Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive376

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

Noticeboard archives


User:72bikers reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

Page: AR-15 style rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72bikers (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]

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

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


He is well aware of 1rr, as he reported me only 3 of days ago (it was only closed today). Moreover this has been had up multiple times on talk [[4]] [[5]] [[6]], that we should not use old sources to imply current facts. Given he had reported me only a few days ago not only is this edit Waring in defiance of DS, it is a pretty egregious example of utter disregard for anything that might be considered cooperative editing or fairness. In fact it is really hard to see this as anything less them a deliberate and calculated act of contempt.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This was his report [[7]] against me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I made a couple of edits yesterday at the AR article. Editor Slatersteven reverted my edit and I simply restored it once.
collapse material that is related to article content, not the 1RR event - Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
:There are a number of RS's with expert criminologist James Alan Fox that are more recent than the 2013 Mayors Against Illegal Guns that support assault weapons still used only around 25% of the time and that even support that this number is decreasing. While AR-15's are classified as assault weapons not all assault weapons are AR-15's. So they are not specifically used 25% of the time. We have two RS articles in the AR article that state in the last 3 years AR's were specifically used 4 times. So the "are" definitive is factually true. Is this not what NPOV policy dictates?
  • 2015 4 MS with a AR
  • 2016 1 MS with a AR
  • 2017 2 MS with a AR
  • 2018 to date 1 MS with a AR
  • USA Today 2018 "Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research" (13 uses) [8]
  • Book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018: Rather than assault weapons, semiautomatic handguns are actually the weapon of choice for most mass shooters. ...two thirds of mass shootings since 2009 involved one or more handgun, of the 72 public mass shooting since 1982, identified by Mother Jones 70 % relied exclusively or primarily on semiautomatic handguns. [9].
  • Book 2016 "A very common misconception is that mass shooters prefer these types of weapons-semiautomatic, military-style rifles . Yet a study done by Fox and Delateur (2014) clearly shows that mass shooters weapons of choice overwhelmingly are semiautomatic handguns" [10]
  • "Fox (who provided some assist to the Mother Jones team)","Fox, dubbed the “Dean of Death,” is one of the go-to academics whenever a mass shooting roils the national consciousness", “Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by [Mayors Against Illegal Guns] involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines,”[11], The study [12]
  • Fox study, "notwithstanding the questions surrounding inclusions/exclusions, suggest that assault weapons are not as commonplace in mass shootings as some gun-control advo-cates believe." "only one quarter of these mass murderers killed with an assault weapon","Only 14 of the 93 incidents examined by this gun-control group involved assault weapons or high-capacity magazines", public Mass Shootings,(semiautomatic handgun 47.9% - assault weapons 24.6%)[13]
  • CNN transcript "most mass murderers don't use assault weapons . They use – they use semi-automatic handguns ." [14]
  • YouTube video of the Fox interview on CNN, [15].
  • Fox "The overwhelming majority of mass murderers use firearms that would not be restricted by an assault-weapons ban. In fact, semiautomatic handguns are far more prevalent in mass shootings." [16].
  • Fox credentials, [17], [18].
  • News article, "found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 riflel. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings,handguns in 47.9% [19].
  • News article, "They found that the typical weapon used is a pistol, not an “assault weapon” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Assault weapons were used in 24.6% of mass shootings, handguns in 47.9%." [20].
  • Fox news article, "Over the past 35 years, there have been only five cases in which someone ages 18 to 20 used an assault rifle in a mass shooting", [21]

-72bikers (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment Slatersteven, this is a poor example of a 1RR. The first edit was a number of minor changes and the removal of redundant sources all quoting the same AP reporter. The problem with the extra citations was discussed on the talk page. The second edit, past vs present tense, were vs are, is a VERY minor thing and hardly a revert. If you felt it was wrong it was an easy thing to discuss. When 72bikers reported you my feeling was it was better to overlook a minor transgression. I feel the same way here. Otherwise it looks like you are out for revenge rather than to improve the article. You are also not listening and the like. Let's drop this. 72biker needs to do a better job of making clear (and short) arguments but this report comes across as more petty than anything else. Springee (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

