial conduct. I don't want to waste any further words on his ridiculous claims, but I suggest he drops this nonsense, or forms a SPI. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Brandmeister is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Azerbaijan unless they have received a prior consensus for their changes on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Rajrajh (Result: Blocked }[edit]

Page: Munda people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rajrajh (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. [59]
  2. [60]
  3. [61]
  4. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64] - his talk page, not the article, his response wasn't helpful

Comments:
Also see Ho people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) He's been reverted by 3 editors at one article 4 at another, and has had 2 warnings by other editors. (Aside, tried twice with Twinkle but it failed). Doug Weller talk 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Also warned about discretionary sanctions. NeilN talk to me 15:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:HistoryInAction reported by User:Nixon Now (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario leadership election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryInAction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]


Comments:
User:HistoryInAction's edits are also violating NPOV. Nixon Now (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Nixon has hypocritically violated the same 3 revert rule by repeatedly edit warring. This user has also not posted a single discussion on the talk page at all! This user is being extremely aggressive in trying to bully others from engaging in productive discussions.
Nixon seems to think that blogs are reliable sources. Nixon has referenced a blog that is not even slightly related to this article in order to synthesize POV language into the article. In reality, the language that Nixon is against is found in both of the reliable sources in the article. I fail to see how an unrelated blog, that is not even on the same topic of this article, cam override all of the reliable sources.
I consider this to be very bad faith editing. Nixon, please discuss your views on the talk page BEFORE engaging in this kind of bullying tactics.HistoryInAction (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bozalegenda reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Pages
Yugoslavia national basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Defunct national basketball teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Yugoslavia at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bozalegenda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Yugoslavia basketball team:

  1. 14:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts

Yugoslavia basketball team:

  1. 13:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828426228 by 74Account (talk) just one more revert, and you will be banned... go to talk page"
  2. 13:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828412169 by 74Account (talk) we dont care for fiba archive, we only care for history facts... we are not here to change the history of Yugoslavia"
  3. 01:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "revert to valid version"
  4. 14:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828208186 by Tvx1 (talk) politics and sports are connected, we are not here to change the world HISTORY.. you can not come here and after more than 10 years change this to your personal view"
  5. 01:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "FR Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia were different countries"
  6. 14:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "my source is fact that all history and world books know difference between two countries, read articles about SFR and FR Yugoslavia"
  7. 14:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "not the same Yugoslavia, read articles on wiki"

FIBA Basketball World Championship:

  1. 2 March 2018 13:24‎ (UTC) "source not valid"
  2. 2 March 2018 01:46 (UTC) "revert vandalism"
  3. 24 February 2018 22:28‎ (UTC)
  4. 24 February 2018 14:54‎ (UTC) "your source is html code table which dont recognize two different countries, so its not reliable... there is a source from fiba which explains everyth"
  5. 24 February 2018 14:20‎ (UTC) "that source is not valid, that was explained 100 times"
  6. 23 February 2018 23:24‎ (UTC) "here is a source from fiba, stop reverting"
  7. 23 February 2018 17:21‎ (UTC) "revert nonsense, two different countries..."
  8. 23 February 2018 15:44‎ (UTC) "http://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/keyfigures/p/rc//tid//tid2//lid_38179_ct/0/cid/EMSM/_//index.html plus all history and world books about Yugoslavia country"

Template:Defunct national basketball teams:

  1. 14:13, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828430293 by Tvx1 (talk) governing body dont say anything about this, FIBA html code table is not reliable.... we only have to watch HISTORY FACTS, we are not here to create new countries"
  2. 14:05, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "there is no such thing as Yugoslavia, it could be only SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro"
  3. 13:27, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828416145 by Pelmeen10 (talk) not correct"

Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics:

  1. 13:46, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828427048 by 74Account (talk)"
  2. 13:39, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828426704 by Tvx1 (talk) there is no consensus for this, FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro are one same country. read every history book on this world. We dont care for IOS..IOS dont recognize countries"
  3. 13:24, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "we dont care for IOC, we only care for HISTORY FACTS"

