Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive385

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Urabura reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Metropolitan areas in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and three other: [1][2][3]
User being reported: Urabura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:36, 27 January 2018‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:53, 17 February 2019
  2. 19:37, 20 February 2019
  3. 20:18, 20 February 2019
  4. 20:33, 20 February 2019
  5. 21:00, 20 February 2019

This is new user (account from December 2018) with total edits: 48, of which about 20% is edit-warrings in few articles. The user had other warnings in user talk page (also for edit-warring), warnings did not help. The user deletes the warnings during the course of the dispute [4] and copy/paste warning from own talk page to other user talk page [5]. A similar behavior is in Polish Wikipedia - few edit-wars in period of January-February 2019: [6][7][8] or aven in German Wikipedia [9][10][11][12]. This user remove sources also in English Wikipedia, example: [13][14]. Unreformable user, unable to adapt in Wikipedia project (removes sources, creates edit-wars, introduces controversial changes in more than one Wikipedia project). Four edit-wars in short time in English Wikipedia (excluding edit-wars in Polish Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, total 10 multiwiki edit-wars), a blockade should be considered for an indefinite period. Subtropical-man ( | en-2) 21:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Endowe reported by User:Nihlus (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Endowe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
  2. 19:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
  3. 15:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
  4. 14:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */ No, its based on points"
  5. 14:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Contestant progress */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 4). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Trinity and Monet placement */ Replying to Endowe (reply-link)"
Comments:

Continue to insert their version of the page despite being reverted by multiple users. Clear consensus is forming on the talk page as well. Nihlus 01:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2604:6000:D786:6C00:BC3D:8133:D0E8:1E7E reported by User:Thewinrat (Result: Page semiprotected)[edit]

Page
Shin Lim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2604:6000:D786:6C00:BC3D:8133:D0E8:1E7E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "Your reaction is without merit because you did not even read what I wrote, specifically about his Chinese name."
  2. 17:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "You're warring without reading what I wrote. So there cannot be a consensus."
  3. 16:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "My edits to include his Chinese name have absolutely nothing to do with his "nationality"! So learn to read, stop replying with irrelevant nonsense, and stop changing the edit!"
  4. 14:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "Chinese name is shown at 0:04 of the video link."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Shin Lim. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

FWIW, the article-in-question, as been semi-protected for 2 weeks. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Gablesfsbo reported by User:MarnetteD (Result:24 hours )[edit]

Page: Audrey Hepburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gablesfsbo (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]
  2. [17]
  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:

While there is conflicting info about Hepburn's birth name Gablesfsbo continues to remove sourced info and replace it with unsourced WP:SPECULATION. Time was given for them to respond on the talk page but the chose to revert more than one editor instead. Please note their edits tended to make other cosmetic changes so they aren't simple reverts but, again, they removed sourced info. MarnetteD|Talk 20:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

User:4.34.50.170 reported by User:MrX (Result: damn, blocked as well! three closes with just one block...)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
4.34.50.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884507754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) see talk page. NONE of you have countered the UNITED STATES COURT CASE REJECTING SPLC's reliability."
  2. 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884506881 by Grayfell (talk) YOU ARE JUST VANDALIZING AT THIS POINT. THERE'S LITERALLY A UNITED STATES COURT WHICH HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON YOUR POSITION AND REJECTED IT WHOLESALE. STOP VANDALIZING."
  3. 02:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884502537 by Grayfell (talk) STOP VANDALISING. THERE'S LITERALLY A COURT OPINION REJECTING YOUR POSITION. SEE TALK PAGE OR YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO WP ADMINS FOR A BAN"
  4. 01:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884450424 by MrX (talk) the fact that we're discussing this seriously is proof there is NOT consensus. there is no reason to not label it NC."
  5. 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "/* SPLC */"
Comments:

see below

User:4.34.50.170 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
4.34.50.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884507754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) see talk page. NONE of you have countered the UNITED STATES COURT CASE REJECTING SPLC's reliability."
  2. 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884506881 by Grayfell (talk) YOU ARE JUST VANDALIZING AT THIS POINT. THERE'S LITERALLY A UNITED STATES COURT WHICH HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON YOUR POSITION AND REJECTED IT WHOLESALE. STOP VANDALIZING."
  3. 02:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884502537 by Grayfell (talk) STOP VANDALISING. THERE'S LITERALLY A COURT OPINION REJECTING YOUR POSITION. SEE TALK PAGE OR YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO WP ADMINS FOR A BAN"
  4. 01:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884450424 by MrX (talk) the fact that we're discussing this seriously is proof there is NOT consensus. there is no reason to not label it NC."
  5. 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I cited a UNITED STATES COURT decision upholding my position. You have cited nothing. You cannot say there is consensus. A duly authorized court has already rejected this, and it's just factually wrong at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Irrelevant and 2. No you didn't, because no such court decision exists. Try reading sources that aren't lying to you for ideological purposes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments:
I absolutely cited such a source. This is not ideological bias. This is a court decision wherein SPLC paid out $3m for false statements. They are not a reliable source. There is literally a court who reviewed the evidence and rejected your position. I cited the links in the relevant discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Clear POV-warrior uninterested in discussion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User is up to seven reverts now. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, language contained in the edit Posters citing the SPLC on false designations are NOT protected under any safe harbor laws, and may be sued individually for defamation. is tantamount to inserting a legal threat into Wikipedia policy pages, which I'm going to treat as simple vandalism. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
not vandalism. Just a fact. Under the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, individuals are responsible for their own posts on public sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "stop vandalising a united states court ruling", in reference to a ruling which doesn't appear to exist at all, means that Wikipedia editors have an alarming amount of power. I had no idea that Wikipedia's internal guidelines were legally binding! Incidentally, do we have a policy page about Citizens United? Asking for a friend. Grayfell (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2018/06/20/southern-poverty-law-center-pays-3-4m-to-resolve-defamation-case/?slreturn=20190121221850 yeah, it's real. Here's SPLC themselves admitting it: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.34.50.170 (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:1.144.105.77 reported by User:Brainiac245 (Result:Malformed )[edit]

Page
Let it Be (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
1.144.105.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • 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..--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:1.144.104.73 reported by User:Brainiac245 (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Page
Billy Preston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
1.144.104.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • 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..--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:173.53.80.44 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Ica stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.53.80.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884575513 by Ravensfire (talk)"
  2. 15:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884570494 by Ravensfire (talk)"
  3. 13:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884564727 by Vsmith (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 12:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC) to 12:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    1. 12:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 12:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 12:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC) ""
    5. 12:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC) to 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ""
  6. 21:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ica stones. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:4.34.50.170 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: also blocked!)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
4.34.50.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884512490 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism"
  2. 03:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884512103 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism. There's literally a US court case showing the position that SPLC is reliable is false. This MUST be at least NC."
  3. 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884510470 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism"
  4. 03:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884509995 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC) to 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    1. 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884509472 by DemocraticLuntz (talk) stop vandalising a united states court ruling"
    2. 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "fixed language re SPLC"
  6. 02:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884508772 by DemocraticLuntz (talk) vandalism, see talk page"
  7. 02:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884508304 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) vandalism, see talk page. I labeled this NC, you are saying there is consensus when a US court has objectively rejected your position."
  8. Consecutive edits made from 02:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC) to 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    1. 02:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "fixed NC tag"
    2. 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884507754 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) see talk page. NONE of you have countered the UNITED STATES COURT CASE REJECTING SPLC's reliability."
  9. 02:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884506881 by Grayfell (talk) YOU ARE JUST VANDALIZING AT THIS POINT. THERE'S LITERALLY A UNITED STATES COURT WHICH HAS HEARD THE EVIDENCE ON YOUR POSITION AND REJECTED IT WHOLESALE. STOP VANDALIZING."
  10. 02:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884502537 by Grayfell (talk) STOP VANDALISING. THERE'S LITERALLY A COURT OPINION REJECTING YOUR POSITION. SEE TALK PAGE OR YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO WP ADMINS FOR A BAN"
  11. 01:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884450424 by MrX (talk) the fact that we're discussing this seriously is proof there is NOT consensus. there is no reason to not label it NC."
  12. 18:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC) "SPLC vandalism, stop removing the court case showing they're not reliable"
  13. 23:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "SPLC is has been ruled in court to be unreliable"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:Johnbod reported by User:The Rambling Man (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Various

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

There are other, less significant edits made on that page too, such as the continued reversion to Marseilles, which I haven't included but which technically should also be included. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28] (to which the user responded by calling me a "trollish editor", attempting to justify the abusive use of rollback by calling be a troll again).

