Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive377

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:82.12.34.134 reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.12.34.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC) "KGB recruitment with full documented references"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 10:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC) to 11:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 10:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 863735308 by Openlydialectic (talk)"
    2. 11:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* KGB recruitment */"
  3. 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 863667627 by Openlydialectic (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. (TW)"
  2. 17:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. (TW)"
  3. 19:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Patriarch Kirill of Moscow. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Gave him 4 warnings, one initial in the edit summary and 3 additional ones on his talk page. He keeps adding a contentious statement sourced by a self-published paper on academia.org. After 2 reverts he also added another source, but on verification that source just plain didn't state the claim it was supposed to reference. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected per WP:BLP. I have reverted the article to the last version by User:Ealdgyth to remove the claims that this man is a KGB agent. Editors on the talk page don't seem to agree that the KGB connection is proven from reliable sources. If you want to contest the KGB issue, consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:HarryKernow reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

Page
Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
HarryKernow (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 08:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC) to 08:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 08:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "1. MSN link broken, news.aol.com citation has no link - neither statement was cited, not necessarily core details anyway 2. Alderen is not quoted as having said "which was supposed to have a child inside it" or anything of the sort 3.remove bad internet historian editorial section added by gracious Dr.K. 4. add Heene's comments back, WITHOUT IH citation. these ARE RELEVANT to the criticism section 5. I hope I didn't break intermediate edits, we edited it at the same time"
    2. 08:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "tense"
    3. 08:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 07:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "neither link works"
  3. 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "still removing gawker, an unreliable source known for publishing false information"
  4. 07:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 863814330 by Dr.K. (talk) I wasn't citing internet historian, I was citing Heene's statements, which happen to be in that video and nowhere else on youtube. at least, if you want to remove the citation, remove JUST the citation and leave what he said, because he did actually say it."
  5. Consecutive edits made from 06:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC) to 07:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 06:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "1. rm Gawker from source; unreliable 2. rm contentious statements without working citations. 3.rm false/irrelevant statements 4. tone/word changes"
    2. 06:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "changed tone of introduction as it assumed their intent; Heene family did not claim 7000ft, authorities did; minor language tweaking"
    3. 07:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "reordering sentence"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Balloon boy hoax. (TWTW)"
  2. 07:16, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Balloon boy hoax. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Keeps removing links, adding badly-sourced or unsourced information from youtube Internet Historian (see also edit-summary of diff1 where he admits that he is restoring Heene's comments without a citation, thus violating BLP), despite clear consensus on the talkpage from past discussions not to include this tripe. Will not stop disruption despite multiple warnings. Personal attacks on the article talkpage and my talkpage. Dr. K. 08:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. I put why I did the edits in the talk page, I TOLD YOU I was doing it. You not only didn't give me a chance (see WP:GOODFAITH, you didn't even TRY to discuss a compromise. You immediately started reverting my edits WITHOUT READING THEM or without discussing them. See [1] where you restore the section that reads,

In April 19, 2017, Youtuber by the alias Internet Historian uploaded "The Untold Story: Balloon Boy" in which he retroactively investigated the evidence from the case and argued that Heene pled guilty due to media pressure and fear of his wife being deported. The video was followed up in July 3, 2017 by the video "Balloon Boy: In Richard Heene's own words" also uploaded by Internet Historian. The follow-up video was a video Richard Heene made in 2010 depicting criticizing the legal system and analyzing the legal reports to show where the police fabricated lies to prosecute him. He said his lawyer advised him to plead guilty because the police would otherwise continue fabricate evidence, such as in the Tim Masters case. [1]

