Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Ankurc.17 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: blocked)

Page: International cricket in 2018–19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankurc.17 (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
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link (the second one was before the fourth revert)

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

Comments:

Ankurc.17 keeps adding a tournament to the above page, which fails the inclusion critera that was agreed by the Cricket Project last year. I explained this here on their talkpage and have offered to help discuss this further.

However, they've just simply ignored the WP:CONSENSUS that was reached, and my offer to discuss this further was also ignored. The only comms I've had is via their edit summaries, such as this one that ends with "Also stay away from my user page" and this personal attack calling me a bully.

For every instance of the text being added, I went to the user's talkpage to explain why it should not be added, before removing it myslef. I'd forgotten until now, but I've had a previous similar experience with this editor (March 2018) about edit-warring where the user was warned about edit-warring AND to stop with the personal attacks.

Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blah blah blah.... The user is a bully and can't stand when some one else stands up to him.... Ban me or block me... but this so called bully cant be allowed to get away... I am not the first person with whom he has had issues... It should be noted that this guy has had issues earlier as well with many other people....

--Ankurc.17 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's true, I've been blocked before, however since my last unblock early last year, I have had zero problems with anyone. If you can find any evidence to contradict this, then you are more than welcome to supply it here. I'm not sure how explaining a project consensus, in polite terms with the offer to discuss further is "bullying". You edit summaries and reply here suggest you don't want to be helped in this matter, with your continued edit-wars and personal attacks, despite being told not to do this previously. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Discussing something before deleting is not an offer for discussion.... And since there is no written proof about not adding any tournaments with International status.. Dont really get your objections... --Ankurc.17 (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. Clear violation of 3RR and above does not show any regret or indication that they will stop edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not acceptable... Lugnuts also violated the # R rule... BLOCK ME PERMANENTLY>.. I AM GOING TO REVERT BACK and not let this bullying go....

User:The enemies of god reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Semi)

Page: Monomial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The enemies of god (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4] Clearly a sock puppet or a meat puppetper WP:DUCK

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

[5]: Summary of my second revert: Reverted 1 edit by The enemies of god: Removal of essential facts (two different definitions in the literature) addition of span external links, vague formulation, ... Please, respect WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page."

[6]: Warning on user's talk page, with a short explanation of my reverts

[7]: Comment on the edits and 3RR warning on article's talk page

Comments:

The enemies of god never tried to discuss the point in article talk page nor in my talk page. He did not answer to my post on his talk page, although the use of an IP login for his last revert (with edit summary "No nedd D.Lazard) is an indication that he has read my posts. Also, he edits regularly since 2007. So, he is not a new user who may ignore Wikipedia rules. D.Lazard (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:192:4c80:1bdd:c882:bcbf:5842:647e reported by User:TF Munat (Result: Semi, Block)

Page: Columbia University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:192:4c80:1bdd:c882:bcbf:5842:647e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

..and more in the past.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] [14]

Note: The user keeps changing the IPV6 so it's difficult to warn them. However, warring spreads across the same subnet. I did so in edit messages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]


Comments:


This page is constantly suffering from edit-warring from IPs and most recently wikipuffery which resulted in a ban to those users and requiring auto-confirmed or confirmed access. Now this IP user is constantly reverting the revert of his/her/their initial change. There is a discussion on the talk page (where it becomes clear of the same user's IPV6 address usage, same subnet in reverts and reply). I noticed that when another user challenged this user to provide credible information/source on the claim, and asked why he/she/they are warring, the reply was "listen to your own advice hypocrite." in the revert message. 14:03, 18 January 2019.

The funny part is the change that they are trying to make despite the complete opposite being written in the first line of the same paragraph! It states - "Columbia has three official undergraduate colleges." - accurately from the source. The user adds "The fourth undergraduate college, Barnard College..." and proceeds to add it to the dropdown list, clearly not even reading the paragraph they are editing. Which can be easily nullified from Columbia's Official website [16] "three undergraduate schools". It's hard but I will still want to assume good faith, that the user is confused about the distinction of schools from the "greater Columbia University community" - where there are many (20 total from all affiliates), including undergraduate and graduate schools, and "Undergraduate schools from Columbia University", where there are 3 - as stated by Columbia itself. The article is about Columbia University and it should follow the official sources from Columbia University to maintain this distinction. I have included this information from the official sources with the hope that the user now understands the change and follows WP:POINT. (TF Munat (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