Yugoslavia at the Olympics:

  1. 13:26, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "there is no consensus for this NONSENSE"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:01, 2 maart 2018 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Yugoslavia basketball team:

  1. 22:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Yugoslavia ≠ Serbia and Montenegro */ wrong"

Olympics:

  1. 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Serbia and Montenegro vs Yugoslavia*/"
Comments:

For the last few weeks this user has been edit-warring on the articles of Yugoslavia national sports teams/delegations. The Olympic situation has come up at WT:Olympics and the clear consensus is to list the achievements per the IOC, but this user flatly rejects that consensus and facts supported by reliable sources and only want to accept their view. On the article of the basketball team they don't even partake in the discussion. I don't know what more I can do to get through to this user. Tvx1 14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Article semied. NeilN talk to me 14:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
NeilN, I think Bozalegenda might have been evading their block here.Tvx1 18:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Semied. --NeilN talk to me 20:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:84.51.140.32 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Bedworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
84.51.140.32 (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 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) to 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511443 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
    2. 05:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511249 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
    3. 05:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 828511000 by Davey2010 (talk)" (84.51.140.32)
    1. 18:35, 2 March 2018‎ (UTC) "(Undid revision 828367805 Accurate referenced information in the relevant section of the article. Stop your trolling vandalism!)" (87.113.147.143)
    1. 01:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "(Undid revision 828354620 by Davey2010 (talk)" (87.114.145.99)
    1. 02:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC) "(Undid revision 828354726 by Davey2010 (talk)" (87.114.145.99)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This IP has used 2 other IPs to edit war (87.113.147.143 & 87.114.145.99 and add unsourced content to the article, After the third revert I then went to RFPP to get the page protected[71] however 5 hours on and nothing got done so I reverted hoping this time the IP would go to the tslkpage but unfortunately not so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 14:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah thanks NeilN, Not sure why this wasn't followed through the first time round, Anyway thanks for protecting it much appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 14:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain NeilN but could you revert the IP aswell ?, Not to be all THEWRONGVERSION but if their version's live they're not going to discuss it whereas if reverted they may go to the tp, Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You removed the report before it was processed by an admin. Non-emergency cases sometimes take longer to get to. And, as the article is only semied, you can continue editing (you're not close to WP:3RR). --NeilN talk to me 14:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Only because I assumed it was more or less declined, Technically I'm at 4rr so I'll leave it be, Anyway thanks again for your help. –Davey2010Talk 14:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Struck, Not with it at all today!, –Davey2010Talk 15:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mikmaq223 reported by User:Moxy (Result:blocked)[edit]

Page
Eskasoni First Nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mikmaq223 (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 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
    2. 15:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
    2. 14:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
    3. 14:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
    4. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
    5. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Massachsuetts References */"
  3. 14:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  4. 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 14:35, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
    2. 14:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 14:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
    2. 14:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 14:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
    2. 14:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) to 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 13:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
    2. 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* References */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Can you please explain what you're trying to write about? */"
  2. 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */ new section"
  2. 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */"
  3. 14:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */ sooty my B is broken"
  4. 15:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Trying to help */"
Comments:

We have an editor copy and pasting copyrighted material after the link they wish to add was removed several times from 2 articles...see also Aroostook Band of Micmac. We have tried to talk to them...got one reply...but no further attempts at communication after first try. Moxy (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This feels like totally disruptive editing. The constant additions of unrelated material on Massaachusetts (see Eskasoni First Nation make no sense at all in the context of these articles. I believe a block is warranted. — ERcheck (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
we may have a legal threat now.--Moxy (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely for competency issues. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
In case editor requests unblock, please also note this threat to report Wikipedia to a state Attorney General. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Smatrah reported by User:D4iNa4 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Women in Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smatrah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [73]
  2. [74]
  3. [75]
  4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:

  • Obviously he is gaming WP:3RR given his inactivity as an editor, and WP:IDHT on talk page[79] by not agreeing that he can't write his own interpretation of the translations. He is also misrepresenting sources, a small evidence of such misrepresentation is his edit[80] he is mentioning "Vedic society" while his source [81] makes no mention of even "Vedic". D4iNa4 (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Editør reported by User:Prince of Thieves (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editør (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, diff

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

Comments:

Technically, the fourth revert was outside 24 hours but Editør, it seems silly that you would earn your first ever block over this. --NeilN talk to me 22:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Editør has not made any further reverts so I think this is resolved. Prince of Thieves (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Apart from blanking the archive, that is...! Curious. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 10:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes that is odd. It looks like he was maybe trying to unarchive something he wrote on the talk page. Prince of Thieves (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm pretty sure the 3RR wasn't broken, although it was close, so this is moot. In hindsight the merge template should have gone on the article, that is how the AfD was closed and then discussion on the talk page. Unless Editor wants to return to the merge discussion it won't go anywhere because there are no other involved users. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, but if User:Editør tries to restore the notability tag again without prior consensus on talk there may be consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Hyperion82 reported by User:Scrabble Scribble (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: 2018 IAAF World Indoor Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperion82 (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. [82]
  2. [83]
  3. [84]
  4. [85]
  5. [86]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:

The user Hyperion82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has ignored the talk page where there was ongoing albeit short discussion on the topic and went on straight reverting the existing edits without contributing to the existing discussion on the talk page. The user was not reasonable in the comments she was making in the discussions and came across as raising their voice (using exclamation points) to accentuate their I assume political message. Scrabble Scribble (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Knew this report was open and reverted again with an edit summary containing "We can continue our discussion at talk page, but only if my option of medal table should remain" [88] NeilN talk to me 19:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:L.R. Wormwood reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Daily Mail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: L.R. Wormwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Note: this is a slow-motion revert war, not within the 24-hour 3RR window.

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [90]
  2. [91]
  3. [92]
  4. [93]

TIMELINE:

Note that every other participant except L.R. Wormwood made one or two reverts total.

18:12, 26 January 2018: Here is the discussion on the talk page that led to my original edit: [94]

The discussion was open for 17 days with no objections to my proposed edit.

18:10, 26 January 2018: Here is my original edit: [95]

This version was stable for 30 days until it was reverted by L.R. Wormwood on 25 February.

12:31, 25 February 2018‎: L.R. Wormwood's first revert. [96]

Despite the "see talk" in the edit summary, L.R. Wormwood gave the other editors on the page exactly one minute tomdiscuss his proposed change between his comment and his revert:[97][98][99]

01:49, 28 February 2018: L.R. Wormwood stopped discussing and started insulting: [100]

09:08, 28 February 2018: I stopped interacting with L.R. Wormwood because of the insults.[101]

21:03, 3 March 2018: Because discussion had become impossible, I reverted to the stable, status quo version.[102]

11:16, 28 February 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts me.[103]

12:17, 28 February 2018User:Chaheel Riens Reverts L.R. Wormwood.[104]

13:35, 3 March 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts Chaheel Riens. [105]

14:29, 3 March 2018: User:Nomoskedasticity reverts L.R. Wormwood.[106]

14:51, 3 March 2018: User:Davey2010 reverts Nomoskedasticity.[107]

15:12, 3 March 2018: Nomoskedasticity reverts Davey2010.[108]

15:33, 3 March 2018: L.R. Wormwood reverts Nomoskedasticity.[109]

17:24, 3 March 2018: I revert L.R. Wormwood.[110]

20:53, 3 March 2018: Davey2010 reverts me.[111]

21:03, 3 March 2018: User:Drmies reverts Davey2010.[112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113][114][115]

Comments:

  1. [116]
  2. [117]
  3. [118]
User:Davey2010 and I also stopped reverting after the closure decision.
This looks like another excuse to fork accusations that I have used "insults". You may determine for yourselves whether this comment contains any "insults" (regrettably rude, but does not contain insults). Note that I have even apologised for this comment. User:Guy Macon should WP:MOVEON and stop pursuing this personal vendetta against me. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The moment Drmies reverted I immediately stepped away from the article ..... When Drmies reverts you you know you've f'ed up!. ––Davey2010Talk 13:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Bad count by L.R. Wormwood above. One of those was not a revert, but rather an new edit with substantially different content that I made in an attempt to find a compromise that was acceptable to L.R. Wormwood. I stand by my claim that everyone else, including me and Davey2010, stopped at the first or second revert. I agree with NeilN's assessment and decision above. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It was a revert (or partial revert), in the same way this was a revert, even though it also included substantially different content as a means of compromise. We actually had a compromise (by way of this version), until you arbitrarily chose to revert to your original version of the previous month here, over the objections of two users, for reasons you weren't able to clearly articulate in the edit summary or on the talk page. It appears to have been in objection to this comment. You later admitted here that you were initially "strongly inclined to support something close to [my] version over the version [you yourself] had written", but apparently changed your mind due to this "insulting" comment. This would suggest that this content dispute was initiated for personal reasons. Just WP:LETITGO. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't going to revert further having been told in very explicit terms that I couldn't close the RfC, or terminate it early. I've already apologised for being rude to you. Given how much time this has cost me personally, you can be sure that next time I feel like writing something even mildly rude on a talk page, I'll take a walk. With this, can you please stop attacking me on the talk page/edit summaries now, and refrain from making any further spurious reports. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • NeilN, don't know about putting my foot down, but I had some faith in L.R. Wormwood and the others, and I do believe that there was a stable version. That's not always easy to see, but this case was different. I would not recommend any blocks; discussion at the talk page was ongoing, last time I looked. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Fustos reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 1 week1 month)[edit]

Page: Russian commando frogmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fustos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [120]
  2. [121]
  3. [122]
  4. [123]
  5. [124]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (see comments)

Diff of attempt by other editor to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [125]

Link to 3RRNB notification on reported user's talk page: link

Comments:
This user was just given a stern warning by admin NeilN after being reported here 6 days ago. The user had just come off an edit-warring block 4 weeks ago. After a multiple combative NPA comments, he managed to evade a block last time, stating he wouldn't edit-war again, and yet less than a week later, he's involved in another edit-war, and also making uncivil, combative comments and again refusing to engage in collegial discussion. (btw - I am not involved, just a 3rd party observer). - theWOLFchild 20:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

  • ok. i'm saying it plain. (Personal attack removed). also, i was reverting WP:OR which was badly sourced. Fustos (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, whatever admins decide, please NOT POST ON MY PROFILE EVER AGAIN! I've asked you at least 30 times by now. Fustos (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Hurling insults at me does nothing to change the fact that you have continued to disrupt this project with your edit-warring, refusal to engage and rude, combative behaviour. Even now, instead posting something to try and convince admins that you won't cause any further disruption, you instead post personal attacks against me. You are responsible for your behaviour, quit blaming everyone else. Also, if you look at the top of this very page, you will see that I am required to post a 3RRNB report notification to your talk page. Other than that, I have made no other posts to your talk page. - theWOLFchild 21:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN talk to me 21:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Upped to 1 month and TPA removed. --NeilN talk to me 21:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Danishalom77 reported by User:Nishidani (Result: Warned user)[edit]

Page: Giulio Meotti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danishalom77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

here

Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. (1) [126]
  1. (2) [127]
  1. (3) [128]
  1. (4) [129]
  1. (5) [130]
Background comments:

Three IP reverts of well-sourced material occurred at Giulio Meotti

These reverts were rollbacked by Shellwood, IdreamofJeanie and by myself.

At this point a newbie User:Danishalom77 registered and made five successive reverts in less than 24 hours, exactly identical to the preceding three, reverting further rollback efforts by User:NSH001 and User:Huldra. No attempt has been made to address the talk page. All these reverts lack an edit summary.

Warning of 3R infraction here. I notified the editor of this report here after they failed to self-revert.
I outlined the issue at I dream of horses’s user page, and had raised the issue of the use of Meotti, a notorious plagiarist, at the RSN noticeboard to gain third party input.

