Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive381

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Lewysmithy96 (Result: protected)

Page: Liverpool John Lennon Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Charlesdrakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8]
  8. [9]
  9. [10]
  10. [11]
  11. [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:
Persistent disruptive editing of both Bordeaux and Liverpool Airport pages. I have only listed Bordeaux here but the same has happened on the Liverpool page. User:Charlesdrakew refers to "advertising", "promotion" and "spam" on edits which show future flights on Wikipedia - something which is and has always been shown on airport Wikipedia pages. Myself and others users all agree these things are to be shown - again User:Charlesdrakew is the only one who believes this to be wrong. This has been discussed on a talk page and on his talk page. I very strongly believe User:SovalValtos is a sock-puppet or affiliated with User:Charlesdrakew also. Lewysmithy96 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Like I've said in my edit summary we don't add future services, You added content, You were reverted, You then go to the talkpage and discuss your changes, Personally I would say Bonner16 is a sock of Lewysmithy96 but either way I cba filing an SPI, The only editor(s) edit warring are Bonner & Lewy. –Davey2010Talk 19:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

To User:Davey2010 firstly I have no connection to User:Lewysmithy96 I only noticed that she has been experiencing the same issues with User:Charlesdrakew on the Bordeaux Airport page as I have been on the Liverpool Airport page.

You say we don't add future destinations unless there is notability around it. I take it you will be removing future destinations from all airport pages then, as it would be rather unfair to have one rule for LJLA and another rule for everyone else.

Also will you then reinstate Warsaw-Chopin as a destination from Liverpool as it's been flown since 2004 but User:Charlesdrakew insists on removing it which in my view is simply vandalism. Thank you Bonner16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  • All my reverts are to remove refspamming and use of Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. The content being added contravenes policy in multiple ways e.g. WP:NOTTRAVEL WP:NOTDIR, WP:PROMO. It is also WP:Recentism and mostly original research. This is permissible editing to protect Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No I shan't be doing that as that involves 24/7 monitoring!, I currently have 29,000 items on my watchlist so as such it's impossible to remove items and then keep tabs on them, The 2004 thing I would personally allow but things vary from editor to editor (so what I might consider fine Charles may not and what Charles considers fine I may not ... so you'd need to go to the talkpage for that one). –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Infact your best bet would've been to start a discussion on the talkpage (which if that failed then you have a variety of venues (WP:DRN, WP:30, or WP:RFC)). –Davey2010Talk 00:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected both — upgraded @Airplaneman:'s on Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport to full since it looks like it'll continue there too (and he's more than welcome to change it back himself if/whenever he so desires or if he disagrees). --slakrtalk / 03:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Robynthehode reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Fully protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16] (outside of 24 hours, so does not count for 3RR
  2. [17] (first edit inside the last 24 hours)
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

The material in question, sourced to The Guardian was orginally added by an IP editor here, on 15 December. Robynthehode was the first editor to revert it, on the same day. [23] I myself reverted it once [24] before I realized that it was sourced (I deleted it as unsourced information). The IP continued to add it, and Robynthehode continued to delete it. Between his third and fourth deletions, I took the material added by the IP, re-wrote it, adjusted it to more closely follow the source, moved it to a different position in the sub-section it had been in, and restored it to the article. At least one editor, who had been involved in the editing, thanked me for this expansion & correction of the material. Ninety minutes after I had posted it, Robynthehode deleted it again. I reverted, pointing out in my edit summary that the material was sourced, and that, generally, sourced information (as opposed to unsourced information) should not be removed from an article without a discussion on the talk page which generates a consensus for the removal. [25] Robynthehode nevertheless deleted it again, two minutes later, claiming that this was justified because it was the status quo ante of the article.

However (1) The material is about artificial islands in Dubai; (2) The sub-section it was in was "Artificial islands"; and (3) The material was sourced to a eminently reliable source, and -- because of my re-write -- followed the source. I believe, therefore, that despite being a disputed edit, as a disputed legitimately sourced edit, it should not have been removed from the article without a consensus decision to do so.