User:Modernist reported by User:MarchOrDie (Result: Both warned)

Page: Witches' Sabbath (The Great He-Goat) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Modernist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22], [23]

Comments:

  • I was asked yesterday to protect the page here:[24] for this article: [25] because I am one of the editors who brought it to Featured article status. I am protecting the article against unwarranted and unwanted changes and vandalism. I am not edit warring although User:MarchOrDie is edit warring. He does not seem to understand this featured article's imagery is needed to remain as is. I am being harassed by this editor who does not understand that I am protecting this article...Modernist (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Modernist and User:MarchOrDie are both warned for edit warring on image sizes. The size question is now being discussed on the article talk page. Please participate there and follow WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement. This war took place on 18 January while the article was on the main page as Today's Featured Article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:DonutsAndBakewells reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DonutsAndBakewells (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

  1. 18:14, January 15, 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 20:49, January 15, 2019 - DonutsAndBakewells changes the image in the infobox to the same image that is used in Celebrity Big Brother 1 (U.S. season) that doesn't have an appropriate WP:FUR to be used on the article
  2. 01:05, January 16, 2019
  3. 11:54, January 16, 2019
  4. 22:04, January 16, 2019
  5. 22:05, January 16, 2019
  6. 21:28, January 18, 2019
  7. 21:29, January 18, 2019 - This edit has nothing to do with the six previous edits listed but DonutsAndBakewells reverted this edit that is disputed due to WP:RS and hasn't taken part of the discussion on the talk page about this particular edit for the first Head of Household.

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

  1. 3RR violated on January 16, 2019 [26][27][28][29] 3RR left on talk page [30]

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

  1. Discussion about the infobox image DonutsAndBakewells has not replied to this discussion as of filing. [31]
  2. Discussion about the 1st HOH DonutsAndBakewells has not replied to this discussion as of filing. [32]

Comments:

  • Based on past history this user should know to discuss disputed edits on the talk page as they were previously blocked for edit warring on a different reality TV show article back in November 2018. Not to mention this user added false information to the article being discussed on 15:31, January 13, 2019 for no reason. The editor doesn't appear to want to discuss any of the issues on the talk page. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. Long term edit warring about the infobox image. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Oknazevad reported by User:ImprovedWikiImprovment (Result: No violation)

Page: New York (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oknazevad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

  1. 00:53, January 17, 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:01, January 18, 2019
  2. 14:02, January 18, 2019
  3. 14:12, January 18, 2019
  4. 01:35, January 19, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. After 4 reverts in 24 hours

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

  1. On the user's talk page

Comments:

  • I have already explained to the editor that a discussion at Talk:New York City dictated that the primary name for the City of New York, except in circumstances where it could be confused with the state, is "New York". The user has failed to accept this, saying that the discussion related only to the infobox of the New York City page. While true, it was decided to change the title of that infobox because the name "New York City", both in real life and in Wikipedia, is primarily a disambiguator; the primary, and most common name is "New York". In these circumstances on the New York (state) article, there is no possible confusion due to mention of city nearby or, in one case, a list of cities. They have violated the 3 revert rule also, and failed to properly listen to me. IWI (chat) 13:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Response: Once IWI was reverted for inappropriately extrapolating a discussion's outcome to other articles (which he admits above) and was first reverted, he should have just stopped. Instead he has continued to revert, both in the above article and at Los Angeles, where he's been reverted by multiple editors. He really needs to stop acting as though his extrapolation has any consensus and just walk away from the idea. But as seen by the refusal to stop after he was first reverted he does seem to have an issue with that. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t quite understand how that is inappropriate; since people agreed that the primary name is "New York" (no not just in the infobox but generally), saying "Largest city: New York City" is nonsenseical as nobody is going to think that Largest city in New York State – is New York State. Therefore, the disambiguating word "city" can be removed. Like I said, another conclusion in that discussion was that "New York City" is primarily a disambiguator. Also, that isn’t an adequate reason to break the three-revert rule, Oknazevad. IWI (chat) 13:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
While some contributors explained that as their reason for supporting the shorter infobox header, not all did, and more importantly that was not the topic of discussion. The discussion was exclusively about the infobox. It is inappropriate extrapolation to assume that just because someone might agree with displaying an infobox header one way that they would support removing the use to the word "city" in every instance where the word "city" is nearby.
PS, I didn't break 3RR. The first two edits above are considered one revert, not two, as there were no intervening edits.
PPS, don't need to ping me here. It's on my watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
You did break the 3 revert rule, you made 3 reverts. IWI (chat) 14:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The 3RR is more than three reverts. oknazevad (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Generally, please discuss this rather than continuing to revert each other. Bellezzasolo Discuss 15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – You need an admin to close this report, though the result is the same. The first two diffs are consecutive, so 3RR was not broken. Please get consensus on the talk page instead of going on indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Agreement)