You do understand the difference between "I know I did wrong, sorry" and "I do not care I was right". That is what he (in effect said (and literally now has here) said when he ignored my 1RR warning. Was this minor, the edit it not it implies (no it states) a situation that existed in 2013 is still true today (using a source from 2013), it alters what the tone of the text is. That is not a minor issue. This was not a mistake, as the reply above makes clear it was deliberate, he knew he was breaching 1RR and felt he was justified.
No this is not revenge, it is frustration that yet again the article and the talk page are being hijacked by a badgering battleground warrior (look at the tone of his response above) who ignores policy when it suits him (and enforces it when it does). That is what this report is about, no not revenge. It is about the fact that rather then acknowledging he was in error, he showed nothing but contempt, this is about attitude, not the actual edits.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Springee. This is petty nonsense. Enough is enough, recommend boomerang...indefinite block Slatersteven. --RAF910 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Second comment: For what it's worth, 72bikers has reversed the edit. Since there were no intervening edits this is a self reversal of the second edit, the one that brought this warning. Thus, for what it's worth, this is no longer a 1RR violation. Springee (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Springee, you are correct "better job of making clear (and short) arguments".
What I do here is research thing for content of specifications or statistics and expert analysis, I think I have over 5000 something edits to actual article content. I presented a number of RS's that support the statistic, but for some reason Slaterstaeve only wanted the oldest one for the article (a bit perplexing). The newest is a book by James Alan Fox Jan 29, 2018 with support from his 2014 study and a study in 2015 as well as data from Mother Jones collected since 1982 to 2018.
But all that aside I was making some contributions to the article and was simply cleaning it up and making some corrections. He has been one of the editors that state only most recent content is relative to the article. But for some reason he removed one of my edits stating "this was in 2013, so we use past tense" being that the statistic is still correct I again fix it and asked "This statistical fact is still true, shall I include the more recent sources." -72bikers (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As he has now reversed the edit I will happily withdraw this report, but I would close by saying it should have not taken a report to get him to do this.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User:DownFame reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DownFame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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


The use of {{Television ratings graph}} in the Television WikiProject has been a contentious issue recently, where the general consensus has become to allow the editors of each article to decide on its use or lack thereof. DownFame has been continuously adding these templates for over a year now; if one looks at their talk page, you can see their created templates have all been nominated for deletion and all have succeeded in their deletion. As far as I can tell, they have never attempted to discuss on either their talk page or the talk page of any article about the use of these templates, despite a number of editors attempting to do so with DownFame over the past year. They are restoring the graphs blindly on the linked article, reverting Esuka323 as well. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) also made an appearance to restore the graph; I'm not sure if this is DownFame logged out or not. -- AlexTW 14:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident that the IP editor is DownFame logged out, and an admin should easily be able to confirm. It seems highly unlikely that a random IP editor would appear within hours of them being reverted just to restore a ratings graph. I've never personally seen a television page that active that someone would do that. Esuka323 (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
No, I have no relation to the reported user but believe the graphs are useful. The policy cited here is unclear. I know the reported user shouldn't edit war but why are the graphs bad? (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't need to take your word, just the administrator's. The WP:CONSENSUS, the general consensus has become to allow the editors of each article to decide on its use or lack thereof. The policy, WP:3RR. It doesn't matter whether they're good or bad - you edit war, you get reported. -- AlexTW 13:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The reported user hasn't responded to any request for comment yet I am, surely that's enough to verify we're not the same person. We are editors of the multiple articles in question and decided to add it, policy is unclear. It keeps getting reverted so shouldn't the users reverting also get reported? (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The reported editor not responding to any discussion is exactly why this report was necessary. And no, they should not. DownFame was the one to initially add the content, but instead of discussing it when s/he was reverted, they edit-warred over their addition. Your/DownFame's WP:BOLD edits were reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. Hopefully you've learnt a bit about Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and essays through this. It's up to you two to discuss your edits instead of edit-warring. -- AlexTW 13:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Fine, so a discussion has to take place on each article before including a ratings graph? Seems like it would take too much time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
You have no prior history editing any Agents of Shield related pages before you restored the graph, you also seem oddly familiar with graphs considering your user history only dates back 12 days. You also seemed well aware that a graph was removed from the page and within hours of DownFame being reverted you restored it. That seems very convenient to me. Esuka323 (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

They're also displaying edit war behavior on the List of Gotham episodes & List of Defiance episodes pages.

Their usage of the graph is disruptive and they won't discuss the issue with anyone. Esuka323 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

And further [30]. -- AlexTW 07:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

And here too.

Though it looks like we have the identity of the IP editor, per this edit.

I think it would be fair for an admin to issue a warning to Matt14451 for edit warring while not logged in. He clearly used his IP address to avoid any hassle with his main account which is editing in bad faith. I wonder if DownFame & Matt14451 are linked in any way. His reasoning is suspicious to me. Esuka323 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Editing as IP address was mistake. I logged out then forgot to log back in. I am not connected with him. Matt14451 (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
It clearly wasn't. You were displaying the same warring behavior as DownFame on pages you have no history editing on. If anything you were also abusing the system by doing this as IP and made the mistake of editing while logged in(Which you quickly removed) on this very discussion board. You have edits dating back around 48 hours as an IP on both of these pages and on here. No one will believe you just "forgot" to log in. Esuka323 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if you believe me, it's the truth. I use a shared home computer so log out between sessions. I have no relation to the user in question. You seem to have a hostile attitude. Matt14451 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The evidence is there to suggest you log out to war on here. If you were the honest upstanding Wikipedian that you claim to be you wouldn't have acted the way you have done as an IP and took to the discussion boards. I do find it interesting that neither you(Also as an IP),or DownFame have a history of editing the Agents of Shield & Gotham pages before this little issue and have acted in the exact same way. Esuka323 (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. User:DownFame has been reverting to add {{Television ratings graph}} to multiple articles. Opinions seem to differ as to whether these graphs are needed, so persistent addition without any attempt to get support on talk pages seems worrisome. DownFame has never posted to either an article talk or a user talk page, which makes me question if this is really the same editor as the IP or as Matt14451, since they do discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me chiming in after you've made the decision but Matt14451 has confessed to being the IP user. Neither editor has any prior history editing the pages in question and the timing of the IP(Matt14451) restoring DownFames additions along with his statement that he "checks the page every few hours" should be enough to cast some suspicion on him. See [34] Esuka323 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
What I found suspicious was the speed at which Matt removed his comment, suggesting that perhaps he never intended to use his account on this thread. See [35]. I suspect had I not brought his edit to peoples attention, he would have continued to use the IP account when responding to people. I also noticed that when I made a sock puppetry case against him that there was already a pre existing case against Matt by someone else, see. [36]. Esuka323 (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Marjdabi reported by User:Fitzcarmalan (Result: Self-revert)[edit]