I have no desire for Robinthehose to be blocked, my only desire is for an admin to warn them for removing sourced material without a talk page consensus to do so, and then edit-warring over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake and edit warred. I don't have time to reassess my efforts at the moment. My edits were to prevent an IP from including information that was initially unsourced but was also irrelevant to the article because it was duplicating information in other articles. My full reasons are on the talk page of the Islands. If an admin looks at the edit history they will see this IP editor had no interest in taking the issue to the talk page and another editor apart from Beyond My Ken reverted this information. I was not reverting established article information as it was only initially included on 10th Dec by the IP editor. It is surely up to any of the editors that want this material included to provide a reason for inclusion beyond providing a reliable source. If I technically edit warred then I apologise. However admins need to look at the edit histories of 144.138.236.221 to see that this IP is included lots of unsourced or irrelevant information in numerous articles Robynthehode (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Thee is no policy that the same information cannot appear in more than one article if the information is pertinent to both. The decision whether to include information in an article other than the primary one is an editorial decision, and therefore can only be decided by consensus. Robinthyhode, however, appears to want to make that decision by himself. Exclusion because of "relevance" is not a situation which calls for the information to be suppressed until there is a consensus to keep it. Since the information is not in any way dangerous or harmful, and is supported by a reliable source, it should be included in the article unless and until a consensus of editors decides that it is not relevant enough and deletes it, or endorse the deletion.
If there were something "off" about the information, then Robynthehode's suggestion would make some sense, but that is not the case here. There is no sourcing issue, no BLP issue, no issue of copyvio, no issue whatever, in fact, except that Robynthehode doesn't want to include it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know whether what Beyond My Ken says above is correct or not. But relevance to an article or section of an article should surely be taken into account and something that demands that the article status quo remains until consensus is reached for its inclusion despite reliable sources being provided. If not then editors can include any non-relevant information and it is then incumbent of other editors to challenge this and reach consensus for its removal. This means that lots of irrelevant (but not off topic) information can remain in articles. The emphasis should be on an argument for inclusion not exclusion. Happy to be corrected on this. Robynthehode (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:46.189.233.85 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)

Page: Inflation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.189.233.85 (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. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
  4. [29]
  5. [30]
  6. [31]

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

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Inflation#Measurement_and_reporting_of_inflation

Comments:

Not 3RR, but IP has made claim 6 times now that daily consumer price indices (CPI) mean that inflation rates are calculated daily, and has been undone 5 times by 4 different editors. IP said that he would leave this alone [33] but returned to it today after blanking his user talk page, and his article talk page comments. Edits have switched from flatly claiming that inflation rates are calculated daily to couching it in terms of CPI, but edit summary here "Or do you want to state again that the Daily CPI and inflation is not the same ..." clearly shows intent is the same. Meters (talk) 23:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Rs21867 reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)

Page: Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rs21867 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Rs21867's first edit reverted by Doug Weller. Rs21867 then reinstated this edit four times with slight modifications, while being reverted by a total of three separate editors.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here I advised Rs21867 "to stop edit warring. Feel free to open a discussion on talk ... "; Ravensfire provided a more formal warning and urged Rs21867 "to self-revert and stick with the talk page."

Comments:
As anyone that checks the account's history can quickly confirm, Rs21867 appears to be involved in a wide range of edit warring across multiple articles despite warnings to stop, perhaps most egregiously reinstating (without explanation) a large-scale WP:COPYVIO at Timeline of Gulf War (1990–1991) after it was removed by Doug Weller. Rs21867's previous four-day edit warring block expired on December 7, less than two weeks ago.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.10.73.140 disruptive editing

User makes edits to reorder cast lists without any explanation. Sometimes these edits bring back old content, and old mistakes, and old unreliable sources (like IMDB), or needlessly reformat the cast list as a Table. Frequently the user is repeats those edits despite having been reverted. User_talk:71.10.73.140 talk page shows many examples. The most recent example that the user is not learning from warnings is an edit to the article Miss Congeniality (film). Despite changes from the 8 of December being reverted and reverted again on December 15 the user made those same changes yet again on December 18. The user does not respond to request to provide edit summaries and does not comment on user talk page either. This is just one article as an example, the users edit history is full of edits which can at best be described as misguided, and I think a block of some kind is necessary. (I'm new to this process so I expect I haven't followed the procedure precisely but hopefully this is close enough.) -- 109.76.239.99 (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:SWmedianbg reported by User:FormalDude (Result: Protected)