Page: Los Angeles-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dilidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]

This started as 3RR on Los Angeles-class submarine a few days ago, with bulk stripping of wikilinks, reverted by @Thewolfchild:. I warned them on user talk:, which was blanked immediately, indicating that they had read this and were aware of the issue. It continued today though, with reversions against @BilCat:, who also issued a warning and was reverted.

Mostly though, this is about a long-running pattern of edits from someone who describes themselves as "a professional editor". Clearly other editors are a lesser species, and our views count for nothing. After all "This user can do no wrong, especially when it comes to editing Wikipedia.". Particularly when we disagree with Dillidor's editing style, which mostly seems to consist of stripping wls (including removing all links from one article to another, even when it's a significant relationship). There is long-standing opposition to this, from a range of editors, relating to a range of articles. See User talk:Dilidor#"Overlinking" and other comments there. But the response has been "dismissive" to say the least, and they'te happy to >3RR edit-war to push their viewpoint, which makes it impossible for policy-observing editors to do anything about. Thus ANEW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talkcontribs) 13:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:
I will point out that a "war" requires at least two parties, yet Thewolfchild was not warned for his or her part in the conflict. But the bigger issue here is the hypocritical charges being leveled by Andy Dingley. He is incensed by a perceived supercilious attitude in me—while he snidely foists upon me his own attitude that "other editors are a lesser species". He quotes my humorous use of a meme that is used widely on Wikipedia, choosing to ignore its tongue-in-cheek intention in order to build up his straw man portrayal of my character. He claims that my editorial contributions "consist of stripping" wikilinks; this demonstrates either a gross ignorance of my edits around Wikipedia, or else a deliberately false statement. I will offer the benefit of the doubt and assume that Andy Dingley is simply ignorant.

I object to Andy Dingley's persistently abusive tone, both here and on my talk page. It is this tone which has brought me to the point of choosing to cease my participation in this discussion. If others wish to discuss it in a civil and respectful fashion, I will be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'm done. –Dilidor (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dilidor is risking a block if he continues with what appears to be aggressive stripping of wikilinks. These removals are often reverted, and it seems that many editors disagree with his practices. One way he could address the criticism is to accept a 1RR restriction on his link removals. That is, he could agree not to restore any of his link changes if someone else reverts it. Dilidor was previously warned at ANI about his copyediting practices. At that time, User:Swarm said "Dilidor is strongly warned that any future reversions that contradict WP:COPYEDIT or WP:MOS will likely result in a block without further notice or warning." It is natural to see the conduct reported in this AN3 complaint as a violation of the previous warning. But if Dilidor would agree to the proposed 1RR on link removals, I think the edit warring complaint could be closed without other action. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Certainly I will agree to that. Permit me to reiterate it, however, so that it is clear what I believe to be agreeing to: I will not unrevert another editor's reversion of my reduction of wikilinking. I want to be clear here because there have been issues in this conflict where I had not understood details concerning terminology and expectations. For example, I had no idea that I was expected to adhere to "3RR"; indeed, I did not clearly understand what that shorthand term meant. I have already been excoriated by Andy Dingley for the fact that I did not fully understand these things, and so do not need to be told such again. But if I have clearly comprehended your proposal, I am happy to comply with it.
Please also clarify the timeframe of these expectations. —Dilidor (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You were first warned for edit warring, with the appropriate warning template and links to 3RR etc., in March 2017. You have been repeatedly warned since. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Dilidor's claim that they are unaware of what 3RR means is laughable. They have been warned about violating the three-reverts guideline (and linked to the guideline) on multiple occasions, and have even reported users for violating the guideline! Dilidor has a long history of edit-warring, almost always over removal of links and other MOS issues. Note especially the formal warning here which has been totally ignored. If anything the behaviour has gotten worse since then. Based on the user talk page Dilidor is coming into conflict every few weeks with other editors over the same issues, and has done zero self-reflection despite editors repeatedly explaining Wikipedia policies. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that the restriction will be 'Dilidor will not revert any editor who undoes their removal of a wikilink'. This means they will stop doing any of the kinds of edits listed at the head of this report as diffs #1-5. The restriction will be indefinite unless it is successfully appealed at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This type of behaviour can apply to any edit or revert they disagree with, not just edits involving wikilinks. A 24 hour block for edit-warring, followed by 6 months of 1RR across the board will certainly be more effective, and it's a restriction they shouldn't have too much difficulty understanding. - wolf 03:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: Agreement. I'm recording here that User:Dilidor is accepting the above proposal for a 1RR restriction on unlinking: 'Dilidor will not revert any editor who undoes their removal of a wikilink'. As they said above: Certainly I will agree to that. Permit me to reiterate it, however, so that it is clear what I believe to be agreeing to: I will not unrevert another editor's reversion of my reduction of wikilinking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Ineedisin reported by User:Musicfan122 (Result: Blocked indefinitely as a confirmed sock of community-banned User:Krajoyn)

Page: Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ineedisin (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. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments:
Disruptive editing and refusing to reach consensus in talk, also removing a whole lot referenced text in their last edits. Musicfan122 (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as a confirmed sock of community-banned User:Krajoyn Favonian (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:213.65.195.254 reported by User:Bastun (Result: Blocked as a proxy)

Page: Gemma O'Doherty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.65.195.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 17:17, 18/01
  2. 21:06, 18/01
  3. 10:37, 19/01
  4. 21:45, 19/01

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened this discussion section.

Comments:

  • Anon IP is misinterpreting WP:BRD and claiming that somehow two editors opposed to inclusion over three supporting inclusion is a consensus. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I never once said there was a consensus, In fact I challenge Bastun to quote me where I said that. I simply stated there was a lack of consensus for the inclusion of a sentence (there was) and so invoking WP:BRD I reverted. WP:ONUS states those who wish to make the new changes must gain a consensus if challenged. Bastun was challenged and he failed to gain a consensus and was thus reverted in compliance with wikipedia policy.213.65.195.254 (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, as per Scolaire's remarks, there is consensus for inclusion. Your use of relatively obscure wiki-shortcuts also suggests you've been editing before. What usernames have you used? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
IP since blocked as a zombie proxy. Case can be closed. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Planethunter91 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

Page
Exoplanet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Planethunter91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to last good version. Pending from Dispute Resolution."
  2. 03:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Change agreed on talkpage, please check: Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"
  3. 00:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Change agreed on talkpage, please check: Primefac (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)"
  4. 19:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879190731 by Drbogdan (talk)"
  5. 16:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878598801 by Drbogdan (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Exoplanet. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also see EW behavior at Astronomy, List of potentially habitable exoplanets, as well as discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Warring and SPAMing by User:Planethunter91. General Ization Talk 18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Note that the supposed DR referred to by the editor was closed without action or engagement for procedural reasons, and is not pending. General Ization Talk 18:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Planethunter91 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)

Page
List of potentially habitable exoplanets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Planethunter91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to last good version. Changes add important data to the article. Better source needed."
  2. 03:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Data added is relevant"
  3. 00:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Important data added"
  4. 19:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879191757 by Drbogdan (talk)"
  5. 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879183331 by Rowan Forest (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of potentially habitable exoplanets. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also see EW behavior at Astronomy, Exoplanet, as well as discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Warring and SPAMing by User:Planethunter91. General Ization Talk 18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours by User:Bishonen. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Fair Galaxy reported by User:RhinosF1 (Result:Blocked)

Page
Abigail Hopkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported
Fair Galaxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "The previous article does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policies and is inaccurate in parts."
  2. 19:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Unnecessary information lifted from tabloids. It is NOT necessarily factual and does not relate to the work of the artist"
  3. 18:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Shortened information as the previous was gossip lifted from tabloids and not factual."
  4. 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Unnecessary information that has nothing to do with the artist."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  2. 18:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Abigail Hopkins. (TW)"
  3. 18:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:RhinosF1) (TW)"
  4. 19:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Talkback (User talk:RhinosF1) (TW)"
  5. 19:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 21:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Some proposed changes */ Comment"
Comments:

User has also attempted to use an IP to evade detection. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User has continued to edit war from a new account. SPI was opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fair_Galaxy RhinosF1 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Users have been blocked and page protected. RhinosF1 (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Michael.suede reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Blocked)

Page
Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Michael.suede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jorm (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
  2. 22:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Tsumikiria (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
  3. 22:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jorm (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
  4. 22:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Tsumikiria (talk) to last revision by Michael.suede. (TW)"
  5. 22:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Added {{overcoverage}} tag to article (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "/* FYI, 3RR */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Biased Lead */"
Comments:

5RR Drive by tagging with talk page suggestions for promotional material Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Was just coming here to make this exact same report. Thanks, Tsumikiria! --Jorm (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Note that this article is getting POV edit traffic because the owner of the article's subject has made a canvassing call for edits on twitter.--Jorm (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional note: I am being personally targeted by Gab on twitter now as well. So.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
The subject of this article made multiple calls for editor recruitment in the past 2 days and has targeted me personally as well. See [46]. ECP protection is needed. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 month by User:Yamla. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:146.198.193.75 reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked)

Page
Dingo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
146.198.193.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 09:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879289362 by Cygnis insignis (talk)"
  3. 01:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879254583 by William Harris (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC) to 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879253580 by William Harris (talk) this is English wikipedia"
    2. 01:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879253208 by Apokryltaros (talk) change a word if a word is important to you. do not restore a policy violation."
  5. 01:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879251738 by William Harris (talk) your edit summary does not make sense and does not justify restoring an obvious policy violation."
  6. 01:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 879251464 by William Harris (talk) check which Wikipedia you are on. is it German? Or is it English?"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC) to 01:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Taxonomy */"
    2. 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Taxonomy */ "can be described as" = "is""
    3. 01:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Taxonomy */ text presumably copied and pasted from somewhere in all-too-common grotesque misunderstanding of what it means to write a free encyclopaedia"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Not much to discuss here, with the IP at 10RR. General Ization Talk 02:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You may note that
  1. User:William Harris reverted four times within half an hour. Some kind of oversight not to mention that, was it?
  2. The edit war happened 14 hours ago.
  3. It resulted in the creation of a stub, to replace a link to a German-language article, and the replacement of unsourced non-free text with proper encyclopaedic content.
  4. The user filing this report has nothing, apparently, to do with the situation, having made no recent edits to the article nor contributed to the talk page discussion which, although laced with insults against me (eg User:Oknazevad your attitude sucks, Get the eff off your high horse, your edits are pissant little powder trips, User:Cygnis insignis I would prefer that you piss off) at least brought the necessary improvements to bear.

. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 02:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  1. We are here to discuss your edits, not those of William Harris.
  2. The fact that 14 (actually less than 10) hours have elapsed since the last salvo in the edit war doesn't absolve you of responsibility for edit warring.
  3. Not at all sure what your point is, especially since you played no role in the creation of that stub.
  4. The fact that I am an uninvolved party is one of the reasons I am entirely qualified to file this report.
Anything else? General Ization Talk 02:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  1. Does William Harris get a free pass, then? Why aren't you worried about his rule breaking?
  2. It makes it pointless to do anything. So an edit war happened in the past, and now everybody is happy with the article. What's your interest in stirring? Also, in fact 15 hours have passed since my last edit at 11.30 UTC on 20th. It's now 02.30 UTC on 21st. What's the point of claiming that interval is "less than 10" hours? That's just bizarre
  3. I made the necessity of its creation obvious. It was a positive outcome to the situation.
  4. You're obviously just looking to stir up trouble. Try improving articles instead, it's better for the encyclopaedia. 146.198.193.75 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I rest my case. General Ization Talk 02:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:75.182.115.183 reported by User:2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:1C2600:387:1:817:0:0:0:1C (Result: Blocked)

Page: January 2019 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.182.115.183 (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. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]

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

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

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Stemdude reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page
Exponentiation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Stemdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Revert to compromise"
  3. 01:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "A mathematical identity cannot hold "in general""
  4. 00:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverting mathematically incorrect statement ("b^(p^q) != b^(pq)"). Actually, b^(p^q) = b^(pq) for p = 0 or q = 1 (or p = q^(1/q-1) for p,q real). Issues of style and pedagogy are secondary to mathematical accuracy"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Exponentiation. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Failure of associativity */ new section"
  2. 10:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics "/* Exponentiation */"
Comments:

User is having civility issues, going as far as wikihounding me in a completely unrelated discussion. Multiple other editors have told him to wait for consensus to form. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't want this to be closed as "stale" just because admins skipped it over (they've answered some of the below reports promptly...).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mz7 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Nice4What reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nice4What (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [52]
  2. [53]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

User has been notified of violating 1 Revert per 24 hour rule on their talk page but have refused to self revert. Jim7049 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I advice any administrator who reads this to re-protect the template (it was previously protected for a week by User:MSGJ). There's been non-stop edit warring there since before New Year's Eve, while there is little enthusiasm for using the talk page. Based on edit summaries, the latest dispute looks like a clear example of WP:POINT. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Nice4What blocked 24 hours and template protected for two weeks. I would also have blocked Jim7049 if they hadn't self-reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn (result: decline)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox
User being reported: Jim7049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Syrian Civil War#Belligerents (again...)

Comments:

I have self reverted before this report was posted. Jim7049 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
He appears to have self-reverted before I reported him, so perhaps I was a bit quick on this one. I don't know whether a report is carved in stone once it has been posted, but I hope an administrator will take this into consideration. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Decline to block at this time. Jim7049 wisely self-reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:192.180.96.67 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: blocked)

Page
Asherah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
192.180.96.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Signifiance and roles */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 00:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) to 00:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 00:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Signifiance and roles */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC) to 00:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Signifiance and roles */"
  4. 00:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 00:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Signifiance and roles */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Asherah. (TW)"
  2. 00:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Asherah. (TW)"
  3. 00:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Asherah. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Amicable resolution attempts were not needed, obvious WP:CB like Dedicated wife to Yahweh proud mother of Liam and lilah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

IP seems to have calmed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked 31 hours. Sorry for the late response to this one. Next time, you can take things like this to WP:AIV which should get a quicker response. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jorm reported by User:AKA Casey Rollins (Result: Page protected)

Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No one warned Jorm

I came before the fourth revert was performed, and at the time unaware that he had already done three revisions. [diff]

Comments:

While these aren't actual diff links, I suppose yes, I 3RRD, as the 3rd revert was to fix the sixth(?) revert by a now-blocked editor who was engaged in drive-by tagging edit wars. It should be noted that this page is under full protection now because it is being brigaded by outside editors and SPAs, of which OP is one.--Jorm (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't somebody have notified you when you were at your third revert? I am not super familiar with the process but it seems SOP to warn someone before the fourth revert was made. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
First, dude, the fourth link there isn't a revert of the same thing, so it's out of pocket for your argument. The first three are about the same content (not the fourth). My third revert was to fix the SIX REVERTS of the now-blocked editor. No one warned me because I didn't do anything wrong. --Jorm (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, wtf you're all "no one warned you, and I can't be bothered to have a discussion, but let's just jump to the noticeboard"? Please.--Jorm (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I totally understand where you're coming from, but I'm reporting Jorm because of the reverts, not because of his edits on the Gab article, of which I do not approve. We disagree, but he should have the right to make those edits. Additionally, at this point I've also come to realize that Jorm didn't actually do anything wrong and I misread both the reverts and the terms of 3RRD, so I no longer believe he should be punished for anything. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 04:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The fourth edit in this edit war reverted a bona fide contribution to the article. My edits to that page are always summarily reverted by Jorm or Tsumikiria on a summary basis without explanation. I have taken this up on the talk page where my well-sourced objections to the current management of the Gab page were met by Jorm with a "cool story, bro." This followed yet another, fifth revert of another good faith contribution I made to the page earlier in the day. The objective was to keep the page as he prefers it without regard for others' contributions. Jorm knew what he was doing and should not, frankly, have needed a warning, so I support a ban. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
My edits to that page are always summarily reverted by Jorm or Tsumikiria on a summary basis without explanation. What? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Regulars on the page are frankly quite tired of Ginjuice's incessant sealioning and POV pushing that filled up the entire talk page. At least 7 editors, with 3 of them admins, have told them no. Per policy, blocks and bans are preventative rather than punitive, and the only editor who should be reprimanded, at the very least, would be Ginjuice. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
None of that really has anything to do with this complaint. If you have different issues with Jorm, take that somewhere else, not here. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 05:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not a private members' club. As far as the Gab page is concerned, "regulars" have maintained a stranglehold on the page and now feel free to revert changes of alternative viewpoints - however minor or major - with total impunity. I've been attempting to introduce some balance to the article, as have others; all these attempts, however minor, get reverted by the "regulars." As long as we're on the topic, here's a sixth revert from Jorm today. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The "balance" you were trying to bring is WP:FALSEBALANCE supported only by your idiosyncratic interpretation of sources. Since you're in a WP:1AM situation, you can open another RfC, escalate using dispute resolution, or just take it to WP:ANI, and finally, WP:ARBCOM, if you truly believe that people opposing you are at fault. No one is stopping you at this point. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not the first person to complain about that page, just the most recent and the one willing to do the most work on the talk page to show how the article is being mismanaged. My position is set out on the talk page for anyone who cares to read it. In any case, that has nothing to do with this, which is about one of the "regulars" reverting a half-dozen or more good faith edits to the page that were adequately cited. I'm following Wikipedia's rules. Jorm isn't, which is why the article reflects Jorm's opinions and not the opinions of the three other editors who were trying to contribute to the article today and whose changes he reverted. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Look, I'm not super familiar with how the proceedings work, but I've done my duty; I saw something, I said something. I don't know if he needs to be punished or not, after all there have been a lot of "pro Gab" users making retaliatory edits due to Andrew Torba's social media posts. I want a balance between the anti-Gabbers and the pro-Gabbers. You're actually part of the problem because not only did you take my balanced edit too far, your description is inaccurate, as some of the content that breaks TOS (thus causing a Gab ban) is political, and users like Patrick Little have been banned from the site after they were pressured by hosting companies. This caused Tsumikiria to remove both your edit and mine. [[59]] And it's not like you didn't undo any of his edits, you're not totally innocent in this matter. Anyways, I'm not here to argue with you, we can do that somewhere else. I made a report. People will follow up. Until then, you should probably just relax Ginjuice4445. 1) Jorm had a right to make the edits that he made, even if they're biased 2) the page is locked anyways, so it's not like your kicking and screaming is going to change anything. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 05:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 3 days by User:Lord Roem. EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: if I had noticed this report earlier I would probably have blocked Jorm for a clear violation of 3RR. It does not matter if you are reverting the same or different content, they all count and you should know that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hunter160586 and likely socks reported by User:Krenair (Result: Blocked and protected)

Page: James Bourne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hunter160586 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
KikiMcQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2a00:23c4:d99:e500:80fd:49ce:b844:3b69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
151.38.35.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61]
  2. [62]
  3. [63]
  4. [64]
  5. [65]
  6. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On the user's talk page, see above. They haven't responded or written anything extra in their edit summaries beyond the default undo text and section titles. Comments:

My own edits are exempt. I have opened an SPI case although I suspect WP:DUCK applies here, and the 3RR policy says the limit is per-person rather than per-account. Krenair (talkcontribs) 19:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Hunter160586 for a week and KikiMcQ indefinitely. Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:173.53.34.38 reported by User:Goulegisgay (Result: Semi)

Page: The Secret Life of Pets 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.53.34.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [69]
  2. [70]
  3. [71]
  4. [72]
  5. [73]
  6. [74]
  7. [75]
  8. [76]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77] User was asked to provide a source for this information on their talk page

Comments:
User continues to write that this actor will voice this character despite no information from any source exists for them Goulegisgay (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: Page semiprotected one month. The filer has been blocked by another admin, but only for username. So far nobody has used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tantan08 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Pinoy Big Brother: Otso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tantan08 (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. 02:38, January 21, 2019 - First edit after the user comes off their 4 day block and resumes their edit warring
  2. 17:23, January 21, 2019 - After being reverted by an uninvolved editor the user reverts the page back to what they think is correct

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

  1. 08:51, January 21, 2019

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

  1. 08:51, January 21, 2019 - Left a single issue warning to the editor after their 02:38, January 21, 2019 edit was reverted as it is the same behavior as in the past. I left a custom message urging the editor to discuss this on the article talk page

Comments:

This user has had two previous reports filed that lead first to a 24 hour block then a 4 day block. [78][79] It is clear that this user is not here for consensus based editing as each time they resume their previous pattern of editing that resulted in two blocks. They never explain their edits on talk pages. To me this has gone beyond edit warring and is now disruptive editing and WP:OWN. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 23:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Bradv (Result: declined)

Page
BAMN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CordialGreenery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC) "reverting active whitewashing. Take it to the talk page."
  2. 04:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC) "undid possible vandalism and whitewashing of sourced information."
  3. 04:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC) "provided independent cites for every claim."
  4. 03:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted POV whitewashing."