State-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Marjdabi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Self-revert (Undid revision 860877975 by Marjdabi (talk))
  2. 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) (Undid revision 860875939 by Sänger (talk) This section is removed for breaking rules of Wikipedia WP:NEUTRAL and WP:BALANCE. Any sources what so ever mentioned are not a reason to break the rules of WIkipedia, any further restorations to rules broken should be considered vandalism)
  3. 16:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860845312 by Fitzcarmalan (talk) Can you give a reason on the revert rather than if it is on me or you? How do you believe reverting the article which breaks the rules of Wikipedia I have given should be reverted as you did, without any discussion neither on edit summary or talk page? Give a reason on how you believe the rules broken are unimportant or a possible solution, and discussfirst before further reverting."
  4. 02:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860785748 by Editor abcdef (talk) Please wait until a common point is reached until restoring controversial content. Discuss on talk before further restorations."
  5. 1:52, 23 September 2018‎ (UTC) Marjdabi (-22,557)‎ . . (→‎Turkey: This section needs to be removed until a WP:NEUTRAL point has been reached. Turkey participated in the war on ISIS, deploying troops to Syria in that cause. The several paragraphs which repeat and only mention the foreign involvement of Syrian Civil War is very unbalanced in the article WP:BALANCE. Several other countries including the United States have equally supplied the listed groups with funds and arms are not listed. Needs to be removed until a common point is reached)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Notification */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


In this edit, Marjdabi removes massive amounts of sourced content (22,557 bytes, basically the entire 'Turkey' section), then explains in a new talk section that this part should be kept out, pending further expansion (or "balancing", in their words) of other countries' sections. The edit was challenged, as expected, an hour later by Editor abcdef, but was reverted shortly afterwards by Marjdabi, citing the "discussion" they initiated and how it should conclude before restoring the material, clearly disregarding WP:BRD which they were made aware of in an August 28 warning by Kansas Bear, shortly before receiving a 1-week block for similar behavior. I reverted, explaining that the onus is on them to obtain consensus and not the other way around. I also notified this user of the SCW community sanctions, because the article doesn't have a tag for some reason. But I was reverted by Marjdabi yet again, and this sort of behavior is very similar to what this user is still doing on the Egypt article, where material that is being challenged for being contentious and non-debatable original research is being edit-warred back in, citing a similar reason: that I should wait for an RfC to conclude (an RfC that I, admittedly, shouldn't have started to begin with and should've brought the issue here instead).

Considering the same user recently came out of a block (on September 4), I expect a tougher sanction this time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