Page
Blimey Cow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SWmedianbg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Jordan Taylor */Add content"
  2. 03:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Josh Taylor */Added content"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:39, 17 December 2018 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Blimey Cow. (TW)"
  3. 01:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Blimey Cow. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user continues to add an unreferenced section, and the remove the citation needed tag, despite three notices. They appear to be using multiple accounts. —FormalDude(talk) 02:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Declined)

Page
Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874313314 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
  2. 13:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874312173 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) Try following the instructions on the page"
  3. 13:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874311976 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
  4. 12:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874302141 by AlexTheWhovian (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The resolution discussion can be seen at Template talk:Series overview#Requested move 18 December 2018. A technical request was filed[38], and was contested and moved to discussion by myself[39]. The reported editor has since continuously reverted the removal, listing the template as a technical request despite being moved to discussion. Per the instructions: "If your technical request is contested, or if a contested request is left untouched without reply, create a requested move on the article talk and remove the request from the section here." The request was contested, the requested move was created, and thus the request needs to be removed from here. The reported editor is well aware of the instructions at the page, as noted by their own mention of the instructions: "Try following the instructions on the page"[40] -- AlexTW 13:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this ("Arkell v. Pressdram applies") considered a violation of WP:WIKILAWYER? "Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy (spurious legalisms)"? -- AlexTW 13:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
No, he's telling you to fuck off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Only in death, I don't believe that that is entirely fair; the editor needs to abide by the rules of the Technical Requested Moves forum, just as any other editor needs to. I still believe it is: "Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way". -- AlexTW 13:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
See Arkell vs Pressdram he is by reference, telling you to fuck off. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Only further supporting the multiple personal attacks, such as "canvassing" when informing a WikiProject, in this string of unacceptable behaviour. -- AlexTW 13:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Edit warring is edit warring, it doesn't matter who does it. Andy should know this by now which makes it more disappointing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also noted should be the editor's worrying attitude as displayed at Template talk:Series overview#Requested move 18 December 2018 and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 December 17#Template:Infobox television, the latter of which seems to be the cause of the actions taken concerning the Requested Move for the series overview template. -- AlexTW 13:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing has been secretly disruptive about merging Infobox season and infobox episode to infobox television, which is strongly opposed by many users for good reasons since he didn't take it up with WP:TV about it, among other things. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined While first looking at this my instinct was to block but I notice that Pigsonthewing has made several edits since their last revert. I take it that they are done and thus blocking would not serve a purpose other than punishment. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    CambridgeBayWeather, fair enough. This sort of behaviour does require a stern warning, however. It is unacceptable to continuously revert despite the instructions given on the page, and this behaviour seems to be purely out of ill will, given their lack of revert when another editor removed the request. -- AlexTW 10:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I think that user should get a stern warning over his behavior and such. Call me a pessimist, but I'm suspecting that he did that to cover himself. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

User:194.81.49.187 reported by User:Barkeep49 (Result: Blocked)

Page
Aquaria (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
194.81.49.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874494936 by Another Believer (talk)"
  2. 16:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874493214 by Another Believer (talk)"
  3. 16:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874491105 by Another Believer (talk)"
  4. 16:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Szayel Aporro Granz. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Is edit warring across two and a half articles (Aquaria (drag queen), Szayel Aporro Granz, & Szayel Aporro Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Two month schoolblock. Edit warring at multiple articles. Already blocked twice in November for as long as a week. EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Declined)

Page: Crime in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous similar reports: [1}, [2]

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42] - Original edit, not a revert. Edit was synthesising a WP:POV to interpret something the source did not state. Source cites three authorities. ZH8000 is attempting to claim a single authority only which the source does not claim. Reverted to what the source states.
  2. [43] - Revert, claiming his unreferenced opinion that the other two authorities are not authorities. Reverted by a German IP.
  3. [44] - Reverted again with an unsupported WP:POV comment that universities and hospitals are not reliable authorities. This in spite of the single authority he wants in the article being a university and a hospital. Reverted again by German IP demanding a supporting source per WP:BURDEN.
  4. [45] - Reverted again with ZH8000 claiming once more that a university has 'no right to exercise power' (whatever that has to do with it). Also tells IP, "please don't be dumb". Original version reverted again by myself. Warning posted to ZH8000's talk page about the WP:SYNTHESIS of the source and possibly WP:OR about his opinion on what is and what is not an authority.

Note: Warning deleted by ZH8000 without a response. Also US IP adds a reference mentioning ZH8000's claimed authority, but original source still has others so 'multiple sources' is still correctly supported.

