Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Kliveklinger reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Ian Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Kliveklinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842178756 by Soetermans (talk)"
  2. 19:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842163052 by Soetermans (talk)"
  3. 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842143671 by Soetermans (talk)it happened!!!! why cant you accept it?"
  4. 12:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 841495193 by Soetermans (talk)Brown does appear in prisoner of azerbakan and is known for it"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:44, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ian Brown. (TW)"
  2. 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Ian Brown. (TW)"
  3. 17:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */Re"
  4. 19:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Ian Brown */Re"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

New editor fails to understand how a lead should look or how to communicate. Has not responded to warnings, except for one in all caps, claiming I'm the vandal. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a content dispute in which both the reported user and the reporter, Soetermans, violated 3RR. Soetermans actually hit 3RR before Kliveklinger. As mentioned above, this involves a new user and I do not see any constructive attempts to discuss this meaningfully with them. I suggest warnings for both users as one is new and the other has been around for a while without any apparent issues. This appears to be just a lapse in judgement. KnightLago (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Fix. Soetermans was not the first today, but they have been going back and forth for a few days. KnightLago (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 2 days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:MargotDavies reported by User:Souvik Nova (Result: Nominator blocked, page deleted)[edit]

Page
OANDA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MargotDavies (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 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) to 19:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"
    2. 19:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Created page with 'OANDA is a New York-based global financial services firm that provides online multi-asset trading, payments, money transfers and currency data to retail and...'"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of OANDA. (TW)"
  2. 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on OANDA. (TW)"
  3. 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Promoting a business on OANDA. (TW)"
  4. 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on OANDA. (TW)"
  5. 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of OANDA. (TW)"
  6. 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on OANDA. (TW)"
  7. 19:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Promoting a business on OANDA. (TW)"
  8. 20:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on OANDA. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is a new user might have created the account to promote business. The user may be WP:PAID or Conflict of Interest. Also check talkpage and creation log Souvik Nova (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Souvik Nova This does not look at all like edit warring to me. Just COI/SOAP. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thebfiler is now blocked as sock. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked NeilN talk to me 20:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof & User:192.207.62.209 reported by User:Netoholic (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Nellie Bowles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 192.207.62.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19 May 2018 history of the article showing back and forth (I'll add individual diffs if requested)
  • 192.207.62.209 made a revert at 05:49. They then make a revert at 13:27, and then a more extensive series of edit (ending at 13:59), all of which was reverted. They then revert back 9 more times - a total of 11 reverts today
  • NorthBySouthBaranof reverted a different IP at 05:19. He then reverts this IP at 14:19, and then exchanges reverts with this IP another 9 times - a total of 11 reverts today.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 192.207.62.209 No warning on this incident to NorthBySouthBaranof. Found this edit war only after page was protected.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nellie Bowles#Daily Wire

Comments:
While WP:BLPREMOVE is standard practice, the IPs longer edit is sourced (though its of debatable weight) and not so egregious as to warrant such an extreme edit war between these two editors. after two reverts, 14:21 NorthBySouthBaranof contacted WP:RFPP. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:38, he posted to WP:AIV. After this, he reverted 2 times more. At 14:42, NorthBySouthBaranof contacted User:Doug Weller directly to ask for page protection. Even after this contact, NorthBySouthBaranof reverted the page 5 more times. The page is protected currently, but the editor actions must be looked at here. NorthBySouthBaranof particularly is an experienced editor and should have stopped reverting FAR earlier, sought help at appropriate forums, and then WAITED for help rather than continuing to war. If found to be not "obvious vandalism", then all of the reverts today by NorthBySouthBaranof were a misuse of his WP:Rollback rights. --Netoholic @ 05:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The edit contained BLP-violating negative claims about the article subject sourced to partisan blogs, which are unacceptable per BLP (neither Glenn Beck's blog, nor Ben Shapiro's blog, are considered reliable sources per consensus at WP:RSN), and I repeatedly attempted to inform the editor in question (who is a likely sock, per the discussion on @Doug Weller:'s talk page) of that fact, to no avail. Moreover, this has been stale for something like 15 hours, because Doug Weller stepped in to protect the page and prevent the reinsertion of the material, and the anonymous IP editor has since disappeared into the aether.
The reporting editor had zero prior involvement in the issue and made no attempt to take part in the talk page discussion 15 hours ago. They also ignore the fact that I did report the issue at the appropriate vandalism noticeboard, requested semi-protection to prevent the material from being reinserted and directly contacted an administrator to intervene. Netoholic is, to be charitable, not telling the truth when they falsely assert that I did not seek help at appropriate forums. I believe this is a bad-faith report prompted by Netoholic's disagreement with me on several other pages, notably Liberal bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Our interaction is only what led me to notice your recent contribs and this recent string of reverts. The situation is not stale because your conduct has raised the concerns I've given above and relate to your rollback rights which were used during it - even if one were to assume this was obvious vandalism (which is in doubt). You definitely contacted several venues for help, but you also definitely kept rollbacking without waiting for an outcome from those venues. -- Netoholic @ 05:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't have to wait for an outcome from those venues when the material clearly and unambiguously violates BLP, as the material in question does. Partisan blogs are not acceptable sources for claims about living people, and such derogatory material must be removed from the encyclopedia with all due speed. That is not only permitted by express policy provisions, it is our responsibility as editors to do so in order to protect living people.
I suspect that if I had repeatedly removed from our Donald Trump article a statement that "Trump is traitorously colluding with the Russians to subvert the American government" sourced to DemocraticUnderground or DailyKos and persistently inserted by an anonymous IP, you would not have filed a report on such a removal. Because you politically support Donald Trump, and you don't politically support Nellie Bowles. Well, would you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The IPs you refer to as inserting the material were all blocked by NeilN as block-evading sockpuppets. [2] [3] It is basic policy that any edits made by blocked users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::I agree entirely with NorthBySouthBaranof. Also note this 3RR warning[4] given at 4:55 to him after one set of reverts at Passing on the Right, an article Netoholic created, and the fact that Netoholic didn't give User:Tryptofish a warning despite him having made 2 sets of reverts. This is purely an attempt to get an editor that he disagrees with politically blocked. Doug Weller talk 05:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What NorthBySouth neglected to disclose is that he reverted The New York Times TEN TIMES within 30 minutes. If you're not going to block for edit warring over The New York Times why do we even have this noticeboard?.– Lionel(talk) 05:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It is disingenuous in the extreme to point to a single source in the edit and ignore the two unacceptable sources, the unsourced POV inference and the repetition of personal attacks sourced solely to partisan blogs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Poor excuse. If the edit contains a NYT source, then the content is at least partially NOT obvious vandalism. Use of rollback 11 times is therefore not warranted. -- Netoholic @ 06:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
To Doug Weller: - I could just as easily claim that you failed to take action on NorthBySouthBaranof because he is someone you politically agree with. I could also say you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS and being dismissive of this report because you believe that you politically disagree with me. -- Netoholic @ 06:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
You haven't explained how my removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material inserted into a BLP by an anonymous editor without discussion is in any way a violation of any policy, given that the Biographies of Living Persons policy explicitly asks editors to take action against such material with all due speed. Are you arguing that Glenn Beck's blog and Ben Shapiro's blog are reliable sources? If so, this is the wrong place to do that, because the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is over that way. If you agree that they are unacceptable sources (just as Markos Moulitsas' blog would not be an acceptable source for something about Donald Trump) then what you are arguing is that it's more important to placate anonymous webhost-using sockpuppets than it is to protect the living people whose lives are chronicled in Wikipedia from being depicted unfairly or in a biased manner. And if that's your argument, I submit that you lost that argument when the Seigenthaler incident happened. If you want to ignore BLP, you're on the wrong project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see The Blaze or The Daily Wire listed on Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources. They seem to be partisan, but they are not "blogs". This is not obvious vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Literally at the top of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard right now is an extensive discussion of why The Daily Wire is unacceptable. A search of The Blaze on RSN similarly finds consensus that it's unacceptable for claims of fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
NorthBySouth: you can't edit war to delete reliably sourced content and try to claim BLP. If you don't like a conservative source and you think you can claom BLP then so be it. But if you remove THE NEW YORK TIMES because you're too too busy to separate the sources then you need to be blocked for edit warring. The New York Times is not a BLP violation and as an experienced editor you know this. – Lionel(talk) 06:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The fact that there is a debate which is drawing a split of opinion is evidence of non-obvious vandalism. Misguided edit, sure. Rollback especially needs to be done with great care and I don't think you have the ability to judge its use appropriately. -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Also per WP:3RRNO the only exemption to surpass 3RR is for "Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." That a writer was criticized for their piece from an opinion piece from a normally non-reliable source is in no way libelous, biased, or contentious, though whether the WEIGHT of inclusion is appropriate or not is a question to be asked, but that's definitely outside 3RR exemptions. --Masem (t) 07:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
That's nonsense; the material in question stated that the article subject was responsible for "severe misrepresentation of the views of the subject of the article" — that is a claim of fact which is not supported by reliable sources. The material is inherently negative and poorly-sourced and was disputed by multiple editors. It 100% falls under both the letter and spirit of the exemption. The anonymous IP — believed to be an open-proxy sockpuppet per @PlyrStar93: — attempted to edit-war the material into the article without consensus. They violated 3RR by reinserting it, and furthermore, the material was originally inserted by two block-evading sockpuppets per @NeilN:'s blocks. To block an editor for reverting BLP-violating material inserted by block-evading sockpuppets is absurdist nonsense. It is basic policy that edits made by block-evading users may be reverted without limitation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I went out to walk my dog immediately after posting. What I failed to note was that what Netoholic was editwarring with Tryptofish over was a pov statement in the lead.[5][6] NorthBySouth's series of two edits there, that he got warned for, was another revert of clearly pov wording. The problem I see with Netoholic is not that he is conservative but that his politics lead him to violations of NPOV in his edits. His 3RR notice for one series of edits is what led me to the conclusion this report was politically motivated in bringing this here on an article he hasn't edited. As for the BLP issue, I agree on the sources being a problem in a BLP article. Doug Weller talk 07:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I take great offense to you claiming to know anything about my political ideology and even greater offense to you implying it has anything to do with this report. I took action to report something I happened to see tangentially. You, on the other hand, had first-hand knowledge of this event and did not bring up this notice. You allowed yourself to be canvassed into action by someone who seems to well-aware that you would likely support his political viewpoint, and continue to turn a blind eye to the independent actions of NorthBySouth. Worse yet, you continue to cast WP:ASPERSIONS - if you believe the conduct of me or Tryptofish is inappropriate, take it to the appropriate venue. You're talking about edits to a totally unrelated article which happened hours after THIS edit war and about two people uninvolved with the article THIS 3RR notice is about.-- Netoholic @ 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I forgot that User:PlyrStar93 posted to my talk page pointing out that the IP in question is a webhost proxy and probably a sock. The IPv4 and IPv6[7] addresses are blocked. I'm going to set the article to semi, I'm not sure why I hit full. See also Talk:Nellie Bowles where user:Tomwsulcer agreed with NorthBySouth as did User:Johnuniq. Doug Weller talk 08:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Those notes of agreement are irrelevant - they were posted hours after this edit war concluded. Also, such comments still would never have made this edit war justifiable even if they'd been posted during it. -- Netoholic @ 08:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Reverting BLP violations by IP's (who are highly likely to be registered editors editing logged out) does not violate our policies. Note: Since Doug Weller has indicated an intention, above, to lower the article protection to semi, I've done that. Bishonen | talk 09:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Bishonen, would you please elaborate on why you believe these edits were a BLP violation? You state it as a matter of fact. -- Netoholic @ 10:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I count four editors at Talk:Nellie Bowles saying that the IP's edits were a BLP problem and no one, other than a single comment by the open-proxy IP, disagreeing. Yet there is a lot of interest in getting a sanction from this report. Why is that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
What you're missing is that thread was started when the only source was Daily Wire. The subsequent edit war here was one that incorporated several other sources. At the time of this edit war, only the prior edit was being discussed - NorthBySouthBaranof would have seen this version of the talk page. Any later comments aren't relevant. -- Netoholic @ 10:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment: I looked at the IP's edits yesterday when they were brought to my attention. While there's some behavioral evidence they're block evading, I couldn't find enough to block them as a sock. --NeilN talk to me 13:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Netoholic, the contested, negative, content offers four sources, one of them obviously useless, since it is, in full: https://www.washingtonpost.com/. I have no way of knowing what, if any, article or opinion piece that may be intended to refer to; it just takes me to the current front page of WaPo. The other three are an article in NYT by Nelly Bowles, followed by a correction which is quoted in extenso (very oddly so, in relation to its interest, and in relation to WP:WEIGHT: it amounts to a quarter of the entire article text) in the contested content, and then commented on by The Blaze, which is consequently the real, a k a secondary, source for this bit. The other bit, the sentence about Jordan Peterson, is sourced exclusively to The Daily Wire. Concerning your comment above on this discussion of The Daily Wire at RSN that there is "a split of opinion" about its useableness as a source: on account of the divisiveness of the topic of American politics there is always, invariably, going to be "a debate which is drawing a split of opinion", about everything, so that's hardly a useful point to make. The interest of the RSN discussion is to see which, and how many, editors are making well-reasoned points, and I don't think there's any doubt about that. Also, have you actually read the piece in The Daily Wire that is the source for the Jordan Peterson material? Just asking. Bishonen | talk 14:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC).
  • To Bishonen: - There is a lot of hindsight justification in this thread. I think its important we look at NorthBySouthBaranof's conduct independently of that. Let's assume you are absolutely right and this is a BLP violation. How is it possible for an editor to continue to rollback the contribution 11 times, interweaving those rollbacks with posts on multiple reporting venues AND a direct plead to an admin he feels is sympathetic? You would think that after the first, say 4-5 reverts, he'd get the message that the IP is just going to keep going until forced to stop. There is no call to keep going and going and going with it. Turning a blind eye to this by not at least either giving him a logged warning or removing his rollback for a time until he can make a fresh request is terrible precedent. I wouldn't be surprised to see this thread cited in the future when the events are turned around, nor when NorthBySouthBaranof uses this thread to justify further (and less clear-cut) rollback sessions. -- Netoholic @ 18:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You would think that after the first, say 4-5 reverts, he'd get the message that the IP is just going to keep going until forced to stop. There is no call to keep going and going and going with it. So you think that open-proxy sockpuppets vandalizing the encyclopedia should be able to "win" by default? If someone is vandalizing the encyclopedia, there is literally no limit to the number of times their vandalism may be reverted. Vandalism is not constructive contribution, and yes indeed, vandalism may be reverted literally hundreds of times if necessary. I continued to rollback the edits because they were unacceptable content, and no matter how many times an anonymous open-proxy sockpuppet intends to vandalize Wikipedia, they can't be permitted to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • If you'd stopped, and he was found to be a sockpuppet, his edits would have been reverted anyway by someone else. It sounds like you're the one most concerned about "winning". 11 reverts in oen day is ALWAYS too many. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • So if there's an anonymous IP willing to revert "Donald Trump is a traitor" into the lede of Presidency of Donald Trump 40 times, it should just remain in the article for perhaps hours until and unless an admin can be found to intervene and block them? That's absurd. We don't have enough admins for them to be responsible for removing every possible piece of inappropriate and/or libelous vandalism. You literally can't provide an explanation for what would be wrong with reverting vandalism except to appeal to some arbitrary number beyond which you personally disapprove. Your personal disapproval isn't policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to debate a made-up straw man - in this case HERE it was a sourced set of statements, not an open insult. But yeah, if you rollback and they keep restoring it, then sure , let it sit. It shouldn't be just YOU rollbacking them 40 times. There are so many options. You could tag such a statement with a notice. You could wait for admin help to arrive. Hell, you could even approach the user and pretend to help them properly format their addition. Go to their talk page, lie to them and tell them you had to remove it due to formatting, but will work with them if they can get a list of sources. This might just get them to stop long enough for your reports to be looked into. ANYTHING to avoid the page being rollbacked 11 or 40 times and bring criticism like you're hearing in this thread to yourself. -- Netoholic @ 21:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The only people criticizing me here are two people who fancy themselves my partisan political opponents, and you just wasted all of our time on this frivolous nonsense. But you do you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that statement is simply projection. I shouldn't have to prove my political credentials to you to get you to believe I'm not an opponent of anyone. -- Netoholic @ 21:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Hold on; don't close this until NeilN has gotten a chance for a cup of coffee and an email message. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Never mind--sorry to interrupt your coffee and croissant, Neil. I'm going to block this IP for socking, if only to make the point that ongoing disruption by editors in this area has a tendency to turn into a timesink. Oh and if someone could do a proxy check, to see if a longer block is warranted? Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Whois shows that 192.207.62.209 is part of Special:Contributions/192.207.62.0/24, a range operated by hostbrew.com, which is a web hosting company. So I'd recommend a range block of the /24 of at least three months with the {{webhostblock}} template as the block reason. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
EdJohnston, I saw that but I appreciate the expert opinion. Doug Weller placed the block. Thanks to you both, Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment So again the WP:CRYBLP trump card winds. If you're ever going to edit-war, just put "rv per WP:BLP" in the edit summary. And it's not the first time NorthBySouthBaranof has been let off the hook even from topic ban violations by admins who like his views. Gamaliel is no longer active on these noticeboards, but others seem to take his place in the vanguard. Pudeo (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Pudeo, of course--or you could read ALLLLLLL the other stuff in this thread. But by all means, have your own truth. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:1703:42D7:0:F295:84A9:7A28 reported by User:Tajotep (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Christopher Robin (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2605:A000:1703:42D7:0:F295:84A9:7A28 (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 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) to 00:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Voice cast */"
    2. 00:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Development */"
    3. 00:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Plot */"
    4. 00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC) ""
    5. 00:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

vandalism after final warning so he/she has been blocked, but perseveres Tajotep (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN talk to me 01:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikiblazers reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Wong Jeh Shyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wikiblazers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842253127 by Jim1138 (talk) I had added back. But the source shows that HE ORGANIZES, not owns."
  2. 07:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842252796 by Jim1138 (talk) Please check. Even if there are links, 99% never referenced the content as it is. Most of the links only mention about the projects or other things but no reference to Wong."
  3. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T07:25
  4. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T07:14
  5. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T06:48
  6. Multiple edits 2018-05-21T08:16
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Wong Jeh Shyan"
  2. 07:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "EW notice"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Sources examples"
Comments:

Wikiblazers is an wp:SPA who is removing content claiming that content with dead links is unsourced. I have informed Wikiblazers about wp:KDL. Wikiblazers continues to remove such content. Jim1138 (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Now, I am a part of the scam diff Jim1138 (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I had pointed out about the notability of this Wong Jeh Shyan in concern. FIrstly, his PhD is a fake degree banned by Pakistan. See this link https://dailytimes.com.pk/159160/hec-bans-two-universities-karachi/ But it was ignored by Jim1138

Then I pointed out over 5 other problems with the article but it was undo by Jim1138. Look at the Talk under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wong_Jeh_Shyan

I am merely pointing out all the flaws. Please wiki editors, help me to see and verify every single thing in Wong Jeh SHyan. The sources are misrepresented and 99% made no reference to the things being said in the Wikipedia article. They merely point out facts and made no reference to WongWikiblazers (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore in my defense, i would like to point out that the deadlinks NEVER mention about Wong as well. if you have a log of the old dead links, you can see the comments are all "Needs References to Reliable Sources" or "Too vague". If you ever bothered to check these sources, you find that the facts are there, but Wong is never involved in whatever said in the articles.Wikiblazers (talk) 08:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Wikiblazers is warned not to edit war. Per this comment they will take a break from editing the article. Note the wording of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, which forbids restoring BLP-challenged material without either getting references or a consensus first. Wikiblazer's enthusiasm for fighting what he considers a scam needs to be kept in check. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:93.139.89.201 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Vignette (road tax) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
93.139.89.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "I hope that's verifiable enough"
  2. 21:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "read: TRANSITING passenger car drivers. Nobody buys a yearly vignette when you only need to cross the country once or twice. Only in Switzerland are you forced to do so"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Vignette (road tax)‎. (TW)"
  2. 00:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "Added {{Static IP}} template. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */ new section"
  2. 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */"
Comments:
Apologies for not seeing the message on the Vignette talk page. Posting it more than 3 minutes before reporting me would've helped. Regarding the sentence in dispute, I do think it's plain and obvious that the source verifies the claim. What POV can there be in the fact that Switzerland is the only country that has only yearly vignettes for cars is beyond me.
I've edited WP for a long time and I don't appreciate being driven off by reverting and templating for two days before anyone cares to start a discussion with a filthy IP. I would encourage User:ZH8000 to edit as an IP on his/her own for a little bit and try to add a few sourced but "unpatriotic" claims of his/her own. Then he/she might understand why I don't edit much. 93.139.89.201 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Edit warring on both sides, neither breaking WP:3R. More use of the talk page, please. NeilN talk to me 16:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Origins of Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ScepticismOfPopularisation (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. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]
  4. [11]
  5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User_talk:ScepticismOfPopularisation#May_2018

Comments:
User is determined to remove a word, though there is no doubt that "the syncretistic Hellenistic world" describes a fact that even the user doesn't disagree with; they are somehow scared that the reader will think that that makes Christianity syncretistic. Whether it is or isn't isn't the issue here. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)}}

Joshua Jonathan's edit was the same as yours, and your other edit was reverted by Joshua Jonathan himself. I reverted your other edit PER Joshua Jonathan. "without explanation" is also severely dishonest.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:62.7.176.20 reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result:Blocked 72 hours )[edit]

Page
Template:2018–19 EFL League One table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
62.7.176.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Click to view.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615510 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  2. 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615441 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  3. 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615385 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  4. 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615360 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  5. 15:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615317 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  6. 15:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615266 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  7. 15:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615239 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  8. 15:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615183 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  9. 15:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842615144 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  10. Consecutive edits made from 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842614280 by Bbt400 (talk)"
    2. 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842614365 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  11. 15:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842613005 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  12. 15:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612978 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  13. 15:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612929 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  14. 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612863 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  15. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612759 by Bbt400 (talk)"
    2. 15:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612789 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  16. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612691 by Bbt400 (talk)"
    2. 15:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612712 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  17. Consecutive edits made from 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612324 by Bbt400 (talk)"
    2. 15:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612377 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  18. 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612116 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  19. 15:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842612065 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  20. 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611990 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  21. 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611945 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  22. 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611923 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  23. 15:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611893 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  24. 15:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611840 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  25. 15:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611800 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  26. 15:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611734 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  27. 15:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611702 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  28. 15:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611669 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  29. 15:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611637 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  30. 15:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611597 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  31. 14:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611540 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  32. 14:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611518 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  33. 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611446 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  34. 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611413 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  35. 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611378 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  36. 14:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611341 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  37. 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611298 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  38. Consecutive edits made from 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611180 by Bbt400 (talk)"
    2. 14:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611206 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  39. Consecutive edits made from 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611108 by Bbt400 (talk)"
    2. 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611133 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  40. 14:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611051 by Bbt400 (talk)"
  41. 14:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 842611009 by Bbt400 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. User is clearly on a rampage and is rapidly reverting several users across a wide swath of Wikipedia without cause or explanation. --Jayron32 15:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Vaalpak reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Joseph diGenova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Vaalpak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "the sources do not identify this as something he is prominent for"
  2. 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "did not remove any content from article"
  3. 20:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "moved text from lead - controversial sentence like this should not be the second sentence in the article. also only 2 or 3 news outlets label digenova this way"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Joseph diGenova. (TW)"
  2. 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Joseph diGenova. (TW)"
  3. 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Peter Strzok. (TW)"
  4. 20:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Joseph diGenova. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • I think this user might be Neilen[14] who has previously been banned for sockpuppetry. Neilen made almost the identical edit to the Peter Strzok article before he was blocked. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I did not go for dispute resolution due to evidence this account is vandalism only. Kirbanzo (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. This is intended to discourage drive-by editing by new editors who aren't willing to discuss their changes on Talk. I've also left a notice on the talk page that the subject matter falls under WP:ARBAP2. I am not applying a page restriction such as 1RR. Normal editing can continue, but only by autoconfirmed editors. This keeps the option of WP:ECP available for the future if the semiprotection doesn't improve the editing climate. The SPI report on Vaalpak was closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:78.0.246.100 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Vignette (road tax) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
78.0.246.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC) "I've restored the text along with the price hike footnote, and a bit more strained but unambiguous explanation, as ZH8000 continues to refuse to provide any reason for why he/she thinks this is OR"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Switzerland */"
    2. 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Switzerland */ Restore valid and correct sentence entirely supported by the alternate reference, but CE for passive voice and explain why."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Schaffhausen. (TW)"
  3. 17:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */ Unbelievable"
  2. 13:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */"
  3. 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */ LOL"
  4. 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */"
  5. 23:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */"
  6. 23:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */"
Comments:

Violates 3RR by using several IP sockets: 78.0.246.100, 86.153.135.111, 93.142.87.187, 93.139.89.201, 190.213.15.141, 93.136.77.51 despite unresolved dispute. ZH8000 (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not 86.153.135.111 nor 190.213.15.141 (I don't know who that is), the others are because my IP is dynamic. ZH8000 is the one who has done the most reverting and keeps calling me and 86.153.135.111 names (see talk page) and reporting to this noticeboard to get his way. See [15][16][17]. He/she is also trying to get the talk page protected to shut down the discussion [18]. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected one month. The IP-hopper introduced their claim on 20 May that Switzerland's vignette is the 'most expensive in Europe for transiting passenger car drivers' and is warring to maintain it in the article even though no one else supports it. The claim can't be found in the source article and appears to be WP:OR. Consider the steps of WP:DR. A person who reverts from a fluctuating IP may run afoul of the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:AldezD reported by User:Tigranis (Result: Protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]
  5. [24]
  6. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

  • User:AldezD has repeatedly reverted the page when at least 3 editors have disagreed with him but began a discussion when challenged to do so in an edit summary. He was warned at the outset that he had reverted too many times already (on 21st May) but then reverted 3 times in the space of 24 hours 21-22 May.--Tigranis (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • The first three edits linked above are from 6, 10 and 12 days ago. The other three edits on 21 May do not fail WP:3RR since there wasn't a fourth revert. My edits on 21 May reverted re-addition of unsourced content that fails WP:V and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. After reverting yesterday I initiated a discussion on the talk page linking to guidelines that explain why this content is not appropriate. Even when presented with guidelines, comments from editors including @User:Tigranis are simply "I don't agree" rather than addressing those guidelines, or repeatedly asking "what are the guidelines" even when they are linked within the discussion. I then asked for WP:3O, with the responder agreeing with me that this content does not belong on Wikipedia. AldezD (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days by User:Fish and Karate per a request at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:4023:D900:45A4:C69C:3094:F649 reported by User:Liftarn (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: List of grenade attacks in Sweden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:8003:4023:d900:45a4:c69c:3094:f649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [29]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [32]
  5. [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35][36][37]

Comments:

  • Result: Semiprotected two weeks. Edit warring by a fluctuating IP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bbt400 reported by 109.144.211.250 (Result: Semi)[edit]

User being reported: Bbt400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Template:2018–19 EFL League One table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:Bbt400 Edit warring on 2018-19 EFL League One. 109.144.211.250 (talk) 15:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842613005

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842613000

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842612929

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2018%E2%80%9319_EFL_League_One_table&diff=prev&oldid=842612863 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.211.250 (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected for 2 weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:86.153.135.111 reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Vignette (road tax) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.153.135.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) to 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Switzerland */"
    2. 17:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* Switzerland */ Restore valid and correct sentence entirely supported by the alternate reference, but CE for passive voice and explain why."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Schaffhausen. (TW)"
  3. 17:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* May 2018 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */ new section"
  2. 02:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */"
  3. 02:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) "/* POV */"
  4. 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */ Unbelievable"
  5. 13:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */"
  6. 16:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */ LOL"
  7. 16:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "/* OR */"
Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion taking place. And there is no justification to re-add the disputed text. ZH8000 (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: Page already semiprotected per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Dennis Brown reported by User:Zefr (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Carolina Reaper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user's Talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
I've notified Dennis Brown since Zefr failed to make the mandatory notification. Meters (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It was done properly. See his Talk page history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefr (talkcontribs) 01:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That's just an edit warring warning, not the mandatory notice that an AN3 report had been opened. Meters (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Dennis Brown is at 3RR, but has not violated it. Same applies to the complainant in this thread, it should be noted. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't hit 4RR, and I made it clear I wouldn't be reverting anymore today. Zefr is the problem here. First he reverts saying it is original research, yet CNN is the source. That failed, so next he's saying it has to have a MEDRS source (it doesn't, it isn't a medical article or claim, it is an event) His next reverts are linking to irrelevant policies. Not once has he explained why he thinks they apply, and uses only the edit summary and templating my page as communication. Three editors have decided the material is worth keeping, and he keeps shaking the magic 8 ball with a new reason in the summary, but no discussion until he was finally goaded to. I've used the talk page for every revert, I've compromised with the editors who agree on the content to make it better suited, I was happy to hear WHY he thought policy was against it but he refused to say why, just throwing links around, links that I don't think he fully understands the meaning of. The only editor that is just blind reverting without discussion and against 3 editors who agree on the content is Zefr. It isn't about the count of reverts, it's about the behavior around them. Dennis Brown - 02:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Despite Zefr's claim that Dennis Brown violated 3RR [42] [43] this is not correct. Brown undid this three times today, discussed it on the talk page, and stated that he was done with his reverts [44], all before this 3RR was opened. As far as I can tell Brown has not made this edit previously. Zefr restored his or her preferred version three times today [45] [46] [47], and had previously made the same [48] [49] or substantially similar [50] [51] [ this last diff likely does fall under MEDRS, see discussion below added at: 04:39, May 24, 2018‎ ] removals . I think we are into WP:BOOMERANG territory. Meters (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be WP:OWN behavior on Zefr's part just from reading Dennis' message above. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I would request that the behavior be examined more closely, understanding that mine will be as well. Dennis Brown - 02:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The edits/purposed edits are very clearly in the MEDRS territory note for example that this [52] is taking a case report as being established fact and even the current wording is taking a very tenuous connection as being a well determined causation. There shouldn't be any debate that this should both fall under MEDRS and that it doesn't at all meet that established standard. Falconjh (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Irrelevant and misleading. This is a discussion of edit warring, not article content. That edit was 6 weeks ago and Dennis Brown did not make it and has not restored it. I agree that that version is very likely a MEDRS violation, but MEDRS is not one of the exemptions from edit warring per WP:NOT3RR, I'll add a comment to my previous listing of that edit by Zefr for consideration of any possible boomerang.. Meters (talk) 04:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The complaint has been closed (above) by User:78.26 as No violation. There is nothing more for AN3 to do. I'm sure that the experienced people here can think of some places that a consensus could be worked out. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:TDN92 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Defer to the SPI)[edit]

Page: Viet Cong attack on Tan Son Nhut Air Base (1966) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TDN92 (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. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [56]
  5. [57]
  6. [58]
  7. [59]
  8. [60]
  9. [61]
  10. [62]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

User:TDN:92 and IP:117.6.92.136 (possibly an IP sock) have been edit-warring the results of this and various other First Indochina War and Vietnam War battles. I referred this to discussion of the Talk page which has been fruitless. Mztourist (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam. I am almost at the point of indeffing TDN92 as a sock of Dino nam based on behavior, but now that there is an SPI, let's see what happens there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: Deferring to the SPI. If this editor continues to revert and the SPI isn't resolved, post on my talk page and maybe something can be done. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Category:Rayne Red Sox players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "I've replied to you. You don't know baseball or the wikiproject baseball. Go to WikiProject Baseball's talk page."
  2. 00:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC) "See my reply at CFD."
  3. 23:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC) "Isn't the same team. Not the way minor league baseball players are sorted either. See Category:Syracuse Chiefs players and Category:Syracuse SkyChiefs players"
  4. 12:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC) "Not a category for this page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

4 reverts ~12 hours. User warned in edit summary here[64] and in discussion here[65]. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I replied to BHG here multiple times[66]. She hasn't even tried to rebutt me or taken it to WikiProject Baseball as I told her. She comes here instead. That says alot....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

William, I tried to have a discussion with you per WP:BRD. You kept on reverting, so naturally I came here to get you to stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
You haven't responded once to my rebuttal or gone to WikiProject baseball. Again you come here to bully. What does that say about you. Your edit summaries here[67] and here[68] use the word silliness. What does that unnecessary word saw about you? I can point out another instance[69] of you trying to bully or mock me. So when are you going to WikiProject Baseball's talk page?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
William, I replied to you twice[70][71], but you kept on reverting. That silliness is why you are here. Which part of WP:3RR is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Altamimi579 reported by User:wikaviani (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Al-Awamiyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altamimi579 (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] : first straight revert
  2. [74] : second straight revert
  3. [75] : third straight revert
  4. [76] : fourth straight revert

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

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

Comments:</