And now we have a third revert of Sänger, which happened while I was writing this report. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I do have the right to revert after giving an explanation and edit summary, I have not exceeded the WP:3RR as I have only made 3 reverts in the past 24 hours and not more. This report should be disregarded as I have not broken any rules. Marjdabi (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
You have no such right, and you have broken 3RR. I suggest you self-revert to have an outside chance of not getting blocked. Otherwise, I suggest a block of longer than a week this time. Dr. K. 17:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
My initial edit was the removal rather than a revert, and I have reverted 3 times since then. So it should technically not constitute 3RR. In either case I have reverted the most recent revert since you mentioned this. Marjdabi (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the self-revert. I have noted this both in the revert count, and in a note. I hope everything turns out well for you. Dr. K. 18:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note: Reported user has self-reverted. Dr. K. 18:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Marjdabi is on a mission also on the page 2018 Ahvaz military parade attack. Adding Twitter source as evidence [37], confirming one perpetrator on his "evidence" [38], removing source [39], wants everybody to disregard all other evidence than his [40], again removing sourced info [41], finally declaring himself victorious [42]. Where does this end? Wakari07 (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    • ISIS released the footage of attackers heading toward the parade attack site today. So I removed any other claims of attacking groups. Why should this be considered a mission like you've said? Also twitter source mentioned the news before the news story was published, it is a very weak attack that you accuse me of using twitter as source. I kept that for 30 minutes as a source before changing to a news story which was published minutes later. Marjdabi (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
So because your preferred terrorist agency posted after the facts some pixels reportedly showing three (not even four) people in a jeep (who knows where this was recorded/manipulated, by whom and when?), you want me to believe that this brings a final understanding of the event? Come on. You dragged me to WP:ANI last week with another non-event. One last thing here, the Daily Mirror is not WP:RS. Wakari07 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Alright I restored the claim but now another user has removed it. Apparently ASMLA has denied responsibility acccording to a source. I expect you to remove the content from here since this is resolved. Marjdabi (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
As much as I'd like to thank you for self-reverting, statements like "I expect you to remove the content" suggest that you're solely doing this to dodge incoming sanctions. That's not how it works here. Could you please tell me why you ended up on AN3? I'm not referring to the Ahvaz article. It's your behavior elsewhere that concerns me, and I'm willing to withdraw this report depending on your answer. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Which Ahvaz article, I ended up here for making one too many reverts in past 24 hours. Even though the content I removed were biased, unneutral and unbalanced. Nevertheless it is your duty to remove this since the most recent revert has bee re-reverted. In the future hopefully more people will pay attention to the content I removed rather than the number of reverts. Not a single editor has given a talk on what was removed and for what reason. Marjdabi (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No action due to Marjdabi's self-revert, though their behavior on this article was less than ideal. They have been blocked for a week within the past month. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Uricnobel reported by User:Fitindia (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Farah Karimae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Uricnobel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:01, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "rv vandalism"
  2. 17:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "clean up and reverting vandalism and pov pushing"
  3. 17:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "It is not a repost of previous article, this is a completely different one, I am not connected with this subject. The actress is notable, and the references are reliable paper publications. I think you have a psychological problem with this actress. Remove your speedy deletion"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Farah Karimae. (TW)"
  2. 18:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Farah Karimae. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User has removed the speedy Tag WP:3RR, Looks like a old user by his edit summary probably a WP:SPA. Seems to have knowledge that this was a completely different article as he mentions on my talk page. FitIndia 18:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for disruptive editing, for removing the speedy tag from an article they themselves created. The complex edit summaries suggest this is not a new user, so they ought to know better. The incorrect charges of vandalism are a bonus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Farolif (Result: nominator blocked)[edit]

Page: Portal:Current events/Sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Portal:Current Events/sidebar

Diffs of the user's reverts: The same changes each time with no Edit Summary provided:

  1. revert to Sidebar
  2. revert to Sidebar
  3. revert to Sidebar
  4. revert to Sidebar

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk: (User has blanked their talk page since receiving the notice, too.) (Which I'm perfectly entitled to do, especially when the notice comes from a vandal.)


IP user appears to have a problem with one name out of several which I am trying to remove in the same edit, but continues to revert all changes at once. Farolif (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Farolif is for some reason attempting to remove Gamil Ratib, Samuel Bodman, Mac Miller, Richard DeVos, and Burt Reynolds all of whom died this month from the "recent deaths" sidebar. If this isn't a clear case of vandalism that is an exception to the 3RR then I don't know what is. (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The Sidebar does not keep deaths through the entire calendar month. There is a hidden suggestion to this effect within the portal's content. Farolif (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I think both parties were editing in good faith here; I don't think either party gets an exemption for reverting vandalism. Template:Ping:Farolif Would you like to work this matter out at the talk page with no administrative action taken? —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I can handle it if the administrative team can't. After all, the user is only an Egyptian. Farolif (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You are lucky I didn't see this comment before I blocked your account. Otherwise, it might have been indefinite instead of 72 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note IP was not warned before this case was filed, so no action should be taken against the IP unless there is a further revert. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours Farolif is clearly acquainted with the three-revert rule yet engaged in an edit war at the portal. Two prior blocks were each 24 hours, so this one is escalated to 72. No action against IP, since no warning was given to the IP, and the IP did not revert after the case was filed. —C.Fred (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mediatech492 reported by User:General Ization (Result: User will take a break)[edit]

Quakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mediatech492 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860751768 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)talk page please"
  2. 20:03, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860750557 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Then you should be easily able to explain it on talk page"
  3. 19:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860749783 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)That's what talk page is for"
  4. 19:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860748343 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Disputed, needs consensus"
  5. 19:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860746623 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)Disputed, needs consensus"
  6. 19:08, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860721132 by 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk)You have been told repeatedly to make you case on the talk page. This edit will not be accepted until this is done."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [43]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Content dispute */ new section"

Both this editor and the IP 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:B910:998C:D451:37A0 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) have been trading reverts at this article most of the afternoon with apparently no effort to engage on any Talk page. General Ization Talk 20:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Issue regards a ISP hopper who is aggressively inserting disputed edits, and has refused repeated invitation to discuss the edit on the talk page according to proper procedure. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
This is about your editing behavior, not the IP's. Just because the IP edit wars doesn't mean you need to. Make your case at WP:ANEW, please, not here. General Ization Talk 20:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, yes, I see you repeatedly mentioning the Talk page, but never taking the initiative to start a Talk page discussion yourself. You're just as capable as the IP of doing that, and just as culpable if you continue to revert without engaging in Talk page discussion. General Ization Talk 20:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Onus is on him to initiate discussion. He has been repeatedly invited to do so, but has refused. If it was important he would have followed procedure and done it. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
So – you're thinking that the three-revert rule doesn't apply to you? General Ization Talk 20:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently your rules don't apply to anonymous IP Hoppers. Give me another option. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion of the IP's edits is occurring below. We are discussing your edits here in this section. Your other options are discussed at WP:EW and WP:DISPUTE. General Ization Talk 20:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
As you can see he continues to persisted in his aggressive edits, wilfully ignoring the rules. I asked you to give me another option. Do you have one or not? Mediatech492 (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
In answer to both, see my comment just preceding yours. General Ization Talk 20:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
In other words, you don't have a viable option to offer. Very well. I leave you to it. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Move, please, for close. While the IP this editor was edit warring with has been blocked, there is no question that this editor was also doing so and violated 3RR. None of the exceptions to that rule apply here. From their comments, it is obvious that the editor does not believe that the rule applies to them, and this is not the first time they have demonstrated this attitude (nor would it the first time they have been blocked for edit warring). The editor has indicated here and on their Talk page ("I've stated my case, and I think events show I've been abundantly justified.") that they have nothing further to say about the matter. General Ization Talk 20:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User:General Ization, this is your report. Are you asking to withdraw it? EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: No, I am asking that it be acted upon (as you and/or others see fit), all parties having made their cases. Hoping not to see it simply scroll without action, as I believe it will only reinforce the behavior by validating the editor's belief that they are exempt from 3RR. General Ization Talk 21:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Mediatech492 might avoid a block for the 3RR violation if they will agree to take a break from editing the Quakers article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Fine, if that's what it takes to get this nonsense over with. Then so be it. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I predict that the semiprotection period established will only postpone the ongoing conflict, not resolve it. The mindless persistence of this aggressive IP hopper who initiated this situation will undoubtedly resume within hours of the end of the protection period. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mediatech492: And if it does, you need to ignore it. That's the deal that has been offered you. You need to recognize that you are not the only editor here who can address such abuses, and that 3RR requires that we sometimes count on other editors to take up the fight when we have reached our limit. General Ization Talk 13:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Ignore wilful vandalism? That's the best advice you've got? This is Wikipedia policy? Simply ignore the vandals and and punish those people who try to stop them. What kind of fucked up bullshit is that? That is the single most idiotic thing anyone has ever said to me. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
You need to recognize that you are not the only editor here who can address such abuses, and that 3RR requires that we sometimes count on other editors to take up the fight when we have reached our limit. General Ization Talk 14:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
And, actually, there was nothing vandalistic about the IP's edits. The OED does in fact say exactly what the IP said it says about the etymology of the word "Quaker". I'm tempted to add the information it was trying to add myself, and will not do so only because at this point it would be provocative for me to do so. If someone else does, you should leave it alone, even after your timeout. General Ization Talk 14:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Warned)[edit]

National Front (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mrnobody1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860881013 by Snowded (talk)"
  2. 13:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860848391 by Emeraude (talk) They wouldn't put Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX if their headquarters weren't in London. Unless you find something else that is credible something please leave it as London as stated on their website."
  3. 13:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860844681 by Emeraude (talk) That is their official website"
  4. 11:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860741025 by (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Editor has been blocked for editwarring before Doug Weller talk 18:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why am i being reported for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mrnobody1997: The notice on your Talk page includes a link to the community's policy on edit warring, and specifically the three-revert rule. Have you read these policies? General Ization Talk 18:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Because you are edit warring.--RAF910 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
People are undoing my edits though and not getting reported. I haven't done anything wrong though. People are removing what i've done. Read the edits i've done. I am trying to improve the article but people keep undoing what i've done— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talkcontribs) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
No one but you has violated the three-revert rule, which I again encourage you to review. General Ization Talk 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
If you read what the edits i've done people are undoing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talkcontribs) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, three different editors (myself included) have now reverted you (which should be a rather strong clue that you need to rethink your edit, not keep making it), none more than three times. General Ization Talk 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is their official website though which you keep dismissing Mrnobody1997 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

You must convince your fellow users that your edits are worthy of inclusion. If not, they may be reverted and you may be blocked, again. I recommend that Mrnobody1997 receive a 30 day block. If he still cannot play well with others, we can indefinitely block him later.--RAF910 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) is The National Front official website which says their headquarters on there so why are you dismissing that and reporting me for including that on National Front wiki Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 is the website of the national front uk and it says their headquarters on there. is their contact information and has their address so where they are based. I don't understand why i'm being reported for linking to national front uk wiki saying their headquarters is London when it says it on their website look. Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX People keep removing national front headquarters are London even though it says it on their website and i'm getting reported for undoing people removing headquarters London on National Front UK Wikipedia page. You obviously don't know anything about National Front as you are dismissing a fact on their website coming from them. Absolute pisstake i'm being reported for making the national front uk article correct. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

No where on that website does it say "Headquarters London." You are making an assumption. I change my mind, I now recommend that Mrnobody1997 be indefinitely block.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say headquarters London but it says address London. It doesn't need to say headquarters as address is another word for it. Phone up the National Front and ask them if you don't believe what it says on their website. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 Why should i get blocked for doing that? Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997 Until this issue gets resolved i will not edit on the headquarters of National Front again until i can clarify with National Front themselves where their headquarters are and hopefully they can state it clear enough for you to see so we can not have this problem again. If they can put on their website stating Headquarters London instead of just address London then maybe this problem we have can be sorted out. Whatever happens to me i will not edit anymore about the nf headquarters until the evidence is clearer. I understand you need more obvious evidence so i will find out and get back to you. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

Noce that you have stopped, but it doesn't excuse your behaviour. You were blocked twice for editwarring just three months ago by User:EdJohnston and yet your actions today and your comments above show that you still don't understand what why you were blocked or why I brought you here. I have no confidence that you won't do this again. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I stopped because i get that you need it to say headquarters London instead of just address London. That's what i'm going to find out and get back to you on. I understand my behaviour could have been better and i could of realised this sooner before you reported me. Hopefully the administrator will realise that i admit i could have done things better. As i said next time i will make sure things are much clearer.Mrnobody1997 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

  • Mrnobody, as amazing as it is, you still don't seem to get it. You needed to stop because you needed to stop. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there is any point to blocking now; it seems punitive to me since the editor stopped edit warring two hours ago. We could try something else--actually, we can try two things. First, we can ping EdJohnston, who's blocked this editor twice before for edit warring, to see if they think a block would be useful. Second, we can ask Ed if maybe we should go and put this editor on 1R or something like that. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, User:Mrnobody1997 can avoid a block if they will promise to make no further edits at National Front (UK) before getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Mrnobody1997 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Theboo77 reported by User:A slithy tove (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: People's Alliance of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theboo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:See this comment[52] for more details on this user's behavior which has been persistent for a couple of years. See this user's Talk Page for previous warnings and blocks[53]

This appears to be a year long edit war between two editors who have edited little else. However, by theboo77 own admission. He is personally involved and possibly a paid editor..."I updated the information, as I was asked to by the political party involved. Other rival parties have been taking done updates and added their own unfavorable information from former members who were expelled for misrepresenting party policies on social media. The upset individuals made up a story and a local paper ran the story which this rival party continues to add. I was asked to re-add my contribution with citations from wikipedia. I complied and added the references requested however now I am blocked?"...Therefore, I believe that theboo77 should be indefinitely blocked. --RAF910 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. It appears that each party has reverted 8 times or more since 18 September. Conflict of interest is a valid concern. But handling a case of COI is a job for editors generally, not a single opponent who follows them step for step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I came here after taking care of some issues on a discussion at the COI noticeboard here involving this article and the users reported here. If EdJohnston had not already blocked both Theboo77 and A slithy tove for edit warring on People's Alliance of New Brunswick, I certainly would have. I agree with EdJohnston that both users have been edit warring and in violation of policy. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 reported by User:Batreeq (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]
  5. [59]
  6. + More in the previous days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60], [61], [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Requested that the user reverting my contributions begin a discussion as each time, they are removing and keeping different portions of my edits over many edit sessions. Thus, I am unsure of how to approach the issue and have requested the user discuss it on the talk page per WP:REVTALK. User has not cited any policies, yet I have. Instead, they are citing vague reasons such as: "{{who}} and {{by whom}} are unnecessary, as readers can just click on the wikilink "Criticism of Islam" and find them; i agree on the invasion; 6 years old, that's what the source says." First statement is not grounded in any policy and does not make sense. Last statement violates WP:SYNTH because the source does not explicitly state that it was consummated when she was six years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talkcontribs) 18:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


I have already explained to the User Batreeq that i agree with his latest changes to the lead, in fact i kept them and everyone can check out the latest version of the page to verify it. My point of contention is that Batreeq claims that the phrase "modern religious and secular criticism of Islam" in the lead requires templates "who" and "by whom", but the page's sections themselves provide both religious and secular criticism of Muhammad and Islam, and that's the same case for the page "Criticism of Islam", which i suggested him to read.--GenoV84 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
User:GenoV84 is now blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert in spite of the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Am I permitted to restore my changes as they have not been officially contested by the user on the talk page? – Batreeq (Talk) (Contribs) 03:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Protected)[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ElKevbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "go for it; WP:N isn't negotiable and this is such a minor, easy fix that your insistence on trying to override a core policy is utterly perplexing"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC) to 06:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    1. 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "no, WP:N isn't negotiable; it's a core policy"
    2. 06:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Alumni */ better wording?"
  3. 05:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "no, this essay cannot overrule a core policy; I've opened a discussion in Talk so please participate there"
  4. 05:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "no, this is completely misstating the cited policy; either this needs to be changed or you can try to have the cited policy changed but the previous text was in blatant contradiction to the cited policy"
  5. 05:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Alumni */ NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DAMN POLICY SAYS; READ IT, PLEASE (but feel free to make suggestions on how to better word these guidelines so they're still useful!)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


No warnings given to subject during this edit war, but this is an established user with previous 3RR blocks. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

First, the previous block from several years ago was an error by the admin. Second, I stand by my actions here with this essay that directly contradicts two critical policies, WP:N and WP:BIO. ArbCom and the larger community are clear that a smaller group of editors [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}cannot override site-wide policy]] which is what these editors are explicitly doing. I have proposed multiple alternatives in my edits above - not all of which are reverts to the same version, by the way - but no one else has proposed anything other than retaining the current version of the essay that directly contradicts WP:N and WP:BIO. Third, the earliest edit in this report wasn't a revert and later edits in this report are not reversions to the same version as earlier edits so there are multiple technical errors with this report.
I acknowledge that if multiple editors are set on violating even our most important policies that I cannot single-handedly stop them so I won't make further edits to this essay especially if other editors do not intervene. ElKevbo (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring and civility are policies, while the issues with the essay you refer to are a matter of opinion. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, not "Kevin has appointed himself the king and arbiter of policy". There are appropriate venues for expressing your displeasure and inviting intervention of the most experienced wikipedians; shouting, profanity, and edit warring are not appropriate.Jacona (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:N is also a policy that this essay clearly contradicts so why are you so focused on an editor using one mild profanity and insisting that this issue be addressed? ElKevbo (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Protected. Yes, ElKevbo has effectively breached 3RR - but if I was going to block them, I would also have to block @John from Idegon:, who also managed to rack up 4 reverts in less than an hour. I suspect a far better approach is to do what I have done, and fully protect the page for a week. Discussion may now continue on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, User_talk:Black Kite. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), at which USER:ElKevbo invited the participants to come to this article. The involved editors at Notability (people) were not persuaded to change the guideline as ElKevbo suggested......WP:CIVILITY is not a part-time policy As to the edit warring policy, W:3RR is a bright line. WP:CONSENSUS must be obtained, if not at the guideline talk page, follow appropriate channels. If consensus is not in favor of the change, then accept that it's not what you want it to be rather than createing a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Jacona (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Black Kite, but no, you would not have had to block me. I stopped. Blocks are to protect the encyclopedia. It didn't need protection from me. It is a ludicrous situation when ONE editor unilaterally can repeatedly change a long term established piece of guidance and insist that it must be done immediately, without discussion. The ceiling was not going to fall in if the particular piece of verbiage was not changed immediately. That kind of behavior is at best childish. The guideline in question has been essentially the same for at least 6 years, and I suspect much longer. When this crap started, I was getting ready for bed. Now I have to go to work. I'm reasonably certain this is a situation we all have to some degree or another. The attitude of "I want it and I want it right now" is not behavior I tolerate from my child. Why should anyone here have to tolerate from a colleague? It's extremely destructive to a collaborative environment. John from Idegon (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask everyone who is interested in this topic to please participate in the essay's Talk page. There is a lot of misinformation and confusion posted above (e.g., I didn't advocate to change WP:BIO but I asked a question to ensure that my understanding of the policy matches other editors' - which it does) but this is not the place to hold this discussion. 14:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I am seriously disappointed that ElKevbo , with a similar academic background to my own, totally fails to understand the principles of a collaborative online project such as Wikipedia. Let him take very good note of WP:5P5 , and WP:5P4 and understand that whatever his qualifications are in RL, they do not permit him to demand or impose 'his' rules on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Cymru.lass (Result: page semi-protected for 1 week )[edit]

Avola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "So, the delusional guy has sought reinforcements in order to push his parochialist view of history? Block is not a problem, I have access to several computers..."
  2. 23:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC) "I like how you keep not replying to any of my points. And we already have a proven liar here, one who has already supported his claims with references to sources (D'Este) that do not say what he claims."
  3. 17:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC) "I also like to point out how Sicily, unlike, say, Tuscany, Lombardu, Campania, Latium, Piedmont, Veneto, Abruzzo and other regions, did not have a shadow of an armed Resistance movement, the only "anti-fascist" activity consisting in clapping the Allies when they came. Not bad for a "hotbed of anti-fascist sentiment". And how come I don't see "Hitler's Nazi soldiers" instead of "German troops" in pages describing the battles in Germany in 1945?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC) "better warning"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Has been engaged in a revert war with multiple editors, doesn't seem interested in the "discuss" portion of bold, revert, discuss beyond heated edit summaries, highlights from which include calling an editor a "delusional guy" and calling my one reversion of his edits a response to someone "seeking reinforcements" as well as threatening to IP hop if blocked. (here) cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. In light of the "I have access to several computers..." announcement I chose to semi-protect this page rather than block the IP. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you! I'm not actually directly involved in the content dispute per se, I just hopped in to try and stop the edit warring and reversions against consensus when I noticed it on Recent Changes. I'll reach out to the IP and encourage them to engage in discussion. cymru.lass (talkcontribs) 20:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User: Trekphiler reported by User:Frayae (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: CadZZilla (custom car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frayae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: complicated.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Special:Diff/861048842
  2. Special:Diff/861129870
  3. Special:Diff/861193360

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I don't need to warn myself. I am making the report. I informed Trekphiler, Special:Permalink/861129785.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I have reverted Trekphiler three times now, reversing a copy and paste move he did on CadZZilla (custom car) with content from Cadzzilla. I don't know how to proceed as he is now pasteing the article onto CadZZilla. There is an RM on the actual article at Talk:Cadzzilla. I can continue to revert, edit warring on multiple articles, but it would be nice to resolve the issue. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I changed the header to show you are reporting User:Trekphiler. It is puzzling to report yourself. In the text of the report you already admit to making some reverts, so you are putting that on the record. But please don't continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The copy paste would never have happened except for an ill-considered pagemove to Cadzzilla, which makes a move to the correct pagename effectively impossible. So delete one of the stupid redirects & move Cadzzilla, & you won't hear from me on it again. Of course, since everybody involved with WP seems to think its standards for capitalization trump everyone else's, I have real doubts that will happen. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Trekphiler: I think the point is that you should go and make your case at the RM which is already open and just be patient. I would greatly appreciate it if you put all the pages back to how they should be. Copy and paste moves are prohibited because they break attribution. Attribution is not optional, it's a requirement. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned @Trekphiler and Frayae: Just stop it, both of you. You have a similar number of reverts, and so I'm not going to block either of you at the moment, but consider yourselves warned that further reverts may lead to a block without warning. Trekphiler; Frayae is quite correct in saying that a cut-and-paste move is inappropriate, and you need to obtain consensus at an RM discussion. Please do so now, and leave the redirect alone while you do. Frayae, you made a couple of reverts too many; requesting admin attention (or just any outside input on a talk page discussion) would have been the right thing to do. Vanamonde (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: In the meantime could the copy and paste move be undone and the redirects put back? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Frayae: I have reverted that copy-paste move as an admin action: it was clearly necessary to preserve attribution. Vanamonde (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
I need to obtain consensus? I created the damn page at the correct page title in the fist damn place. If it hadn't been moved to an ill-informed title, rv & copy-pasting wouldn't be necessary, would it? But, of course, I'm to blame for everything, as always, right? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: Blocked 72 hours by Jayron32 )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments: Editor has ignored requests to discuss on the talk page with increasingly-hostile edit summaries.

  • Blocked for 72 hours. --Jayron32 03:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:‎Farlandia reported by User:Jonathan Williams (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [70] - I'm attempting to allow them a partial revert of another user's edit, but they keep reverting everything

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [71]
  2. [72]
  3. [73]
  4. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76] and on user page [77]


Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. It sounds like they might not be aware of what they're doing and why it's disruptive. The warning I left assumes good faith and helps to explain to the user what he needs to do - which is discuss the matter on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Page: Ahvaz military parade attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (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. [78]
  2. [79]
  3. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Hi, this IP is vandalizing the above article, adding personal comments. 3RR is not broken, however, IP's contribution is purely disruptive. Maybe an admin could deal with this. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism only account....indefinite block.--RAF910 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Ritchie333. clpo13(talk) 21:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Opasney and User:Thor's Axe reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Thor's Axe blocked)[edit]

Page: Heqin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transition from Ming to Qing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Opasney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Thor's Axe (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: Opasney

  1. Heqin
  2. Heqin
  3. Heqin
  4. Heqin

More in the other article

Thor's Axe (sic)

  1. Heqin
  2. Heqin
  3. Heqin
  4. Heqin

More in the other article

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82], [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84], [85]


Filed previously at AN/I. Kleuske (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:Thor's Axe is blocked 48 hours. This is a war between User:Thor's Axe and User:Opasney. The discussion on the talk page suggests that Thor's Axe may be adding unsourced claims. Opasney stopped reverting after being warned about 3RR but Thor's Axe did not. There was an original post at ANI which gave more context. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

User:KaijuFan4000 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: List of natural horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KaijuFan4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [87]
  2. [88]
  3. [89]
  4. [90]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]


Editor is repeatedly reinserting unsourced information despite multiple warnings from myself (in this instance) and other editors (in prior cases) and having been previously blocked for doing so. Requests for them to engage at the article's Talk page[93] have been ignored in favor of reverting. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Looks like the reverting between the pair of you have stopped. @Doniago: Is this supposed to be ironic? If I was going to block, it would have been both of you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: My apologies, but I'm not entirely fol