  1. [46] Once again reverted by ZH8000 claiming original version contradicts sources (which it does not).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] Not only a 3RR warning as but a warning of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR of which this user has a long history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48] - Since behavioural issues of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR involved, posted to User talk page.

Comments:

ZH8000 did make a post to the article talk page prior to his last revert. Although the English was almost incomprehensible, he is merely restating his unsupported opinion that hospitals and universities are not authorities (even though the authority he insists on is both a university and hospital). TheVicarsCat (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment ZH8000's long habit of edit-warring (4 blocks), combined with his introduction of poor English to articles, and his obstinate, often indecipherable posts on talkpages, make it quite tedious for those of us trying to collaborate on articles. Eric talk 16:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Additional comment Another user has observed on the article talk page, that ZH8000 has most likely misunderstood the term 'authority' in that he may be assuming authority as in 'some form of law making entity' rather than authority as in an 'authoritative reliable source of information'. In view of both my and Eric's comment about both written English and English comprehension above there seems to be a WP:CIR issue here in addition to the above problems. TheVicarsCat (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined The edit warring was almost 2 weeks ago. Yes I see they did revert yesterday. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
CambridgeBayWeather The edit warning might have been issued two weeks ago, but it was seen by ZH8000 for the first time on the 18th, after a period of absence between the warning and the 18th. the last revert was immediately after they saw this warning. I would not accept an argument that the edit was made before the warning was read because the opportunity existed to revert after reading the warning. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Blocking now would be punishment rather than preventing damage. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism on Secure Fence Act of 2006 by User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:7rexkrilla (Result: boomerang block, 31 hours)

Page: Secure Fence Act of 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:

User refuses to discuss changes on talk page, spills constant bullsh*t, undoes before checking changes and sources

You know, when you've reverted as many times as you have, you don't get to accuse other people of edit warring. And you CERTAINLY don't get to call their edits vandalism. --Calton | Talk 14:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours The reporting editor had been warned about edit warring yet persisted in doing so. —C.Fred (talk) 14:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Pzhanik reported by User:Cubbie15fan (Result: Articles protected)

Page
Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pzhanik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874503158 by Cubbie15fan (talk) WP:VERIFY Number of conference championships are wrong, NCAA tournament was first held in 1939, All championships earned pre-1939 can be stated. Provide verified reference."
  2. 17:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874499071 by Cubbie15fan (talk) provide Wikipedia:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY"
  3. 16:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "removed WP:NOR"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 15:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC) to 16:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "removed WP:NOR WP:Vandal Pre-Associated Press Poll champions cannot be included under Pre-Tournament Premo-Poretta championships. First NCAA Tournament started in 1939."
    2. 15:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "removed WP:NOR NCAA doesn't recognize Premo-Porretta Poll rankings."
    3. 15:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 15:51, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    5. 16:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 23:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC) to 14:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
    1. 23:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 14:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    5. 14:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
    6. 14:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR"
    7. 14:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "removed WP:NOR"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Syracuse Orange men's basketball. (TW)"
  2. 14:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Syracuse Orange men's basketball. (TW)"
  3. 15:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. (TW)"
  4. 18:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Lengthy discussion. Click to view
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Issue has also been occuring on Syracuse Orange men's basketball. Have tried to resolve via discussion on my own talk page per this user reaching out, however discussion has not continued and edit war has ensued. Cubbie15fan (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