I think the proper action is for an admin to notify the editor's page, and lock the page to the version with the material, which six experienced editors have tried to restore.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - to be absolutely fair, we should allow for time zone difference here. I suspect Dani is in California, in which case he or she is probably still asleep. Give Dani a chance to self-revert by some time this evening (UTC). Having said that, I still think Dani deserves a strong warning for edit-warring. --NSH001 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Nishidani, an editor needs to know about WP:3RR and still violates it before being reported here (can't exactly block an editor for violating a policy they don't know about). I've semi-protected the article as the IPs aren't discussing. Danishalom77 is warned that any further reverts without getting consensus will probably result in a block. NeilN talk to me 14:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Will do. Gave a 3RR link for their page. I didn't think of California, since the initial disturbance came from a user in Rome, (where Meotti happens to live). I'm in no hurry anyhow, and will sit this out till late this evening. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a follow-up. I waited, noted on the talk page 5 experienced editors approved of the inclusion of that material, and then restored the material since in the meantime DaniShalom didn't condescend to reply, only to find a new edit-war being engaged by ‎User:Icewhiz deleting that and other material against that consensus. I'd appreciate it if you could glance over the talk page, and give some advice. As I see it, 5 against 1 is consensus, and those who don't accept it shouldn't act peremptorily to back what was, by all counts, deletionist behavior by IPs, but rather outline their reasons on the talk page or go to the relevant boards (BLP) to get wider input. Sorry for the bother.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems from this report it is at least 5 against 3 seeing yesterday's reverts. In any event - I reverted today on BLPSOURCES grounds as the entire segment was in essence sourced to a single NEWSBLOG (and attributions back to it) accusing a journalist of plagiarism, which seems to be BLPCRIMEish as well. I will also note I have reverted less than Nishidani, and I have laid out the BLPSOURCES issue here on the talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
None of this holds weight. See the sourcing for the plagiarism charge made at Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, sourced to the author's own blog and Democracy Now etc. This accusation is not contentious and the two articles are not blogging opinions but fellow journalists marshalling evidence of abuse in their shared professions. The sources you removed have Meotti not challenging the evidence supplied. He made no threats to take the two journalists to court for defamation. He admitted he he was careless, explicitly accepting that the evidence showed (suffice it for any third party to compare the several examples of copying) he had taken that material from the sources. I came here to ask for protection of a page against edit-warring against consensus. 5 editors are for inclusion, and now you count the two IPs as significant votes, but you are still short of a counter consensus, which properly should be sought from third parties at the BLP board (which I am fairly confident will not accept your assertions). Admins here don't adjudicate the content, but patterns of editwarring, and stepping in to back up a resolved issue of editwarring, by repeating the excisions made by the IP against consensus is, precisely edit-warring. Nishidani (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Article now fully protected for three days. Work out the content dispute somewhere (but not here). --NeilN talk to me 00:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Szerbey reported by User:Giorgi Balakhadze (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: List of Russian military bases abroad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Szerbey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff - 20:07, 26 February 2018
  2. diff - 04:31, 27 February 2018
  3. diff - 04:52, 27 February 2018
  4. diff - 07:09, 27 February 2018
  5. diff - 19:45, 6 March 2018
  6. diff - 20:23, 6 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134], [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user is edit-warring for a long time, his/her edits were reverted by 3 other users for POV-pushing, disruptive editing and vandalism. Two of them warned him/her to avoid vandalism and edit-warring, the user didn't respond or changed his/her attitude. Also, it is suspicious that these IPs 83.237.11.48, 85.30.254.43, and 2600:1700:F1E0:97F0:E4CA:3F44:A687:F3B1 did the same edit-warring as the above mentioned user. (See diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5, diff 6, diff 7, diff 8, diff 9) —Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ 21:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:100D:B101:F3AF:44F2:BCD9:90DE:B79C reported by User:AllyGebies (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page
NPO Bazalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:100D:B101:F3AF:44F2:BCD9:90DE:B79C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts