Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive372

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Jhabdas reported by User:Gogo Dodo (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of password managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jhabdas ‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3] [4]
  4. [5]

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

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

Comments:

Editor is trying to keep a deleted article in List of password managers with a misreading of what is required for notability as clearly listed in the article page notice. Since I am the one being reverted, I defer to others for review. I was going to let it slide with just a warning, but then I received a personal attack in response [7].

Checking the article history, I suspect there is some off-wiki notice of the listing removal as an IP showed up asking for restoration of the listing [8] and a new account reverting the removal [9]. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

jhabdas here: The very noteworthy addition was in place for months before someone else removed it after another person removed the main page in wikipedia, the draft of which has been marked for restoration and updated with more information to continue building on its noteworthiness. Regardless of what the specific rules are on the passwords page according to this person there is no clear reason to put up such a gauntlet for adding open source software to Wikipedia especially when the software several years old and used by hundreds of thousands of people. Period. As for the IP weirdness I use VPN, which is blocked by Wikipedia and harms my privacy online as a result. There's no conspiracy here, nor do I have anything to do with whatever new account was being used to modify the page. It's likely someone else spotted the erroneous removal and tried to fix it (that's what Wiki's are for, right?) As for my initial Talk page response, it was untasteful, I admit, but I meant every word of it, for about 10 seconds until I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhabdas (talkcontribs) 06:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Nuralakbar reported by User:HafizHanif (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Ahmad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Ibn Arabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nuralakbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Ahmad article when contentious edits began, notice "Expertini Limited" source is self-published [11]
  2. Notice "Islamqa" is a religious non-academic source [12]
  3. Reverted edit and summary explanation which was also highlighted at the talk page [13]
  4. corrections reverted, no summary explanation [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Ibn Arabi article when contentious edits began, notice religious nature of summary and deletion of sourced content in favor of religious pov [15]
  2. I reintroduce deleted content [16]
  3. My contribution again wholly deleted in favor of religious pov [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I mistakenly conflated edits made at the two articles into one talk page section. I later realized this conflation and moved the discussion to the appropriate talk page, although I still had some confusion regarding detailed issues within each respective article.

Talk page discussion at Ahmad article, and me responding to the wild accusations and refuting them, while taking responsibility for my mistaken edits [18]

Talk page discussion at Ibn Arabi article (and me explaining my talk page conflation, while still attempting to resolve the issues with the other editor), and they did as they pleased [19]

Comments:


I'd like to bring attention to a new profile: Nuralakbar. Despite being new, their dialogue reflects a well-versed editor.

Prior to looking at their profile, I followed good faith and opened a talk page discussion notifying them about the reverting and editing of their contributions. Their edits reflected obvious religious bias and used some unqualified citations (self publishing and a religious / non-academic website).

My invitation for discussion and points raised were ignored.

Instead, a new section was opened leveling accusations towards me, and they reverting their edits (sparking an edit war).

Some accusations were what is called in psychology 'projecting', for they were making accusations of what they had actually done in their edits.

I again clarified the issues I raised, and responded (and refuted) the accusations... but that was a waste of time.

Notice their profile's recent history only contains the edit war and talk page exchanges in question.

After looking at their profile and their history, they look like a possible Sock Puppet, or someone evading a previous block, or simply another person disturbing the ongoing work of building objectivity and value into articles per scholarship.

When initially responding to this particular user profile, I assumed I was dealing with someone who would conduct themselves along the lines of wikipedia guidelines, especially after reading their use of Wiki lingo, suspecting they were experienced and would recognize unqualified sources and other editing mistakes they made, perhaps even their bias despite cited scholarship. Instead, I find myself avoiding an edit war with someone who opened up a new profile recently, only to contest the two articles mentioned herein. It is exhausting having to 'tell' on those who do more disruption and add more strife than good work to the wiki effort. I've taken much time out of my day to address this issue, and although the articles in question are not as 'important' as other Islamic articles that I work on, I would like to also request these two articles be secured in some fashion... otherwise, it is just too time consuming and discouraging to make any effort considering the constant vandalism and zealotry. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify the person you are reporting. I have now done so. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you EdJohnston. I thought I did yesterday, just above your notice. Please see that talk page again. I think in the years I've been editing Wiki, I have only done this once before. My apologies if I did it incorrectly. -- HafizHanif (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Nuralakbar is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again at either Ahmad or Ibn Arabi unless they have previously got a consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:MilfordBoy1991 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Verne Troyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MilfordBoy1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
  1. 00:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850520666 by General Ization (talk)"
  2. 11:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850517733 by General Ization (talk)"
  3. 11:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850507888 by John from Idegon (talk) my point still stands and furthermore the correct British name is used at the top of the article so they should be the dame"
  4. 09:08, 16 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850022567 by John from Idegon (talk) makes no difference as regardless of him being american this is the proper name of the film"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Verne Troyer. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[20]

Comments:
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

User:KDNO1 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Indef as a sock)[edit]

Page
Meeli Kõiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
KDNO1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850677157 by Carrymaekr (talk)"
  3. 11:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850677048 by Carrymaekr (talk)"
  4. 11:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 850676586 by Carrymaekr (talk)"
  5. 11:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Meeli Kõiva. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring against three different editors (one of whom is also curiously new, but that's another story); no need for TP discussion as all they're doing is removing the first line of the article. Possibly AIV material; but hey. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Should be lead section. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive editing. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 12:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:92.234.46.187 reported by User:SilentResident (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

Page: Italian Spring Offensive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.234.46.187 (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:

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

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]
  6. [26]

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

Comments:

Disruptive IP is constantly edit warring with everyone else, and has already violated 3RR, and is insisting on with their disruption despite being reverted 6 times already. Attention is needed. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 12:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Withdrawal of the report. IP promised to refrain from further discruption. Please see: [27]
  • Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:101.180.130.205 reported by User:Gareth (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Pointless (Australian TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
101.180.130.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 07:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) to 07:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 07:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 07:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 07:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 10:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 10:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 10:03, 15 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I am reporting this user based on its behaviour across the entire project, not just at Pointless (Australian TV series). User's talk page shows it has been repeatedly warned for disruptive behaviour such as removing content, adding unsourced content and failing to leave an edit summary. Enough is enough. Gareth (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for long term edit warring at Pointless (Australian TV series). EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Outliner73 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Otomat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Outliner73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] Multiple editors have and are attempting to engage this user, at ANI and on multiple talk pages, but they continue arguing their position, while making multiple reverts at the same time.

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page: [34]

Comments:
Straight forward 4RR vio. - wolf 20:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]
  4. [38]-

- wolf 21:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:Outliner73 was blocked indef as a sock by User:Bbb23. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Anticitizen 98 reported by User:A Quest For Knowledge (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anticitizen 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44]
  6. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47][48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [49][50]

Comments:
Anticitizen 98 has not broken 3RR, however, they have been edit-warring with multiple editors over the course of several days to their preferred version. Anticitizen 98 has had limited engagement on the article talk page, often ignoring points raised.[51] Yesterday, I finally had enough and asked them to self-revert and discuss their changes on the article talk page.[52] Not only did they not self-revert or discuss it on the article talk page, they resumed edit-warring today.[53] It is very frustrating to work with an editor who refuses to try to discuss or reach consensus for their changes and thinks that edit-warring is the way to win content disputes. Maybe a block will get their attention? An article ban might also be a good idea because Anticitizen 98's only real contribution to the article is to edit-war to their preferred version.[54] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this in depth, but Anticitizen is using the talk page to justify his edits, and not everyone else involved in the article over the last few days is. That doesn't strike me as something that admin sanctions would benefit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Actually, their edits on the talk page are limited; they've failed to address specific points I've raised. If the admins decide not to do anything about his conduct, what do you suggest? Should we continue to edit-war? Please don't tell me that's what you're saying. There's a clear conduct issue here, and it needs to be addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Result: No action. If there is a general issue about removing parties from election infoboxes when they don't achieve a 5% result, maybe an RfC could be opened. I notice that Anticitizen 98 has been applying this 5% rule to other election articles. From his comments on his own talk page it sounds like he thinks this rule applies to all US gubernatorial elections. ("Every other gubernatorial page backs me up"). Is this written down as a general practice anywhere? EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
No, not to my knowledge there is such a rule. If Anticitizen has been edit-warring on these other articles too, then referencing them as established practice is meritless. These other articles may not be watched as much or perhaps the editors got tired of edit-warring and gave up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Anticitizen 98 appears to concede the point here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Yingyangyingyang reported by User:Redalert2fan (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Talk:AIS Airlines (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Yingyangyingyang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "/* AIS aircraft availability */"
  2. 11:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "/* AIS aircraft */"
  3. 08:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "Replaced content with ' == AIS aircraft availability Redalert2fan (User talk:Redalert2fan
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:AIS Airlines. (TW)"
  2. 11:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:AIS Airlines. (TW)"
  3. 12:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC) "note/comment"
Comments: User keeps deleting my talk page comments. Redalert2fan (talk) 12
05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – by User:Maile66. I've applied one month of semiprotection to the article and another administrator has semiprotected the talk page. This has turned into a sock festival. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Zacha1211 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi, Warning)[edit]

Page: Paul K. Hansma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.111.8.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Zacha1211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Jytdogg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here ending at 00:58, 18 July 2018 as IP

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff ending at 19:41, 18 July 2018 as IP
  2. diff at 20:05, 18 July 2018 by Zacha1211 same as IP acknowledged here by Zacha1211
  3. here at 21:52, 18 July 2018 by Zacha1211
  4. diff 22:20, 18 July 2018 by Jytdogg obvious mockery/sock account
  5. diff at 23:00, 18 July 2018 by sock again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Paul_K._Hansma#Proposed_content and User talk:Zacha1211

Comments:

New conflicted user, aggressively edit warring promotional content into WP. I've reported the impersonation account. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I've blocked the impersonation account. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: Page semiprotected. User:Zacha1211 is warned they may be blocked if they revert the article again without getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. If you are not happy with the advice given on the Talk page by User:Jytdog, please ask for assistance at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Bellshook reported by User:Coffeeandcrumbs (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Christopher Cerf (school administrator) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bellshook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]
  4. [59]
  5. [60]
  6. [61]
  7. [62]
  8. [63]
  9. [64]
  10. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]
  5. [71]

Comments: Also note previous discussions at: Talk:Christopher Cerf (school administrator and businessman) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeandcrumbs (talkcontribs) 23:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

The article was just renamed to Christopher Cerf (school administrator). EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 2 weeks. There seems to be a long term war between User:Bellshook, the creator of the article, and User:Coffeeandcrumbs whether a large chunk of negative information should be included in the article. During the protection I think it should be left out, so I'm protecting on a version from July 17 that excludes that material. Discussion should continue on the talk page, with the WP:BLP policy in mind. If agreement can't be reached consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I have to object to the false equivalence. My first edit to this page was on July 15, three days ago. I made a few minor edits and then went to the talk page to discover what I suspected already. This is the page you absolutely need to read to understand the situation. I only started making serious edits to the page after having a short discussion with Animalparty on the talk page which begins here. I announced on the talk page that I was going to take on the task of rewriting this page. However, Bellshook has been fiercely defending the previous state of affairs for months and has only ever really edited this page. They have very misleadingly placed a talk page discussion about me at the top of the talk page on July 17. They have cleared fooled you. They have indiscrimanently edited other peoples comments [72] [73] [74] (note the clever falsification of my talk page comments by directly changing the spelling of words). They made following the discussion very difficult which clearly fooled you. Please strike or revise your statement.
However, in the end, the final decision to protect the page was not a bad idea. There is no rush and I am fully convinced that Bellshook will return and you will have good cause more serious punitive action.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Unclear what you are objecting to. Each of you was reverting the other, more than once, and that's considered an edit war. For Bellshook to change others' comments is a no-no and it had better not continue. I do agree with you that the version they favor has BLP issues that need discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I only object to the description that this "seems to be a long term war between...", epecially the words "long term" being read to also apply to me. I am not concern by being accused of edit warring, just concerned with the accusation of "long term" edit warring. IMO, it creates a false equivalence when my edits were to remove "clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy" as per excemptions to edit warring policy. You yourself have noticed that the previous version favored by Bellshook had BLP violations. Several others on the talk page have commented that issues were there throughout the article but they did not take action to fix the problem. They let the problems fester for months. I would argue the violations were pervasive per WP:BLPSTYLE in "Tone", "Balance" and as an "Attack page". I was the only one willing to butt heads with Bellhook. Sure you can say that is edit warring but WP:AGF only goes so far. If I had not fought through this resistance the untenable status quo would have remained. Note: this was reported to WP:BLPN in December 2017 and zero action was taken by the impotent notice board. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
'Long term edit warring' isn't worse-than-usual edit warring, it is just a pattern of reverts that is longer than 24 hours and doesn't break 3RR in the most recent day. If you wanted the BLP exception to cover your reverts it would have been helpful to say that in your original complaint. Although the present article may be WP:UNDUE it might not qualify under WP:3RRNO, since the negative material is sourced, even though coatrack-y. The 3RRNO exception requires very blatant stuff, for example unsourced defamation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
When you say "the present article may be WP:UNDUE", you meant the previous article. I wrote the current version.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Spacecowboy420 reported by User:Hotwiki (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: My Korean Jagiya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [76]
  2. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Comments:

Removing characters and cast members in a television show article. Hotwiki (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Firstly. Two edits is hardly edit warring.
Secondly. If two reverts is edit warring then - [79] and [80] those are the two reverts by the editor who is filing this report.
Finally, my removal of content was in line with MOS:TVCAST that states - "Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed" 30 cast members is OTT. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
How is reducing the entire section into TWo cast members right exactly? You basically removed every single supporting character and guest role. Also is there any TV showarticle that only mentioned the lead characters in the characters section? Plenty of editors have edited that article and you are the only one to drastically reduced the cast list. The first time you have removed it, you gave zero explanation whatsoever. Have you even seen the show to say who's notable within the show? I have seen the show and those supporting and guest characters should be mentioned in the article and not just the lead characters. The article is not even large to begin with and there are shows that have a separate article just for the characters. Your edit is disruptive and not helpful to the article. You are edit warring and the earlier you are reported for this behavior, the earlier this issue would be resolved.Hotwiki (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
So basically, this is a content dispute that you decided to report as edit warring, rather than starting a discussion on the article talk page? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You were about to hit 3rr, and this discussion also deals with edit warring. Also, take your own advice. You clearly didn't take the issue to the talk page first when you almost blanked the entire section. Now tell me how did you help the article when you reduced the entire characters section in just two cast members?Hotwiki (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
You are talking about content. That discussion belongs on the article talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
@Hotwiki: fyi, Spacecowboy's first edit wasn't a revert, as it didn't undo a recent edit. Strictly they have reverted once. Suggest you withdraw this filling and, as suggested, is take the ongoing discussion on content to the article talk page. Cheers, —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Whether or not to include minor characters may have been discussed previously for other articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Von de leorde reported by User:TheBellaTwins1445 (Result: No violation)[edit]

User being reported:

Pages in dispute:

This user keeps deleting information at Sridevi and adding information without sources at Madhubala As seen here:

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

Plase I am asking for help. TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – Use the article talk page to explain what you believe the problem is. You didn't notify User:Von de leorde that you filed a report here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C1:AB00:7D01:79BC:4F6A:300E:5CD7 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: semi 2 days)[edit]

Page
Richard A. E. North (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2A00:23C1:AB00:7D01:79BC:4F6A:300E:5CD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. It you want to have a discussion on Flexcit, then open a page on the subject. Do not use a biographical section to attack this concept, especially when you have made no attempt accurately to describe what it is, or give a balanced view of the areas of contention."
  2. 18:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This is a polemic about Flexcit. It does not belong here in a biography."
  3. 18:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Reception of the academic community */ Deleted. This material is highly tendentious, misleading and potentially libellous. This is supposed to be a biographical entry, not an opportunity for disaffected academics to rant at my expense. If you want to pursue this line, you should open up another page on Flexcit, and open it up to an honest discussion rather than this hole-in-the corner sniping."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Richard A. E. North. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Subject removing content */ new section"
Comments:

User:TFBCT1 reported by User:Newshunter12 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: List of oldest living people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [85]
  2. [86]
  3. [87]
  4. [88]

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

[89] [diff]

Comments:

This is my first time reporting someone for edit warring, so I apologize if I messed anything up in this report I am filing. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User is not per se using the "revert tool" to undo work, but continues to edit reversing edits that are in contention on the talk page causing a ruckus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFBCT1 (talkcontribs)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Okay, I see on the talk page that consensus has been reached, so I am not anticipating any more edit warring from either of you. If there is, I will not be impressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


User:Boorif4747 reported by User:GreenMeansGo (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: United States Space Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boorif4747 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  • [90] - I don't think you need me to count for you.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Comments:

User: Premicaa reported by User: Koradastat (Result: indef)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210684&oldid=808964059

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210732&oldid=851210701

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210794&oldid=851210755

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexis_Viera&diff=851210868&oldid=851210816


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

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

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely by SarekOfVulcan (mid-air admin conflict) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Blocked both of them, actually. New accounts, edit warring on the same article and then running right here for a report? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Jeez, when I said create a bunch of socks and edit-war with yourself, it was a joke. I despair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Now see? That's why you shouldn't actually edit here. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


User:50.203.99.102 reported by User:Loopy30 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Not evaluated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.203.99.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [93]
  2. [94]
  3. [95]
  4. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see multiple requests in edit summaries [98]

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Schaffhausen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous similar reports Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned user(s))
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Following the Block NeilN had this to say.

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [100]
  2. [101]
  3. [102]
  4. [103]
  5. [104]
  6. [105] In this revert, ZH8000 accuses his protagonist of vandalism despite NeilN's dire warning and posts a warning on his talk page about being disruptive.

Note: Numbers 3,4,5 and 6 were within 24 hours (20:11 18 Jul to 14:42 19 Jul)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ZH8000 with a warning and a block for edit warring is well aware of the rules.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved in the dispute. No attempt has been made by ZH8000 to discuss on the talk page. A discussion was started after the last revert by another editor to which ZH8000 has, so far, not contributed. One protagonist (out of five) is now indef blocked for socking (though ZH8000 was unaware of that at the time). TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

User:180.191.111.63 reported by User:Toasted Meter (Result: Block, Semi)[edit]

Page: Isuzu D-Max (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 180.191.111.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [107]
  2. [108]
  3. [109]
  4. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]


Comments:

Adding unsourced content that is obviously a hoax. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: Blocked 48 hours. Page semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Ulikss77 reported by User:mm.srb (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Valtazar Bogišić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ulikss77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [113]
  2. [114]
  3. [115]

Protecting the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Valtazar_Bogišić:

Mm.srb (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation There have only been three reverts. However, @Uliks77:, you are advised that your edits are not acceptable and you need to take this to the talk page. If you change this again without gaining consensus, then I will be blocking you. In the meantime I have reverted to the stable version and protected the article for a week. Number 57 20:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Harmony944 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: page protected; indefinitely blocked)[edit]

Page
Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Harmony944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851351017 by Barkeep49 (talk)"
  2. 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Again, this sets incredibly poor precedent. Why does The Passage TV series article get to live with the little information it has while a Cartoon with a released title card is forced to be a redirect?"
  3. 20:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851060330 by Barkeep49 (talk)Look at the discussion. No substantial reasoning was put forward. You don't wait 6 and a half weeks and counting to perform a poorly-decided merger. Why out of all the pages made for this show was this one chosen to have its info removed from view?"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
    1. 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) "Misleading edit summary. No such merger occurred"
    2. 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC) "Trying to answer something"
Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus closing from May AfD Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

This discussion cannot go further. This user cursed me out in private message for questioning the legitimacy of the Articles for Deletion discussion on the article’s talk page, and refuses to be reasonable—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Other 2019 TV debuts with similar content include Messiah, Jinn, and the Tales from the City revival. There is no reason a Yabba Dabba Dinosaurs article can’t exist with the information it currently has, and it’s not fair that when I ask for things to be considered, I’m told I’m “wrong” in a vulgar manner without a second thought and I’m punished for it—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
THAT DISCUSSION WAS NOT VALID. Whats disruptive about restoring a legitimate article? Why am I constantly being ignored and talked down to? Why do i have to seek consensus for every little thing while you let my harasser make baseless edit warring accusations against me? The fact is that you force me to get consensus on a talkpage that is currently a redirect, meaning it will be passed by EVERY TIME someone clicks on a link to it. Thats a clear case of stacking the deck. I was given no other options but to restore the article until IJ told me about DelRev. You want to punish me not for edit-warring, but not knowing every policy by heart—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Harmony944: This tact is going to get you nowhere. Following this line now is just going to confirm to any Admin watching this that a block is probably in order to prevent further disruption. I would drop this now, while you're behind, and follow my advice at Talk:Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs!... --IJBall (contribstalk) 18:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You cant call me disruptive because i wasnt being disruptive. This "tact" you speak of is speaking out against unfair and biased treatment. If only people werent ignoring the abuse and making things easy for themselves while making it harder for the person theyre on the verge of hurting again. I'm off to make the split proposal. I'd prefer it if I received the decency to be an active part of the discussion instead of being blocked for an extended period that ends up taking up the entire period of the split discussion—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 18:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • This editor has quite an extensive history of warring on Wikipedia, and I think any admin reviewing this discussion should take that into account. They displayed the same behavior as they did recently on the Agents of Shield page and would rather war with others to get their own way. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that Harmony has learned from their mistakes. Esuka323 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC).
Statement struck due to blatant character assassination. What i have is an extensive history of good to fantastic edits with occasion edit warring accusations. I follow every rule here and it is not my fault no one told me the process of restoring a deleted article. Theres also the fact that the article in question got full-on deleted during this discussion without consensus to do so. It very much seems that consensus nor consistency matter—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 19:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The evidence is there on the Agents of Shield page history, you had multiple editors including myself reverting you and telling you to continue with the discussion. You became impatient because that discussion wasn't going your way and continued trying to push your agenda on the page. Clearly you have been doing this yet again with other editors, just how many chances do you deserve if you continue to break the rules here? If you continue to make the same mistakes, you haven't learned from them. Esuka323 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
In this case, I haven’t broken any rule. BEING IMPATIENT ISNT A DAMN CRIME. One incident shouldn’t taint me forever. I’m not a felon, and yet you’re treating me like one. You don’t care what I have to say, you just want me out.—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?)
Your talk page is full of edit war warnings and block notices. Frankly the fact you have the ability to edit here still after so many rule infractions is astounding. Esuka323 (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That doesnt make them legitimate. Youre not bothering with context, youre just judging me by what others put on my page, regardless of legitimacy. You have no evidence that i havent proven to be a good user, and are only trying to drag my name through the mud. I therefore am asking you to leave—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 20:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Esuka323. Enough is enough. You've been blocked twice for edit warring and have had your talk page access revoked for using it inappropriately during your first block, and yet you're still insisting you're this perfect little angel who doesn't break rules? Your WP:IDHT is quite strong. Honestly, you're at the disruptive level now as you are more of a net negative than a net positive to the Wikipedia project. Editors who persistently and consciously can't or won't admit when they're wrong have no place on Wikipedia. I should know. An indefinite blocked would be more than justified now. Wikipedia has no irreplaceable editors, and you've been given plenty of rope. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected However, the edits here are disruptive. @Harmony944: The article code is still in the history of the redirect. If this continues then there will also be a block. The only options available to you are to take it to DRV or drop the subject. Number 57 20:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
“The code is still in the history of the redirect” Which you deleted twice. Without consensus. Which means the code was gone to anyone Twice. You defied the AfD twice. And yet my recreation to actually abide by the AfD consensus is called “disruptive”? And “rule-breaking”? Ever since I started editing here regularly I have been a fantastic editor, only to be confronted over common-sense actions I took because they needed consensus despite every source I gave. And then, again without consensus, you delete the draft talk page where it was confirmed that the draft was suggested by another user. What are you trying to hide? Why am I being targeted for trying to be a good editor—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
The redirect has not (nor ever) been deleted by anyone – it is still here. I was not aware you had been advised to create the draft article, so I have amended that part of my rationale above. However, I would advise reigning in your other accusations (e.g. of having something to hide). Number 57 21:03, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
You are lying. I have the emails. Both of them, with the edit summaries that you deleted the article. It's also in the deletion log. When I clicked to see the article or what changed, the article wasn’t there.Yes, the redirect is there now, but that’s because it had to be put back upthree times to counter your deletions. And you still deleted the draft AND it’s talk page. Despite what @IJBall: told you. You are overstepping boundaries. You had no consensus, and the only reasoning you ever gave was libelous. By doing this, you are proving yourself far more disruptive than you ever claimed me to be—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
As you can see in the page log for the redirect, it has never been deleted or restored. Nor has the talk page of the draft. I would appreciate you withdrawing your accusation of lying. Number 57 21:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I now support a block – between Harmony944's accusing an Admin of lying, to their failure to Drop the stick, I fear that continued disruption is inevitable here. I'm going to ping the previous blocking Admins, NeilN and Bbb23, here as well, because I would like them to appraise this situation for themselves. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @IJBall: Just having looked at Harmony's comments here, I believe an indefinite block is warranted. However, Number 57 has been handling this, and I would not block at all unless he at least doesn't oppose it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I don't oppose a block here. Number 57 23:52, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Proof of which you haven't really provided. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Because you do not provide the means. I do not have a desktop. I have tried finding how to upload files to the app or mobile versions, and there is no way—I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 23:37, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Your behavior towards the admins here is disturbing. They have no reason to lie or deceive anyone yet you continue to make baseless attacks against them. Esuka323 (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Then don't throw around baseless accusations like that if you can't back up your claims as doing so pretty much borders on them being personal attacks. Also agree with Esuka. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m not lying. The deletion logs exist. I wish I could upload my screenshots, but I’m not on desktop and cannot attach said screenshots.

EDIT: Clicking the link on the email left off the exclamation point, so I withdraw the Draft talk page from the deleted pages in question. My apologies--I'm Part-Spider (Would you like to know more?) 21:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

  • I have blocked Harmony944 indefinitely for disruptive editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: blocked 36 hours )[edit]

Page
Doppler effect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:1700:6FA0:1930:94AF:6635:49FC:69CD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 23:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 23:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 23:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  6. 23:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  7. 23:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "General note: Adding inappropriate external links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
  2. 23:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Adding spam links on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
  3. 23:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doppler effect. (using Twinkle)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Blocked for 36 hours, but I note that the page has been targeted before by another IP, potentially related so it might need to be semi protected if this continues. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Article has been semi protected now for three days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jawadmdr reported by User:Jibran1998 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Pakistani general election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jawadmdr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 08:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC) "We have already decided after duniya News survey that only survey will be added after Talk page disscussion. This survey is not reliable and I have already challenged this on talk page. Wait for concensus"
  3. 19:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Read the link that states sampling method. Only 56 districts out of 350 and random interviews. Not a professional survey"
  4. 19:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC) "Dont include a media based survey. It clearly states that random people were asked. Opinion survey conducted by a authentic survey organisation with a strata based sample be included only"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

persistent edit warring since last night, even though administrator allowed the survey in question to be added to [Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018

A game is being played by three politically motivated users Jibran, Masterpha and wikiohlic they edit back to back to add pro PTI blog / controversial surveys. Let Talk page discussion to decide the merits of survey for inclusion. I have started a talk page new section since yesterday. Jawadmdr (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Jawadmdr is wrong. Despite already having been blocked 1 day for similar editing warring he continues to do the same. Here is another diff where he reverts our edits:

  1. 11:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) he says ‘see talk page’ despite there being no consensus for the poll being removed on the talk page. He has clearly violated the 3RR against edit warring. And if you are wondering how I got to this edit war report, I was checking his user contributions to see whether he had once again disrupted the page. That is how serious this disruption is. маsтегрнатаLк 12:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

As for the three editors being politically motivated, I would like to remind him that I was the one who added the previous surveys which were in PMLN’s favour, showing double digit leads. The only political motivation is coming from you, who insisted on adding a