Page
Syracuse Orange men's basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of edits made on 18 December 2018
  1. 12:24, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik‎ m . . (130,700 bytes) -2‎
  2. 13:24, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (132,546 bytes) +1,846‎ . . ( Syracuse University Athletics scandal titles and banners claim added. Syracuse's NCAA Tournament appearances and Big East trophies weren't vacated.)
  3. 13:32, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (132,678 bytes) +132‎
  4. 14:10, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik‎ m . . (132,676 bytes) -2‎
  5. 14:18, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (132,676 bytes) 0‎
  6. 16:22, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (136,087 bytes) +3,411‎ . . (Ap poll history added)
  7. 16:31, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,016 bytes) -71‎ . . (→‎National polls)
  8. 16:43, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (136,059 bytes) +43‎
  9. 20:18, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,091 bytes) +32
  10. 20:20, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,091 bytes) 0‎ . . (→‎Home Court)
  11. 20:22, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,091 bytes) 0 . . (→‎Carrier Dome)
  12. 20:24, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik‎ m . . (136,091 bytes) 0‎
  13. 21:25, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,091 bytes) 0‎ . . (→‎Coaches)
  14. 21:27, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,091 bytes) 0‎ . . (→‎Coaches)
  15. 21:59, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (136,916 bytes) +825‎ . . (→‎Home Court)
  16. 22:08, 18 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan. . (137,029 bytes) +113‎ . . (Added {advert}, {peacock} and {weasel} tags (within {multiple issues}) to article (TW))
  17. 22:37, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (137,106 bytes) +77‎ . . (record at MSG added)
  18. 22:38, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (137,106 bytes) 0‎
  19. 22:47, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (136,146 bytes) -960‎ . . (removed weasel words, and advertisement like information. Facts and stats are supported by references)
  20. 22:55, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (135,906 bytes) -240‎



  1. 22:08, 18 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan. . (137,029 bytes) +113‎ . . (Added {advert}, {peacock} and {weasel} tags (within {multiple issues}) to article (TW))
  2. 22:37, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (137,106 bytes) +77‎ . . (record at MSG added)
  3. 22:38, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (137,106 bytes) 0‎
  4. 22:47, 18 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (136,146 bytes) -960‎ . . (removed weasel words, and advertisement like information. Facts and stats are supported by references)


  • Next day, 19 December 2018. Following edits were made.


Diffs of edits made on 19 December 2018
  1. 14:00, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan . . (136,019 bytes) +113‎ . . (Added {advert}, {peacock} and {weasel} tags (within {multiple issues}) to article (TW))
  2. 14:07, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan‎ . . (135,891 bytes) -128‎ . . (→‎Madison Square Garden: removed WP:WEASEL and fixed tense)
  3. 14:11, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan . . (135,694 bytes) -197‎ . . (removed WP:NOR and WP:WEASEL in intro)
  4. 14:18, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (135,726 bytes) +32‎
  5. 14:25, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan . . (135,728 bytes) +2‎ . . (→‎The Pearl: removed WP:EUPHEMISM)
  6. 14:26, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan . . (135,841 bytes) +113‎ . . (Added {advert}, {peacock} and {weasel} tags (within {multiple issues}) to article (TW))
  7. 14:33, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan . . (135,646 bytes) -195‎ . . (→‎Carrier Dome: removed WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR)
  8. 14:42, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (135,757 bytes) +111‎ . . (→‎Madison Square Garden)
  9. 14:43, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik‎ . . (136,383 bytes) +626‎
  10. 15:06, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik m . . (136,373 bytes) -10‎ . . (→‎Madison Square Garden)


  • As highlighted above, user Cubbie15fan added a maintenance tag once again, considering my response to his message wasn't satisfying. User Cubbie15fan proceeded to make edits herself/himself. I reverted her/his changes with providing reliable sources, which user Cubbie15fan later agreed with.


  1. 14:42, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (135,757 bytes) +111‎ . . (→‎Madison Square Garden)
  2. 14:43, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (136,383 bytes) +626‎


  • It reasonably appeared to me that the maintenance template did not belong when placed or was added in error, considering the fact that I was in the middle of the process of editing the page, and user Cubbie15fan‎ removes some of the information that I just added, without waiting on completion of the edit. I considered first discussing the matter with the original placer (Cubbie15fan) of the template and left a message on user's talk page to encourage a discussion. Cubbie15fan removed words that accurately represent the opinions of the source that I provided; therefore, I consider WP:WEASEL and WP:NOR edits and tags made by user Cubbie15fan unreasonable. I assumed that user didn't go over the article thoroughly and asked to "point out where exactly a neutral point of view is not maintained... so we can improve it"


Diffs of the attempt to resolve dispute on user's Cubbie15fan‎ talk page
  1. 14:47, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (43,993 bytes) +124‎ . . (→‎Check for validity first before removing.: new section)
  2. 14:32, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (43,869 bytes) +177‎ . . (→‎Consider discussing on a talk page.: new section)
  3. 15:03, 19 December 2018‎ Pzhanik . . (45,659 bytes) +360‎ . . (→‎Consider discussing on a talk page.)
  4. 15:12, 19 December 2018‎ Cubbie15fan . . (46,645 bytes) +691‎ . . (→‎Consider discussing on a talk page.)


  • Essentially, user Cubbie15fan disrupted my edits without waiting on their completions. That issue could have been resolved by talking, which I initiated.
Page
Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've made some edits to the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball page which I found very reasonable. The content within that article must be verifiable in reliable sources which wasn't the case. I addressed the issue in edit summary. However the user Cubbie15fan wasn't open for any discussions instead he/she kept reverting my edits and marking them as VANDALISM. I proceeded to encourage a discussion on the Illinois Fighting Illini men's basketball talk page and user Cubbie15fan's talk page. Pzhanik 15:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzhanik (talkcontribs)

User:24.35.241.72 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Blocked)

Page
Annette Bening (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
24.35.241.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 00:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 23:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. 23:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Annette Bening. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Same edit-war on Warren Beatty plus BLP violations on Rose McGowan from this IP. Ravensfire (talk) 15:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 year by User:HJ Mitchell. This is a dispute about the gender of one of Bening's children who appears to be in transition. Should the issue actually be MOS:GENDERID, a solution might be to change the article to say they have four children without specifying the number of boys or girls. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:38.70.238.231 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

Page
Samurai Warriors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
38.70.238.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 874257055 by Classicwiki (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring after block and 3RR notification by administrator on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 4 days. Continuation of the same edit war at Samurai Warriors after many warnings and a previous 48 hour block. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Ruslik0 reported by User:108.173.19.46 (Result: no action)

Page: Hepatitis C vaccine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Hepatitis C virus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ruslik0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56] and [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [58]
  2. [59]
  3. [60]
  4. [61]
  5. [62]
  6. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has refused to comment on talk. Communication via edit summaries.

Comments:

  • User reverting edits for reasons such as “crap” and “abandoned” (violation of WP:OR and WP:V). 108.173.19.46 (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No action necessary at this time. I suggest the IP editor(s) discuss the matter at the talk page and provide an updated source. I do not see any problem with Ruslik0 removing this material—even removing it three times over the past 10 days. —C.Fred (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    I have two problems with the text that this IP tries constantly to add to the article:
    1. The source is not very reliable for medical information. It is a news site and such sources tend to overhype the significance of the results. I would prefer a good medical journal article.
    2. The news it self is old (almost seven years old) and its inclusion does not seem to be warranted as such news appear quite regularly and Wikipedia does not need to report them all especially when the research has failed to produce any significant results. In addition the IP is constantly trying to say that it "is being tested" now, which is inappropriate as the news, as I said above, is seven years old and it is unclear whether this research effort continues now.
    Ruslik_Zero 09:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ruslik0: It is an academic source, and therefore, reliable. This page shows the current status and how "Phase I clinical trials are expected to start mid to late 2019." 108.173.18.28 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've semi-protected the page to force discussion to the article talkpage. This noticeboard isn't a forum for discussion of content. Acroterion (talk) 03:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:244:4700:7F30:8925:BC49:64DC:1F5F reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Semi)

Page
Book of Daniel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:244:4700:7F30:8925:BC49:64DC:1F5F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC) "I’m getting real sick of having to fix this guys"
  2. 04:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC) "yeet"
  3. 04:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC) "Fixed dating error again"
  4. 03:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC) "Fixed dating error"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Book of Daniel. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:Book of Daniel#2nd century BCE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

IP could be banned user Til Eulenspiegel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Result: Page semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Esiymbro reported by User:יניב הורון (Result: Both warned, duplicate)

Page: Antisemitism in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Esiymbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66] Notice how he tried to hide the edit summary, but his edit was a direct revert of Galassi
  2. [67]
  3. [68]
  4. [69]

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

Comments: User keeps restoring his disputed content without consensus. יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • "He tried to hide the edit summary, but edit was a direct revert of Galassi" It is not. His revert summary is WP:RS, and I updated the source. Esiymbro (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't make a difference. You restored your disputed content, with or without a different source. That's called a revert.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
"A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit." Source is part of the content. Someone asked for source, and I added one. Esiymbro (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, can you explain what in my added content accounts for an "unreliable source"? Esiymbro (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
You can't, right? Esiymbro (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Bilby reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)

Page: David Wolfe (raw food advocate) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bilby (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. [72] (2nd December)
  1. [73]
  2. [74]
  3. [75]
  4. [76]
  5. [77] (smaller change, not removal)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Repeated removal of uncomplimentary, but sourced, content in a BLP.