I seriously doubt you would have added that if you even read my edits as per WP:GOODFAITH. All this time I have been trying to improve the article and you have given me no chance and no room whatsoever. In my opinion, you provoked the edit war and were especially provocative putting TW warnings on a user's talkpage that has been around for 3 years. You couldn't even talk about it and never gave a reason for your reversions of my edits. As a compromise I am removing Heene's comments that are, yes, as of right now, unsourced. Even though HE DID actually say all of that, I'll remove it to compromise. How does that sound? Shouldn't we, you know, have DISCUSSED IT IN THE TALKPAGE before resorting to running to the teacher just as the bully in my school metaphor would? (Sidenote: I haven't used wikipedia actively in about a year or two, so I apologize for poor formatting or botched linking/citations, also sidenote number 2: this was happening at 3 am CST for me, that's why I disappeared. I went to bed and just now got up). You'll also notice if you look VERY CAREFULLY at the edit history, you reverted the page 3 times before I manually made the changes again that you had blindly re-added. You started the edit war, I really don't see how you can report me for a 3 revert rule when you did the exact same thing without reading what you were even restoring... HarryKernow (talk to me) 14:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
You couldn't even talk about it and never gave a reason for your reversions of my edits. Really? I meticulously recorded my actions in my edit-summaries, which apparently you did not read, otherwise I AGF you wouldn't have made this statement. Most of my edits were simple repairs of your edits after you kept removing dead links or text that was supported by them or both. I kept restoring the links through Internet archive, and I even advised you about WP:KDL in my edit-summaries. Here you remove text based on the edit-summary that Gawker is not a reliable source, but you forgot to mention you also removed BBC.co.uk, which is a rock-solid source fully supporting the text you removed. Of course, I restored the BBC source and the text it supports, providing, as usual, a detailed edit-summary.

Then, you kept restoring that bizarre source of Internet Historian, which for years now, has been edit-warred on by IPs and new account socks into the article - a fact that had resulted in multiple article semi-protections. In addition, there are detailed past discussions on the talkpage and there is no consensus to restore this text supported by the Internet Historian youtube source, a youtube personality that appears behind a wiggling flat face mask during his coverage of Heene. Now, that's the personification of an RS. Not.

As far as myself restoring this crap, I temporarily undid your large edit where you had obliterated many dead links and I used the IA robot to repair them. Then you came in and started removing more stuff, which I then had to repair also, so I did not have the time to see this accidental restoration, due to the chaos you kept creating. Then you accuse me of not participating in the talkpage discussion. That's obviously nonsense.

The largest part of what you call a discussion was you accusing me using various nasty labels, through long reminiscing of your high school days as a backdrop for attacking me personally. And that's after I reverted similar PAs of yours from my talkpage. You can't seriously expect me to engage with you after such WP:BATTLE behaviour. Your editing choices throughout this mess have been terrible. Your antagonistic behaviour was also very bad. All in all, you have to seriously shape up going forward. Your reversion of the unsourced text is encouraging. I hope you learned not to remove dead links and text going forward, and to assume AGF and stop using PAs reinforced with cinematic backdrops of your high school days. Dr. K. 20:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. When you linked KDL, I read it and changed how I was treating the dead links. However, there were citations with no links that I removed as well, not just because they had no link but because what they were trying to support was not even necessary for the article. If you were really trying to repair my edits, you wouldn't have butchered all of my legitimate changes in the process. I was not aware of the internet historian debate before I edited the page, and was not aware that there was such controversy surrounding it, but you must also realise I was trying to cite what Richard Heene said himself, NOT the internet historian. If there was a better source of him saying what he said I would use it, but as far as I'm aware, Internet Historian is the only one with the information that I was attempting to cite.

When you restored the BBC link, I agreed with your decision. However, I removed that section not only because it was citing Gawker, but because it did not seem particularly relevant; it seemed to be misplaced, at least.

As for personal attacks, you putting warnings on my talkpage was extremely irritating. You did not assume WP:GOODFAITH for my edits, you just reverted them with no care for a lot of what I actually edited. You did not treat me as an equal, but as a lesser person. I could only respond in kind. It was condescending and rude to me to revert my entire edit based on one small part of it; you could have taken less drastic action, like solely removing the Internet Historian part. My "cinematic backdrop" was a tool to explain your behavior. It clearly didn't offend you and was so minor; even if I shouldn't have insulted you, I had been up for nearly 24 hours as I have sleeping problems - then when I see this edit I spent half an hour on gets reverted because "hurr durr internet historian" (which was already on the page before I even edited it), of course I got mad.

But even through all of that, it was wrong for me to call you soulless, as I clearly don't know anything about you that would let me make that statement confidently. As such, I must offer my sincere apology; it was short-sighted and rude of me to insult you. I'm sorry. Don't get me wrong; I still don't like how you jumped on this without giving good faith, but I did take it too far in that instance.