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale A talk page discussion was started, and is continuing, and other editors have had a look. That's what we want to do - AN3 blocks are generally for people who just don't "get it". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 okay, so a bright line violation of 3RR is acceptable here. Then I shall restore the citations to the format that is considered proper, professional and robust against linkrot. Thanks to all the admins for avoiding this one by the way, it couldn't be a clearer violation, deliberately conducted with no sign of any contrition. Nobody has "got" anything here except that ownership rules apply. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Johnbod did break the letter of 3RR. However, since he's not edit-warring now, a block would be plain and simple punishment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 I see, so the fact he's done the same earlier today (and reverted a host of other edits) here on another article has indicated that he's "got it"? And of course edit warring to keep one's preferred version and having admins back that position up, as per this closure, is really very healthy? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm just saying that it doesn't rise to the level of a block at this time, which would only happen if I could not guarantee anyone could fix either Saint Sebastian Tended by Saint Irene or Master MZ without conflicting between the pair of you reverting each other. I'm not going to block somebody just because they're annoying you and you don't like them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't give two shits about the user, but I do care that bright line 3RR violations are being enabled by admins. And that persistent ownership, personal attacks and abuse of rollback are similarly being ignored. This is nothing personal, for me, just professional values of main page appearances. This now means he owns all his own articles and no-one can do anything to improve them as this noticeboard sanctioned the version he edit warred and violated 3RR to maintain. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If you think there's a more long-term problem with a user removing well-formatted citations and introducing link rot, you need to go to WP:ANI and state your case. I'm not ignoring anything, I'm just saying that it does not rise to the level of a block right now. If there is a systemic problem here, then a topic ban is more likely to the be the outcome of an ANI discussion rather than a block. If I stated my opinion on the issue, and then handed out a block, it would be bad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are ignoring it, you're enabling a user to violate 3RR to keep their preferred version of an article. And the same user has simply moved onto the next article to conduct the same behaviour. And you're ignoring it. You can't even be be bothered to indicate that the 3RR was actually a violation and warn the user in question. That's textbook "ignoring". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have lobbed my 2c into the talk page discussion, agreeing with you. That pretty much means I'm now WP:INVOLVED as I've taken a side in the debate, so I'm going to have to punt this to ANI. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

Though this complaint was closed as Stale in lieu of blocking, in my view the only other option would have been to block both parties for edit warring. Consider the spelling of Marseille. Here is what happened to Marseille(s) beginning with TRM's edit of 10:02 on 21 February:
  • 10:02 on the 21 February, TRM changed Marseilles to Marseille
  • 15:21 on the 21, reverted by Johnbod back to Marseilles
  • 20:49 on the 21, reverted back by TRM
  • 22:14 on the 21, reverted again by Johnbod
  • 22:23 on the 21, reverted back by TRM to Marseille
  • 22:24 on the 21, reverted again by Johnbod
  • 22:30 on the 21, reverted back by TRM
  • 22:37 on the 21, reverted again by Johnbod…
  • <THIS CONTINUED FOR A WHILE LONGER, I stopped counting>
In my opinion, both parties should be alert for incoming sanctions if they are unwilling to take the spelling of Marseille(s) in this article through WP:Dispute resolution. Historical considerations may argue for Marseilles in this period but it needs consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:203.110.242.22 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Anand Teltumbde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 203.110.242.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I previously removed content that was added by a user who is now banned for their disruptive editing to this same page [35]. Now an IP editor from a shared IP address is reinserting that unsourced information, which includes putting in other errors (such as breaking the "education" tag in the infobox). Please help. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked and article semi-protected. Probably a sock. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:JohnTopShelf reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked for 48h)[edit]

Page
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JohnTopShelf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Clarification of her positions."
  2. 15:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Ocasio Cortes is a Democratic Socialist. Also, by her own repeated admissions she is a socialist and supports a socialist agenda. Even the cites in this article describe the platform as socialist. Stating that she advocates for a socialist platform is accurate."
  3. 20:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Straightforward 1RR violation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I want to note I'm having an ongoing discussion with this new editor JohnTopShelf about this on my talk page and on their talk page right now here and they sort of self-reverted here. My hope is that the editor will self-correct as a result of this discussion and no further action will be necessary to prevent future violations. Levivich 18:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI: JohnTopShelf left a note on my talk page saying I am not going to make more reverts or edits or whatever to the Wikipedia article at this time. I have encouraged them to join the discussion here, which I am now bowing out of. Levivich 18:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately that is not remotely a self-revert and it contains arguably-BLP-violating comparisons to a Venezuelan dictator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Note, the editor is not new and has a remarkably large number of warnings on their talk page. O3000 (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh I dropped the AP2 banner on this editor's talkpage earlier in the hope that they would stop reverting, but it clearly didn't work. Blocked for 48h. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Wikiemirati reported by User:شرعب السلام (Result: No action due to self-reverts)[edit]

Page
Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wikiemirati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884531762 by شرعب السلام (talk) Again, this is WP:SYNTH. Al Qaeda linked =/= Al Qaeda. Want to list coalition as allied to Houthis and Iran as well since source says US weapons ended up with them?"
  2. 07:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884531436 by شرعب السلام (talk) rv WP:SYNTH, show me sources which state Abu Al Abbas is Al Qaeda. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. WP:ONUS"
  3. 06:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "According to source, coalition supports "Abu Al Abbas brigade", not "Al Qaeda" or "ISIL". Brigade is sourced to be "Al-Qaeda linked", not Al Qaeda."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)‎. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User is not willing to have disscusion in the talk page. They like reverting and engaging in an edit war. This behaviour should not be tolerated in wikipedia. Anyway Abu Al-Abas is considered by the US to be Al-Qeada member and Al-qeada-linked in that context does actually mean Al-Qaeda. It is amazing how this user is just not wanting to have disscuion. SharabSalam (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that the page is protected with 1RR, I have made a contribution, was reverted, then reverted myself only to be reverted again by SharabSalam. I have noticed I reverted twice after that hence self-reverted (reverted in a spur of the moment), but found out I am reported when clearly the user reporting me has reverted twice before I did in a protected page. Reporting user has clearly violated 1RR. Wikiemirati (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikiemirati, While I didn't know this page is protected with one revert you knew that and kept engaging in an edit war trying to drag me into an edit war. You clearly don't want to open a discussion but to impose your POV regardless of who would disagree. Wikipedia should not tolerate this behaviour and you should be senctioned for doing that. Even if you self-reverted yourself after I have reported you. You should learn not to disrespect others while asking you politely to come to discuss this before editing. You clearly think you have a superior point of view while ignoring the chances that your point of view could be wrong. I believe your behaviour should be senctioned for this disturbing edits. Also could you please ping me when you reply I can't put this page in my watchlist because it's very active. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: I have explained my edit, but you reverted me twice. I reverted twice as well but was sensible enough to self revert. I have even advised you to do the same on my talk page. I find your accusations of having me sanctions is not in consistent with wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith and is quite inappropriate. You opening this notice board almost immediately is also not done in good faith. I don't recall disrespecting you at all, I don't know where you got that notion but if I made you feel that way then I apologize. Your actions however, are not done in good faith and are clearly to have me sanctioned/banned/off the article for having a different point of view. You are an experienced editor and you know the revert rules and discretionary sanctions. Your actions should be scrutinized. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikiemirati I also apologize if I understood your actions wrong but correct me if I am wrong you deleted a sourced information and you explained your edits, I didn't agree with your explanation and I reverted you calling you to start a discussion. you refused that and reverted me and started a discussion using the edit summary as a talk page (question: was that trying to drag me into an edit war discussion?) (read WP:REVTALK) I didn't know that the page was protected never got notified except now. You reverted my edit again and used the edit summary as a discussion I viewed that as you are trying to drag me into an edit war and that you refused to listen to me because you think your POV is true regardless of me. I saw this behaviour so disturbing and I went to report you to admins I think this is extremely fair admins can see the edit war that happened and judge by themselves. Thanks--SharabSalam (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I deleted a highly controversial information which I explained as WP:SYNTH. You reverted me, twice and hence broke 1RR. You reverted three other edits of mine which you did not contest WP:TWABUSE. You are a regular editor of that page, and I have warned you on my talk page, and there is a clear big banner of 1RR and you know it is protected. Why would I drag you into an edit war? This makes no sense. You opened this notice. You're using WP:POV railroad right now which is not the venue of this board. You are free to open an ANI if you think I am POV pushing. Your actions are clearly in bad faith to eliminate me from editing an article. Admins here should know you broke 1RR. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I was only warned after I broke the 1R rule and you knew the rule and broke the 1RR. All of your three edits were wrong and I wanted you to start a discussion that's why I reverted your edit in the first time. You started the discussion in the edit summary!! while reverting me!!. Yes that's an act that I would consider refusing to open a discussion, an illusion of having a superior point of view and a disturbing behaviour that should be taken serious and reported to admins!. Abu Al-Abas is the same as Al-Qaeda the name doesn't matter when his group is part of Al-Qaeda groups RSs say that and plus I am from Taiz I know that which made me also be sure that your edits are wrong. Hadi-led government? Most sources say Hadi government why changing that? That should also be discussed. But you refused having a discussion!! You think your POV is true that's it end of story! That's how your actions can only be interpreted!--SharabSalam (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You could've easily started a discussion if you wanted since you started the edit war and the onus of inclusion of controversial information was on you as per WP:ONUS, but you opened this notice against me to discredit me entirely and "sanction" me as you mention. You broke the spirit of the page protection by reverting me continuously instead of discussing your reverts, not me, and broke 1RR in the process. I self reverted myself, how am I pushing my POV?? I am done with this discussion, admins can judge by themselves and do whatever they want. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Why should I open a discussion when it's you who changed the stable version? --SharabSalam (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Because the page is protected WP:1RR. You violated 1RR. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know there was a protection and you knew that. Also thats not an inclusion!! That's supported by reliable sources. There is no Al-Qaeda in Taiz other than Abu Al-Abass. These are like synonymous!reliable sources switch using them most of the time. Sometimes Alqeada sometimes Abu Al-Abas this discussion would have been in the talk page if you werent just pushing a POV and ignoring me while calling you to the talk page.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Again, I warned you and advised you to self revert [36]. You proceeded with this notice instead. This discussion could've been in the talk page, I agree. But you opened this notice board to get me "sanctioned" instead of sticking to 1RR and opening a discussion. Your actions should be scrutinized. You violated 1RR. I not going to respond anymore I'm done with this discussion. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The version of the article is now as it was when it was stable. I can't revert what you have self-reverted because that would be a third revert(reverting yourself revert). Again the version of the article is now as it was when it was stable.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
If the rules of 1RR were applied you would have stopped when I reverted you. You have violated 1RR spirit and even proceeded to open a notice against me, that's why I want your behavior to be scrutinized by an admin. It's not assuming good faith to go around reporting users for violations specially when you have made a violation in a protected page, as well as calling me POV pushing among other things. This behavior must stop. Wikiemirati (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikiemirati, I have said that I wasnt aware that the article is under 1RR. You are the one who removed sourced informations and when I reverted you, YOU should have not revert me again. thats why I reported you. You were dragging me into an edit war and I was aware of 3RR I didnt want to make 3 reverts and I didnt know the article was under 1R rule. I would have reported you before I did the second revert because of edit warring and refusing to disscuss in the talk page. SharabSalam (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I have warned you, yet you opened this notice. You did not discuss your revert, if you did I would have joined the discussion. I didn't violate the 3RR either. Optional methods for reaching consensus is not a policy, violating 1RR in a controversial article is. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikiemirati, I only knew that the article is under is under 1RR when you warned me and that was after i opened the notice. You refused to listen and reverted me 2 times and I opened the notice. This notice is because you behaved like an edit warrior. refusing to listen and using the talk page is an edit warring. Again if I knew there was a 1RR I would have reported you before the second revert because you are removing sourced information and refusing to disscuss. Nothing I can do in this case except reporting you as you are clearly doing an act that a lot would consider pushing a POV--SharabSalam (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. When did I "refuse to discuss"? You failed to initiate a discussion and opened this notice instead to get me "sanctioned" and off the article. The page is protected by WP:1RR for a reason. I have pointed out a controversial edit in the article, you failed to counter it by not even opening a discussion in the talk page, but by taking this into a notice board to get me "sanctioned". If you want to include controversial material by adding a couple of countries as allies to Al Qaeda the onus is on you to get consensus. Look at your own behavior before you call out others. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: No action due to self-reverts. Both parties broke WP:1RR but then both of them self-reverted, which is often accepted in lieu of a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:XKnuckLez reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Paul Rodgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
XKnuckLez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:25, February 22, 2019 (UTC) After report filed.
  2. 00:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Breadsticks is a butthurt person who is stalking my edits. Please stop these wikipedia:personal attacks. I feel threatened."
  4. 23:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) "Don’t revert you heartless person"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Paul Rodgers. (Using Twinkle"
  2. 00:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:178.109.213.211. (Using Twinkle"
  3. 00:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Paul Rodgers. (Using Twinkle"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Administrators, please look into this. I am being targeted by flighttime from legitimate edits. Thank you.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

User:VwM.Mwv reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
The Holocaust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
VwM.Mwv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  • First edits
  • 21 Feb. The edit includes adding material about reparations, an image of Adolf Eichmann, and two short cites lifted from another article that don't correspond with any long citations.
  • Reverts
  • Warnings
Comments

Admin action would be appreciated here. VwM.Mwv arrived at The Holocaust on 21 February. He is repeatedly reverting (although not 3RR), at first adding material that violated an Arab-Israeli topic ban he was under (see first discussion under "warnings" above), and adding inappropriate sources and an image of Adolf Eichmann in a section too crowded for it. SarahSV (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I made two reverts (and one of them was only partial) to that article today. And I explicitly stated in the edit summaries and on the talk page that I wouldn't mind if another editor restored an older version pending talk page consensus. That's not edit warring. I know this because I admitted & apologized when I engaged in actual edit warring earlier. M . M 20:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: By the way, everything you mentioned is being discussed at the talk page in a discussion that I initiated earlier today (I haven't edited the article at all since then). And you're admitting that I didn't violate the 3RR. So can you please tell me what excactly you're reporting me for, and what "action" you want to be taken? M . M 21:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a discussion you initiated at 19:35, 23 February before continuing to revert. SarahSV (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I think you're mistaken. When did I continue to revert (unless you're counting the link that I accidentally removed & restored per talk page request)? M . M 21:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Also, you still haven't told me what you're reporting me for. This page is specifically for edit warring, and you explicitly stated that I did not violate the 3RR. M . M 21:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Seriously, you're reporting me for (something?) on a page about edit warring, yet you write in your report that I didn't violate the 3RR. [37] If you don't give me some sort of explanation soon, I'm gonna ask if it's okay to remove this whole report. It just seems like one big paradox. M . M 21:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
FYI, VwM.Mwv, I'm uninvolved in this dispute, but you may want to read the Wikipedia guidelines for edit warring (the first wikilink on this page), which states in the opening lead: "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of 'edit warring', and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so."
Also, you clearly reverted after the discussion started on the talk page (talk page discussion started by you here, and then 30 minutes later, ignoring the responses while continuing to edit war by reinserting a picture into a disputed section here). Given your edit summary ("Ok, this is a bit of a silly discussion but anyway I found a smaller picture. (The sources are from the Adolf Eichmann article, feel free to remove them if there's a problem.)"), your question above ("When did I continue to revert (unless you're counting the link that I accidentally removed & restored per talk page request)?") seems disingenuous since you were aware you were adding a picture to the same section after objections.
I think you may want to rethink your statements here and work towards being more collaborative in the future. Please take care. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. VwM.Mwv was indubitably edit warring, first going right up to 3 reverts in quick succession, then waiting a couple of days and then reverting several times more. It seems from the block log that there may be more problems affecting the user, so I have pinged a couple of relevant admins to their talkpage. I don't have time to make an in-depth review myself, unfortunately. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC).

Anonymous multi-IP user reported by User:C. A. Russell (Result: Protected 3 days)[edit]

Page: Microsoft .NET strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: my MOSTENSE correction ("is" to "was"), also intro paragraph copyedit to become a "concise overview" of the paragraphs that follow

Diffs of the user's reverts:


  1. first revert to intro structure
  2. second revert to intro structure


  1. first MOSTENSE revert
  2. second MOSTENSE revert (same edit as first intro revert)
  3. third MOSTENSE revert (same edit as second intro revert)


  1. reverting another user's mention of .NET Core in the hatnote


Comments:


NB: This is a report of edit warring before it gets to 3RR; not a report of a 3RR violation.

There are twothree IPs I've encountered, both originating from Iran, and which have made edits with a consistent theme reverting some changes of mine, and of at least one other user, to the Microsoft .NET strategy article. Yesterday, this spilled over elsewhere, where the editor (I'm assuming) clicked through to follow my contributions to another article, and behaved similarly. (There is more coverage at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Roslyn, pawnship.)

I'm seeking a third party to look into these issues. Please also pay close attention to the actual content of the edits, the issue in dispute, and polarity. Many of the edit summaries from this user are misleading or using some form of misdirection. For example, the user cites MOS:TENSE, MOS:COMPNOW for his or her reverts, while actual scrutiny of the reverts reveals that the changes the user wants are what those guidelines explicitly call out as incorrect; the user injects some extra words into the article and in a subsequent edit appeals for a compromise, mentioning wordiness, when in fact the words being removed are ones that the previous editor added. In another edit, the user's edit summary labels his or her changes as reverting vandalism, when in fact the changes being reverted (not mine) were changing the generic wording of a hatnote to something more specific.

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd assume that the 37.25 IPs are the same person but 5.78 is about 250 miles away. Not saying they couldn't be the same person, just that geolocation alone isn't enough to say they are.
If they are the same person, then a couple of range blocks might not solve this. At this point, I'm just going to lock the page as being under a content dispute. If they do not engage on the talk page during that time, or they say one thing but do another, then we'll have something actionable. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Ian.thomson Maybe if you look at the subject matter, the result of your work would be more objective. Manuals of Style are not firm laws. They are rough guidelines. But it is non-neutral to say something is a strategy when it no longer is. And why is this person so hostile? His first attempt in communication is calling me a "personal grudge". What if he is wrong? If you do not care for the WP:NPA policy, don't you at least care for the integrity of Wikipedia? Or... what do you care for here anyway? 37.254.85.6 (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe if you bothered reading what people said, you'd make less foolish assumptions. I never said anything about the MoS. WP:Edit warring is a policy and this is not the talk page for that article. Sort it out there. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Roslyn issue (covered in detail Anthony Appleyard's talkpage, but only briefly mentioned here), I've started a discussion section at Talk:Roslyn_(compiler)#"Roslyn"_versus_".NET_Compiler_Platform", if there's any discussion to be had. Given that there are two–potentially three–different IPs in play here, and all have already been given notice of this noticeboard topic, this seems like an acceptable way to direct any interested parties to that discussion regarding that issue. (Otherwise, we're talking about leaving three more talk page notices, and still potentially missing out if IPs change again. No action, from an admin or otherwise, is requested right now. This message is purely for good measure.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • This is not the article's talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Lehol reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
C. S. Lewis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lehol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884998425 by VeryRarelyStable (talk)"
  2. 04:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884960915 by Elphion (talk)"
  3. 02:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884953193 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
  4. 01:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "correction of wrong information using as source the online version of British Encyclopedia."
  5. Consecutive edits made from 00:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC) to 00:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
    1. 00:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "correction of wrong information"
    2. 00:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on C. S. Lewis. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "/* "British and Irish" in the opening paragraph */ R"
  2. 03:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "/* "British and Irish" in the opening paragraph */ R"
Comments:

Requesting comment from @Elphion:, @VeryRarelyStable: and @Moxy:, all of whom reverted Lehol. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I have given them an initial 24 hours block as they have clearly violated the 3RR. Will see what happens when the block expires, if they continue to revert without a new consensus then they are heading for longer blocks or even an indefinite one. Keith D (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Keith D. I was just coming to say that there were two more reverts since the last one I added. I don't have any horses in this race, but consensus has been "British" here so I was simply helping to maintain consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment (as requested above by User:Walter Görlitz): I reverted the change, to restore long-standing consensus at C. S. Lewis (as discussed in reams of archives) in light of MOS:OPENPARABIO. -- Elphion (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

User:JosefAbraham reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Lorena González (Seattle politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JosefAbraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC) "OK, I took another whack at an edit. To me, it's important to mention the public comment rules were violated. I want to keep the primary sources linked also please. Thanks for your edits, this is good enough."
  2. 06:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "I made a few minor edits to this that I think I can live with. Thanks SounderBruce for your help. I think we're good here."
  3. 03:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884663132 by SounderBruce (talk) There is no pressing need to change the page."
  4. 03:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884659209 by SounderBruce (talk) No reason to change it. I quoted from the article and mentioned a YouTube clip supporting the description."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lorena González. (TW)"
  2. 05:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "/* February 2019 */ more"
  3. 06:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Lorena González. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user keeps trying to add his interpretation of an extremely minor event (a councilmember kicking out a public commenter) with no long-lasting effects. The additions includes links to his personal Youtube channel and his personal Scribd account. Despite several warnings about edit warring, the user refuses to comply with NPOV. SounderBruce 06:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

SounderBruce Thank you, the links ARE to my personal YouTube and Scribd. I receive no financial compensation for hosting primary source material. JosefAbraham 06:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talkcontribs) JosefAbraham 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me also add for the record, the reason why Tsimerman was thrown out for a year versus just a meeting or a month was because of repeat, malicious violations of Seattle City Council public comment rules. I welcome other editors taking a look and coming up with some kind of long-term solution. Councilmember Gonzalez has other accomplishments, but frankly I haven't had the time to add them. JosefAbraham 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

For WP:3RR violations, the reasons you were doing it generally don't matter (outside of a few specific exceptions that do not apply to your edits.) In fact, your edits themselves were potential WP:BLP violations, since you seem to have been sourcing negative material about a living person to a source that definitely doesn't pass WP:RS. I suggest you read the three policies I linked - WP:3RR, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: User:JosefAbraham is warned they may be blocked the next time they add links to questionable sources like Youtube or Scribd to this article unless they have obtained prior consensus to do so on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I accept the warning with grace and acceptance. Thank you for the probation EdJohnston . JosefAbraham 23:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC) JosefAbraham — Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talkcontribs)

User:81.200.82.126 reported by User:Thewinrat (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
UFC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
81.200.82.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on UFC. (TW)"
  2. 16:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on UFC. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:WestManMedia reported by User:Michig (Result: blocked two days)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

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

Comments:

User adding long lists of largely non-notable people, without supporting sources, possibly promotional.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous IP 2600:1:D220:9120:A020:771:834F:7D75 reported by User:Hawkeye7 (Result: Blocked two days)[edit]

Page
Richard Feynman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  2. 00:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  3. 01:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  4. 01:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [44]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [45]
Comments
  1. High-traffic featured article.
  2. Reversion has been by a different editor each time - four different editors.
  3. Previously blocked for 3RR for the same change on this article as 66.159.101.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) on 17 February.
  4. Eight earlier reverts as different IPs on 13 and 14 February.
  5. Rather than playing IP wack-a-mole, recommend semi-protecting the page for 30 days - but edit warring is the problem, so reported here rather than to RFPP.

Hawkeye7