This is obvious edit-warring, claiming such things as "per talk" and "per consensus". However it's against three other editors, all making the same point: this is sourced content with no good grounds to challenge it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:David Wolfe (raw food advocate)#Solar panels and levitating water (This is probably the best place to start reading, followed by the Snopes ref that is linked there)

Warned on user talk: [78], but this was immediately blanked as "rv - 3R does not apply to BLP violations"

Also raised at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#David Wolfe (raw food advocate)

Comments:

  • As explained on the talk page, these are BLP violations, and reverting BLP violations is not subject to 3R. There are two claims being repeatedly added - one uses an SPS which we cannot use per WP:BLPSPS, and the other failed verification and is not supported by the source, which specifically quotes the subject as saying that he does not believe the claim being attributed to him. Andy Dingley is well aware of this, as explained on the talk page of the article concerned [79], and reverted to add the BLP violations back into the article. - Bilby (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a 3RR exception for sourcing at BLP, not simply "anything I want to do with a BLP". To claim that, you're going to have to show that the Snopes ref fails WP:RS.
There is a Forbes ref too, which you're claiming as SPS. However even that's no reason to remove it, merely a constraint that we can't rely on it. Which we aren't, as we have the Snopes ref as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've just noticed that you were removing much the same section four times in November too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty much repeating what I wrote above, but I am not saying that snopes.com is unreliable. I've been saying - as you would surely be aware - that snopes.com does not say that he believes that "solar panels drain the sun's power". It says that he once posted a meme with that in it, which is not the same as saying he believes it to be true, and the source specifically quotes Wolfe as saying that he did not mean it to be taken literally. It is a clear violation of BLP to say that he believes something when the source does not make that claim, and it is certainly a violation of BLP to say that he believes it when the source specifically quotes him as saying that he does not. Clear violations of BLP need to be removed - we already had an active discussion of this, which is where it should be handled. It should not be handled be returning BLP violations to the article. - Bilby (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You've once again removed it. You changed "claimed" (which he did, he posted the literal text, "draining the Sun") to "he also stated that this was not meant to be taken literally" which is a false and misleading use of "also", when he only did that two days later, after extensive ridicule. The point is, as confirmed by Snopes and by easily checking the primary source of the Twitter timestamps, that he made this statement without (not "also") the "not serious" retraction and that only came two days later.
You are obviously edit-warring against (now four) other editors. You justify this with a "BLP" exception to 3RR which requires you to show that Snopes is failing as RS. Yet you have still done no such thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why I have to say this again, but I am not saying that Snopes.com is unreliable. I am saying that it does not support the text that "Wolfe believes ... that solar panels drain the sun's power", because the source did not say this, and the source specifically quoted Wolfe stating that he did not hold that belief. The BLP violation is not that Snopes.com is unrelaible, it is that it did not support the text added to the article. - Bilby (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • it does not support the text that "Wolfe believes ..."
Fortunately the article doesn't say that. But you keep removing it despite.
What Snopes does refute though is your addition, "he also stated that this was not meant to be taken literally". Doing it two days later, after online scorn, is not an "also". Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The content you accused me of reverting - and which you added back - did say that he "believed" that [80]. It now says something different as I'm trying to find some compromise wording that meets BLP. - Bilby (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • These are good faith removals of content which violates BLP, and are exempt from 3RR. The Snopes source may be reliable, but it does not directly support the article text for which it was referenced. Forbes contributor sites are SPS. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. We plainly provide an exception under the 3RR for editorial removal of unsubstantiated content from a living person's biography. I am satisfied that the content about subject's belief that solar panels steal energy from the sun is not substantiated with sufficient certainty. (Seemingly there is a line that he will not cross.)
    Users have a greater measure of obligation to resolve editorial disagreements on the talk page when the content relates to a living person. Reverting to err on the side of caution while that discussion is underway is also generally permitted. Consequently, AN3 should not be used as it has been in this report: all parties should please return to the discussion and focus their efforts there. AGK ■ 21:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I think you should check WP:BLPREMOVE again. " Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the biographies of living persons noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. " Note the direction of this: editors relying on the exemption should be cautious and should use BLPN first. Not "it's a get out of jail free card" unless proven otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Wildandwounded reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page
Britt Robertson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wildandwounded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
  2. 21:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
  3. 19:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
  4. 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
    Additional revert after this was filed
  5. 23:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC) "/* November 2018 */ fix"
  2. 21:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Britt Robertson. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
Also note that they say they don't care if the get blocked and will continue to edit war[81] ~ GB fan 22:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