The page as-is looks fine, I don't think there's any reverting that either of us needs to do. We can both agree to drop the stick now, right? HarryKernow (talk to me) 21:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

From your response, I can see that you are starting to realise my point of view, regarding PAs, and some editorial choices that I made. Telling me that I "butchered" your edits, is not accurate. But, no use getting stuck at this point, especially in the middle of this noticeboard. I accept your apology, and I think you are a capable and decent editor. I did not intend to upset you with the warnings, and they were not meant to demean you in any way. I am sorry you took it this way. On the other hand, you should not have assumed that the warnings were a sign of bad faith on my part. I agree with your non-controversial editorial choices, as you described them, and as currently existing in the article. Given our discussion, I withdraw this report, and I hope to see you in the future, under much better circumstances. Best regards. Dr. K. 22:31, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Internet Historian (2017-04-19), Balloon Boy | The Untold Story, retrieved 2018-10-12
  • Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:89.93.17.180 reported by User:Shellwood (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Ava Max (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.93.17.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]

Comments:
The IP continues to add unsourced content to a BLP despite being told not to. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. IP edit warring to add unsourced material about the singer's ancestry to a BLP article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )[edit]

Pages:

Circumcision controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Foreskin restoration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Foreskin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Religious male circumcision (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: diff 23:19, 7 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 00:34, 8 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies
  2. diff 11:28, 8 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies
  3. diff 8 October to 13:24, 11 October 2018 at Religious male circumcision
  4. diff 22:22, 11 October 2018 at Foreskin
  5. diff 22:35, 11 October 2018 at Foreskin restoration
  6. diff 19:18, 14 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies
  7. diff 19:29, 14 October 2018 at Circumcision controversies

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see User_talk:GenoV84#References and Talk:Circumcision_controversies#WP:BURDEN and Talk:Circumcision_controversies#sourcing

Comments:
Advocacy editing with regard to foreskin restoration using refs that fail MEDRS. We get this kind of behavior on this issue. Person was blocked for edit warring at an article about Islam just a few weeks ago. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

User:An actual biological woman reported by User:Jake Brockman (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Daniel Küblböck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
An actual biological woman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864167276 by Serols (talk)"
  2. 14:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864167067 by Serols (talk)"
  3. 14:46, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864166438 by Serols (talk) Being trans isn't about surgery. Educate yourself. Unlearn your transphobia."
  4. 14:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864164015 by Jake Brockman (talk) i think it's better to respect what it seems her identity was"
  5. 14:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864158910 by Jake Brockman (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Help Daniel Küblböck */ new section"
  2. 14:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "re"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Honestly, I'm done reinstating the info about Kublbock being a woman(which she was) for the time being. I get the verifiability thing. It seems really jobsworth-like to me, but I guess I get it. Also, there was no warning. nice try tho An actual biological woman (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Page protected. I completely understand what the reported editor is doing here; if there was clear reliable sourcing that the subject identified as female then they would be abolsutely correct. However, that sourcing isn't there at the moment; as User:Jake Brockman pointed out, there's hearsay. This is something that needs to be hashed out on the talkpage - either there is reliable information, or there isn't. A note to User:Serols - gender identity is completely irrelevant to surgery - see WP:GENDERID. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Black Kite: thanks for this. However, are we keeping the protected article with the undersourced female personality and not the base version until there may be further conversation? Thanks. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, The Wrong Version Problem. I suggest that if no relaible sources can be found within 24h that xe identified as female, if someone lets me know, I will revert it to the stable version. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry Black Kite, I didn't see this discussion before reverting to the stable version. Feel free to revert me. Regards SoWhy 17:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Fieryflames reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Indeffed, pending copyvio acknowledgement)[edit]

Page: Paul Abrahamian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fieryflames (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. 04:25, 10 October 2018 - Paul Abrahamian
  2. 01:24, 16 October 2018 - Paul Abrahamian

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

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

Comments:
First off apologies in advance if this report is messed up - Twinkle isn't working so had to do this manually,
This editor is slowly edit warring at Paul Abrahamian, Burt Reynolds and at Danielle Bregoli inserting copyvio images, I've twice asked them to pack it in[7][8] but they've simply continued,
Like I said it's a slow edit war however either way this editor doesn't seem to want to cooperate despite myself giving them a chance to do just that,
Many thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I hadn't realised but over at Burt Reynolds they'd gone well over 3 reverts and the article ended up protected so really this report should be for that page but like I said they've pretty much slowly-edit warred on all 3 pages give or take, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely The editor had been warned earlier of copyvio infringements. Once they acknowledge that they recognize their mistake, they may be immediately unblocked. Lourdes 06:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:2003:cd:3723:2450:c052:f02c:e88a:75cc reported by User:Igor Balashov (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: 2018 WTA Finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2003:cd:3723:2450:c052:f02c:e88a:75cc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9]

Comments:
It was from two empty accounts, but clearly one person, may be considered as vandalism. Stephens is very likely to qualify, but formally she's not yet, no official report, slight chance that Svitolina will receive wild card and three players will overcome Stephens, wikipedia should not predict events even if very likely. Here is proof that not yet [10].--Igor Balashov (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Great job, next time when someone will add results of a football match two days before it happen - you should also act like this, to wait for a result and if it will turn out to be right, just do nothing and said there were no violations.--Igor Balashov (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
John Dick 78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "You think that Kastellorizo is in Europe???"
  2. 00:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "You think that Symi is in Europe??"
  3. 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "You think that Samos is in Europe?"
  4. 21:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC) "So, you think Lesbos is in Europe?"
  5. 19:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC) "Some of its islands are much closer to Asia than Europe."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Just returned at Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to repeat the same CIR edit-warring for which he got blocked in March and April 2018. Dr. K. 00:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:John Dick 78's purpose on Wikipedia seems to be edit warring about the status of certain Greek islands. He declares these islands to be in Asia not Europe. After six months and two prior blocks he seems unlikely to change. I propose an indefinite block. (Anybody who looks at a map will see the Greek islands stretching most of the way to Turkey. Someone needs to make an arbitrary decision whether these islands are in Europe or Asia. A new editor who arrives with a personal mission to change that assignment is not exactly helpful). EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This account seems fixated on this particular edit and has waged epic edit-wars to enforce it. To gain a perspective on the magnitude of disruption this has caused, please see the 31 March 2018 report featuring 8 reverts and the 2 April 2018 report featuring 5 reverts. Including today's report, this single edit has been enforced by edit-warring a total of 18 times. Dr. K. 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Lourdes 07:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Page
United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
LandRussia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 09:13, 16 October 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 864285545 by Ghmyrtle (talk) where is your consensus? Only cancel last change and think that it's ok. It's not ok"
  2. 08:58, 16 October 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 864284254 by Ghmyrtle (talk) census is not. But all information about population giving at 2017. Either it's estimate or something else, doesn't mater if it's working here a lot of time"
  3. 08:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864283409 by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) What? "plus the key had Russian text" so what? Are you rasist? Where wrote that all maps should key name on english?"
  4. 08:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864282622 by Dorsetonian (talk) go to discussion"
  5. 08:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864278547 by Roger 8 Roger (talk) take YOU talk, if you want. On this link this art using twice, it's awesome! My art is actual, there is nothing to talk about"
  6. 07:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864226472 by IdreamofJeanie (talk) return the actual version. Version from 2011 using twice on the link"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on United Kingdom ‎. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is also edit warring in the same way on Demographics of Poland, though hasn't exceeded three reverts there yet.

Conversation is not correct. Please, show the all history of change. Where is the history like "Remove meaningless chart" and like"just it incorrect" . I was getting only messages like that. If i wasn't getting something else, what i should do? I ust return change, because the arguments are not convincingLandRussia (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

LandRussia, you added a map of the "UK as of 2017". There was no 2017 census. Admins, note that they continued to revert even after they were reported here. Vermont (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also like to note this particularly concerning diff: [11]. Vermont (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Simba383 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: EC protection)[edit]

Page
Aziz Ahmed (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Simba383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:23, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC) to 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background and controversy */"
    2. 04:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background */"
  3. 04:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Family background*/"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Aziz Ahmed (general). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
  • Result: Article is EC protected 3 months. There is a steady stream of new editors, some autoconfirmed, who appear to be either sock or meat puppets. Use the talk page to get agreement on whether information about the general's family belongs in his article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has done anything about the rather obvious socking here, so I have opened an SPI case. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AssociateAffiliate reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AssociateAffiliate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "AssociateAffiliate moved page James Jones (cricketer, born 1878) to James Jones (cricketer, born 1870) over redirect: Perhaps you ought to check this... http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/Players/30/30663/30663.html"
  2. 21:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864381346 by Zackmann08 (talk) Yeah coz I pulled those dates out my arse, you know."
  3. 20:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has reverted multiple edits despite the fact that their edits broke the template and directly contradict the source on the page. The user did provide a link that supposedly supports their claim but it links to a page that requires paid access. When attempting to discuss the issue, user immediately resorted to accusing me of being on a power trip. I'm removing myself from any further edits to the page in question but would like an admin to look into this. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Lol. The fearful admin police. How do I plead your honour? Guilty! StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This is being discussed here. Hopefully this is now resolved. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined, and discussions, as mentioned by Lugnuts, are continuing. Lourdes 14:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Glory2Suriname reported by User:Ifnord and User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Khas people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Glory2Suriname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864502198 by Ifnord (talk) unexplained inclusion of unsourced content, please use talk page"
  2. 17:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864501979 by Ifnord (talk) I have adepquately ex"
  3. 17:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864501117 by D4iNa4 (talk)okay but the photos and unsourced content cannot just be included"
  4. 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 864494334 by 27.34.20.161 (talk) Khas ethnicity of the people in the photos not mentioned"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 17:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ reincluding source"
    2. 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ dubious tag added"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ unsourced and grammatically incorrect"
    2. 16:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ source is not in English, cannot verify what exactly it says"
    3. 16:42, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Origin Theories */ source links to wikipedia, full citation needed"
  7. 16:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ random IP is making assertions about my ethnicity and including unsourced photos"
  8. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ File says Nepali, not has"
    2. 15:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ All these files describe Nepalis and not Khas"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Editor refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Editor refuses to engage in discussion and is reverting all edits and has therefore breached the 3 revert rule. Glory2Suriname (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are correct in your self-assessment. Ifnord (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked: Glory2Suriname (talk · contribs) blocked by Favonian. for 24 hours. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:72bikers reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned user(s))[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: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In the edit summary

Comments:

72bikers has been one party to a particularly bitter content dispute on this page. I had proposed that two of the key editors in the dispute take the discussion to WP:DR/N as I thought they both made very good points and hoped to see a compromise solution. Another editor discussed whether the involvement of third parties might make that untenable and I argued that a lot of the editors involved would hopefully fall behind a compromise between these two key individuals. I also mentioned as an aside that there was one editor who I didn't expect would support any compromise but that I didn't think their position was relevant to the dispute. I did not name that editor.

72bikers then claimed I was casting aspersions on them. So I replied with a diff to where they'd made the precise statement that I'd previously referenced in my comment. They moved their accusation that I was casting aspersions and hatted my comment. I unhatted my comment and replied that it was hardly fair for them to accuse me of casting aspersions and then to hide the proof I had not done so when it was furnished. And they reverted it back out again. I should note that this page is covered under WP:1RR. Other editors restored my comment as I'd objected to its removal. and 72bikers continued edit warring to keep my statement hidden. As I understand it WP:1RR applies to article talk as well as the article. As they are well aware. This is not the first time they've been up here for edit warring on this page. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: they just self-reverted after receiving a second warning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned 72bikers self-reverted at my suggestion, and I restored the comment to follow the comment Simonm223 originally replied to, where 72bikers had subsequently moved it. I think we can call this resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've not looked into this particular edit war, but when this popped up on my watchlist I recalled that 72bikers has edit warred on this topic before. They should really try to be more relaxed and neutral about guns as a topic. Save everyone a lot of stress. Legacypac (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah several there should really just step back and take a break. Though I am not seeing the neutral issue you mention. PackMecEng (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It is strange that Legacypac would come here stating "more relaxed and neutral". Because I do not see how this could be construed as anything other than a threat from Legacypac. I point out this was made after Legacypac was asked to stay off my talk page which would be a second violation of WP:NOBAN. You insist on removing my posts [17] (my edit summary-Stay off my talk page this should take place on the noticeboard) that are on this topic - your conduct. Do you really want me to go to a notice board to get you sanctioned while you can't edit the notice board? [18] by editor Legacypac. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


This is the diff[19] of editor Simon223 used to cast aspersions. It was one edit to this paragraph.

Extended content

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective.

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018")

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018

As you can see It in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 has falsely claimed "I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten," As shown I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article from a expert in criminology James Alan Fox.

I fail to see why I should have to suffer this abuse. His comment were completely off topic and a violation of the restriction on the article.

  • Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith.


Should I open a complaint or deal with this here? I collapsed his comment because it was off topic and uncivil as to policy support. please advise. -72bikers (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


I would also point out editor Simon223 is trying to mislead with his comment about I am alone in my views, when in fact numerous editor agree with me, so I am no standout. The discussion going on is based on just one editor trying to make a claim that is not supported by any RS's, but simply trying to twist words and promote his own views that would just be OR. -72bikers (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Take it to ANi 72bikers. 3RR is not designed to deal with this kind of dispute. There we can vote on a "guns" topic ban for 72bikers. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've pointed out to 72bikers twice now that 1) the diff they've linked of Simonm223 casting aspersions is 72bikers' own edit, and 2) nobody can make a comment "at 30:21". In response they copy-pasted another response with the same two errors back on my talk page, and I see they've made those same two mistakes here. If the user is this difficult to deal with on the discussion page they should be banned from it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Just some clarification on the 30:21, I think they are refering to a time stamp on a video used for a source.[20] Not for a user comment here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thank you Pac I have addressed this on Ivanvector's talk page.
This is Dr. Fox a professor of criminology on C-SPAN[21]. The specific time was in relation to his comments. My whole edit at NPOV noticeboard you can read from the link editor 223 used, he said (incorrectly) supported his aspersions[22]. What I am providing here is the whole paragraph editor 223 claimed I was trying to remove all content about mass shootings from the AR-15 article. When in fact I was trying to include mass shooting content to the article. I will collapse to avoid looking like a wall of text.
Extended content

This source I feel could also be used in contrast of this. "to be widely characterized as the weapon of choice for perpetrators of these crimes" This statement is only supported by the media and in the article it does not state this definitive. All of the compiled data and expert analysis say handguns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice 62% of the time and more recent 70%. Being the facts clearly say this media claim is grossly incorrect, making it just sensationalized speculation. (I am not saying it needs to be removed, but just that it should be put into perspective.) I feel that Dr. Fox's comment on the medias sensationalized speculation's could be that perspective.

At 30:21 he states they don't use assalt weapons all the time only a quarter of the time and if they did not have those there are other weapons as equally deadly.

It has been stated on the AR Talk page that none of this is relevant to the article. ("Where does he say "ar-125" or "assault rifle " (a-or any thing approximate to those). This page is about AR-15 style rifles, not mass shootings. So if a source does not explicitly talk about (at the very least) semi-auto rifles it is irrelevant to this article.Slatersteven (talk), 7 October 2018")

I would like to hear what uninvolved editors views are on any inclusion for the section in the AR-15 article for the "Use in crime and mass shootings".-72bikers (talk) 9 October 2018

As you can see I in no way inferred what editor Simonm22 aspersions have falsely claimed [23],[24],[25]"I don't think at least one other editor are going to be satisfied with anything less than the complete excision of mass shootings from the article," and "You asked at WP:NPOV/N recently about deleting all mentions of mass shootings from the page, I can provide the diff if you've forgotten,". By not showing support of the aspersions, it is clear his actions are just violations of the civility restriction of uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. -72bikers (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

...They started an ANI section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_aspersions,_personal_attacks,_or_assumptions_of_bad_faith. --Tarage (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Amsgearing reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
Ron Stallworth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Amsgearing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

We've been having a slow-motion edit war (fewer than 3 reverts per 24 hours, typically) at Ron Stallworth. I've done what I could to bring in other opinions on the talk page, and it seems there is support for my position of including a photo or two, and I've compromised on just the one photo that several editors said they'd prefer, but Amsgearing just reverts any time I or another editor adds a photo.

The entire talk page consists of attempts to resolve this: Talk:Ron Stallworth. The argument continues about what the consensus opinion there was.

Amsgearing's reverts of photo additions:

I gave a 3RR warning here before his latest revert.

Advice would be welcome, or a block if this has gone too far. Block me, too, if you think that will help. Dicklyon (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I attempted, multiple times, to explain to Dicklyon that since the discussion revealed most editors were not in favor of using a high school yearbook photo as the lead image for an article about a police officer, the image should not be used. Dicklyon is emotionally attached to using this image because, apparently, he scanned it himself from his high school yearbook, and refuses to recognize that he's the only one in favor of using it. He engaged in WP:CANVAS here, where he asked a friend of his to weigh in on the topic, and that friend dutifully responded with support. Still, 3 other editors, including myself, weighed in that the image was inappropriate. Dicklyon never started an actual RfC, as I suggested, probably because he knows what the outcome would be. Amsgearing (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The suggestion that "Amsgearing just reverts any time I or another editor adds a photo" is a gross mischaracterization; the only other editor that re-added the exact same yearbook photo was his friend Randy Kryn, whom he canvassed to enlist support in this discussion. Amsgearing (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Full-protected for a short time to make sure everyone understands consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Krishendrix78 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Royal Air Force Museum London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krishendrix78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:46, 16 October 2018‎ (have merged the sections of description and aircraft on display. I hope this is better?)
  2. 18:19, 16 October 2018‎ (Two sections which were there before - and had been there for several years - were removed, which does not seem to make sense as other aviation museums do have lists of aircraft on display: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_aviation_museums_in_England)
  3. 18:57, 15 October 2018‎ (I have added independent references to the article, which back up all information in this article)
  4. 15:52, 15 October 2018‎ (Undid revision 864151123 by Mean as custard Hello, I am reverting this, because last time I did remove the promotional aspect. If you still feel it is incorrect or biased, please let me know which parts and I will gladly change them.)
  5. 11:10, 15 October 2018 (Undid revision 864137257 by Mean as custard (talk) I have reverted this edit and I will tone down any soapboxing. However, make sure you communicate about which parts you are unhappy. Dismissing and deleting my hard day's work is not really constructive !)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Comments: WP:PAID editor repeatedly inserting massive amount of unsourced, promotional cruft in the face of advice/warnings from myself, Mean as custard, David Biddulph and Cullen328. See my edit summary for details. Incidentally, Twinkle wouldn't load the report for me (3X!), so apologies if this is more malformed than usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talkcontribs)

  • Krishendrix78, this is the final discussion before blocking you. When your edits have been challenged, and if you continuously attempt to reinstate your version, this is considered disruptive. Moving forward, and IMP: Do you agree to only add that material which you have first discussed on the talk page and and have gained consensus for the same? Lourdes 14:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Dr Nobody reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Stale )[edit]

Page
Irish Bull Terrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dr Nobody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "http://staffordmall.com/standardhistory.htm"
  2. 22:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Anatomy */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* History */"
    2. 16:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Anatomy */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irish Bull Terrier. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Editors / Moderators */ Replying to Dr Nobody (reply-link)"
Comments:

Doesn't seem wiling to listen and keeps ignoring other editors. When I tried to engage and help them they told me to Please butt out of this page..., which seems to be an WP:OWN problem if nothing else. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 13:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Seems to have stopped of its own accord. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:178.93.238.254 reported by User:Pelmeen10 (Result: Protected )[edit]

User being reported
178.93.238.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page
Template:Events at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "reason?"
  2. 15:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 07:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC) ""
Page
Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:44‎, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "reason?"
  2. 20:43‎, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:58‎, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 10:17‎, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"
  2. 19:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning notice. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user has removed warnings from their talk page and continued edit warring without discussing or justifying the edits. The pages involved: Template:Events at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2014 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics, Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics, 2018 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, 2014 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table, List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners, 2016 Winter Youth Olympics medal table. Possibly previously used IP: 37.54.3.197 (talk · contribs). Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Wait... What is "oktoober"? Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to memy contributions) 12:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It's October in Estonian. I used TW, I don't know it does not use English... --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not more than 3 reverts in 24 hours here. The correct links to "medal tables" and "lists of medallists" (where exists) were added by me to the navigation boxes. The event navboxes have the links to all medal tables in the individual sports and finally should be linked to the "total medal table". Basic navboxes like {{Events at the 2016 Summer Olympics}} has similar format many years already. Note, Pelmeen10 didn't say any rationale for his reverts. What is the problem with this edits? 178.93.238.254 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected for 24 hours. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: This was not the only page I reported, see Template:Events at the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh right; done that as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: But no actions towards the user, not even a warning? Clearly broke the 3RR in that last page. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, because then I'd have to warn you and Sportsfan 1234 for edit warring too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jawswade reported by User:Saqib (Result: No action )[edit]

Page: Humayun Akhtar Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jawswade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Jawswade's reverts :

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]
  6. [43]
  7. [44]
  8. [45]
  9. [46]
  10. [47]

Comments:
a SPA having COI adding unsourced promotional material to a BLP despite warnings on their user talk page. Also I gave a 3RR warning. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale No discussion on the talk page. Try that first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Did you see User talk:Jawswade ? Despite 3RR warning, Jawswade continue to edit war. --Saqib (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw a pile of Twinkle spam but no substantial discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: But this is not really a newbie. The user have been editing like an experienced user from day first as one see here. Anyway, I've initiated a discussion on the article's talk page but what if he does not care to respond? --Saqib (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Pleckaitis reported by User:Openlydialectic (Result: Alerted to ARBEE)[edit]

Page
2018 Kerch Polytechnic attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pleckaitis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 15:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 12:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) to 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 12:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 12:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
  2. 12:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Help 2018 Kerch bombing. (TW)"
  3. 12:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Kerch explosion 2018. (TW)"
  4. 12:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Fyderast. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Keeps pushing the same unreferenced POV stuff (e.g. added a line about Russian government's involvement into the massacre 30 minutes after the article was created without citing a single source and kep adding it for a while after my reversions). Was trying to add unrelated categories (e.g. linking the article to the category about Russian apartment bombings of 1999). Has a history of the same POV pushing (which I highlighted among the warnings given above) and multiple warnings apparently didn't help. I reported him for vandalism but apparently that doesn't classify as vandalism according to User:Ferret so I am reporting him for edit warring instead since he's still engaged on the article Openlydialectic (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

  • For whoever evaluates this case, the relevant declined AIV report: here. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No action on the edit warring, since they made no edits since 17 October, but the user is alerted to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBEE. For the full context, see the AIV thread including Ferret's comments. The page in dispute has recently been moved to Kerch Polytechnic College attack. Pleckaitis' edits are at most POV pushing and not bad-faith vandalism. Still, if they continue with the POV pushing it could lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Yajmir reported by User:Glory2Suriname (Result: no block)[edit]

Page: Bahun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yajmir (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. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahun&diff=864793372&oldid=864792613
  2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahun&diff=864789215&oldid=864788743
  3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahun&diff=864788729&oldid=864688528
  4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bahun&diff=864791181&oldid=855768329

Comments:

I have asked the user to provide sources for his assertions however he has failed to do so. He has repeatedly removed that sourced section which was created by another user.Glory2Suriname (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • CommentWhile Yajmir has three reverts here, there is a pretty meaty content dispute that hinges on issues with whether the sources involved are being represented correctly for a rather extraordinary claim. I've stuck my nose in and taken two of the sources to WP:RS/N and would suggest that, if these parties will agree to keep their dispute to article talk while the sources are adjudicated, this is probably one that can be left at a warning. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • One of Yajmir's reverts was more or less pro forma, because Oshwah had--rightly--reverted them for reverting without explanation, so I am not going to count that against them. HOWEVER, I am going to restore what one might call the previous version, because I think that's fair while there's discussion going on, and I am going to warn Yajmir that if they falsely accuse editors of "vandalism" they will be blocked. Closing this. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Juanpumpchump reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Lady Amelia Windsor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Juanpumpchump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53] (and a discussion on their talk page as well [54])

Comments:
I tried to start a discussion on the article talk page, inviting the editor to engage with me on the article talk page by asking them on their personal talk page, and was met with hostility. A conversation began on the talk page but no consensus was made and the editor continued to revert. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Juanpumpchump, while I personally may agree with your removal of contents from the article, the way you've gone about getting it done is highly disruptive. You're liable for a straight block right now, unless you confirm at the soonest that you will (1) refrain from edit warring and will never again cross the WP:3RR line; (2) self-revert your last three consecutive edits to the article and wait for consensus on the talk page before removing the material (I may support you in talk page discussions) (3) stop pointing out other editors' past block logs in your discussions. I'm giving you this last chance to accept these conditions, failing which you will be blocked. Lourdes 18:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just logged in for the first time today.

No further revisions on the subject from me.

Juanpumpchump (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You haven't self-reverted your edits yet, as per the second condition. Please do that when you are next available. -- Willthacheerleader18 (