User:יניב הורון reported by User:Esiymbro (Result: Both warned)

Page: Antisemitism in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [83]
  2. [84]
  3. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

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

Comments: Repeatedly removal of content and the user's excuse "unreliable source" is blatantly false. The page is guardsd by a small number of editors who remove any content not in line of their views so I doubt a discussion will go anywhere. Esiymbro (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Note - Both individuals are culpable of the same thing. [88]. This [89], in fact, sourced record, as well as repeated removal of it [90], should be discussed on the article's talk page. No such conversation took place [91] PS - I'll gladly share my view if such a dialogue starts but for now either warn or sanction both editors if needed, not just one. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Well there is already a conversation here and no one has responded yet. One side was clearly not interested in improving this article. You can see the records of these users. Besides, refuting such a basic fact with "unreliable source" is already ridiculous enough. Esiymbro (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, three reverts in less than 24 hours is NOT a violation of 3RR, but four reverts is (see my report below). Also WP:ONUS is on him to gain consensus for his controversial edit, which was rejected by two editors.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

And WP:REVEXP is on you. Without any explanation, your current edits are vandalism, not rejection. Esiymbro (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I started the talk here [92] so go there and discuss instead of edit warring and silly reporting each other. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Replied there. Esiymbro (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note - the inserted content is WP:SYNTH, and given the Jewish Bolshevism anti-semitic canard - one should be very careful in inserting such content without on-topic sources. Icewhiz (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Good job branding anyone who disagree with you as a Nazi. What I'm editing against is the blatant lies against the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union under Lenin. Tell me that I'm a Judaeo-Bolshevist conspiracist is among the most laughable excuses I've seen. Esiymbro (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: User:יניב הורון and User:Esiymbro are both warned. The next time either of you changes the article they may be blocked unless they have a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page. If the religious background of the old Bolsheviks deserves mention here, it is best to have the relevance confirmed through the words of a source that is actually talking about antisemitism. (This article has 'antisemitism' in its title). If not, WP:SYNTH arguments will be hard to refute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The complaint is wrong , so please review the result. (יניב הורוןיני (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC))
I have reviewed the complaint and you both were edit warring and you both were warned that if you changed the article again without consensus you will be blocked. What is the problem you see with this report? ~ GB fan 16:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @GB fan: Kindly familiarize yourself with this vandal who impersonates people and this is one of his most favorite noticeboard. The report editor and this user with redlink userpage are two different users. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Not all of us read Hebrew script accurately, I've blocked the impersonator. Acroterion (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Shashank5988, maybe next time you can explain why you are doing things rather than just unexplained reverts. ~ GB fan 17:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Morphjam (aka User:7rexkrilla) reported by User:Calton (Result: Indef)

Page: Secure Fence Act of 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Morphjam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) aka 7rexkrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [94] 18:32, December 23, 2018‎ Undid revision 875036208 by Calton (talk) you and Snooganssnoogans forced me into edit warring in the first place and my block was unfair. My reasoning in the talk page is solid, but you clearly don’t care about content and you are only interested in getting people blocked
  2. [95] 04:26, December 23, 2018‎ Undid revision 875004924 by Calton
  3. [96] 01:55, December 23, 2018‎ Undid revision 874985519 by Calton (talk) wow, a not-so-subtle accusation made with zero evidence
  4. [97] 21:44, December 22, 2018‎: Enough with the unconstructive edit warring'

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98] and [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006#CSR_report. Opposed by two editors so far, myself and User:Snooganssnoogans.

Comments:
Fresh off a previous block for edit-warring under the name 7rexkrilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (see Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive381), "new user" User:Morphjam's first and only edits (see above) have been to continue the edit war on the article. It's obvious that it's 7rexkrilla, and the edit summary on their latest edit confirms it. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – Abusing multiple accounts, per the admission in Morphjam's edit summary of 18:32 on 23 December. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Cinadon36 reported by User:Skylax30 (Result: No violation)

Page: Origin of the Albanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch |