Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive388

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Greeks in Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
D92AL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891027431 by Khirurg (talk)"
  2. 02:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891019162 by ST47 (talk)"
  3. 02:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890997931 by Khirurg (talk) For a wikipedia article on the Greek minority in Albania, more reliable estimates should be included in the infobox as well as in the introductory text."
  5. 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 890995634 by ST47 (talk)"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 22:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Information was inaccurate. Numbers were inaccurate."
    2. 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Adding the number in percentage, as to make the numbers easier to understand."
    3. 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
  7. Consecutive edits made from 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 20:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Numbers were inaccurate and exaggerated. Most estimations place the number of ethnic groups in Albania on less than 100,000."
    2. 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Information inaccurate/ false."
    3. 21:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Adding the official number of ethnic greeks residing in Albania according to the latest official population census (2011). This is important information."
    4. 21:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
    5. 21:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ""
    6. 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "Making the information more accurate."
    7. 21:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC) "We already have the information below. There is no need to write the same information two times."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit-warring SPA created on 4 April, with the single-purpose to edit-war on the population numbers on Greeks in Albania. Ceaseless, rapid-fire edit-warring and POV-pushing. Will not stop. Dr. K. 05:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Geeez. I even warned him again after his 4th revert, because I figured I was too closely involved at this point to block/protect. This seems like the only thing this user is interested in doing, we had a brief conversation on my talk page after I tried to develop a common ground but he's gone silent and reverted twice more. ST47 (talk) 06:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This is typical MO of nationalist SPAs targeting the demographic statistics of Greeks in Albania. Thank you ST47 for your assistance. Dr. K. 06:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 09:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:U1Quattro reported by User:Vauxford (Result: 24 hours, both)[edit]

Page: Audi R8 (Type 4S) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U1Quattro (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]
  5. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Comments:


I been having problems with U1Quattro. They are still being stubborn when it comes to dispute with a edit. I even told them to take it to the talkpage and not make anymore edits until we reach a consensus but they refuse to corporate and I don't want to get myself into another edit wars. I stated that the article did not contain a front view picture of a production pre-facelift (one that isn't a limited edition such as the RWS or the Decennium). It not a big concern that one picture is used both on the main infobox of the model and in it's respective generation article.

Like the last talkpage discussion, they inserted images that originally wasn't part of the discussion to try and make my reason for reverting useless. --Vauxford (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: This report is uncalled for because such an image was already there, yet this user decided to revert the edits for no reason even after an image was added.U1 quattro TALK 18:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I added my reason, the limited edition models and the normal production model should be separate things. The edit which you reverted cater to that but you insist to cut corners and treat special/limited edition as a standard production model which I disagree with as well as indirectly taunting me because of the chance I could get blocked if I engage your edit warring. You also removed my AN3 notice template shortly after posting it. --Vauxford (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: That was an old template. Plus I had already told you about the Audi R8 Spyder which had the photo taken from the front and that is not a limited edition or a special model but a regular production model. I also had added the photo of the standard R8 coupé as well so this report is uncalled for as I had added the photo which you had claimed was there even if it was.U1 quattro TALK 19:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
It the fact that you ignore my request to discuss it on the talkpage before making any more edits. I find that rude, unsportsmen like and possibly disruptive. --Vauxford (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your behaviour has been disruptive as well as you start a talk page discussion after reverting the edits which I find rude and disruptive. You also decide to report me every now and then on an administrator notice board when you know that the matter is solvable through a proper talk page discussion and by presenting valid points which I find unprofessional and harmful for my credibility.U1 quattro TALK 19:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
How is creating a talk discussion to prevent another edit war disruptive? I tried to discuss with you and told you not to make any more edits before we reach a agreement, but you ignore that and revert the edit anyway. --Vauxford (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: A talk page discussion is started without reverting the edits and not after reverting it. I think you need to read about how a talk page discussion works.U1 quattro TALK 19:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────

As per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page". Which is the exact scenario we are in. It was clear that we were in a dispute and if we continue reverting it will start another edit war so I attempt to discuss in it talk page which you didn't corporate properly. --Vauxford (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: Which you have clearly avoided and reverted my edit before starting a talk page discussion even when a consensus could easily have been achieved in a talk page discussion.U1 quattro TALK 19:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I said what I have to say and attempted to explain it clear as I can, but this is now just rallying back and fourth since you are just trying to turn the guns around toward me. --Vauxford (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Both editors were recently excused with no block here after a multi-multi-revert violation on 1 April, about the choice of image in a car article. Since they don't appear to be either able or willing to follow WP:Dispute resolution, I recommend that both editors be blocked this time around. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
EdJohnston But I didn't edit warring this time. I even made a talkpage discussion to resolve the dispute before I violated the 3RR! I stated it as clear as I can above. I don't understand, what I'm doing wrong? Please read carefully of what I stated if you are planning of blocking us. --Vauxford (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 21:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Lamberd reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Uchar-hadji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lamberd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

User repeatedly since January removes information with sources and also changes text against sources — 1, 2, 3. User was invited to talk page to explain his vandal actions and reminded about edits' vandal nature reminder 1 and [reminder 2] and reminder 3 on his talk page with links to rules, however he preferred to continue vandalism 4.

Comments:

and yet he continues with no explanation, talk page or whatever - diff link--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

and yet again — vandal edit, by strange admin action it was even protected, though admins have to protect consented on pre-war edits.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

turns out the user makes the same warring practical in another article here. Oshwah FYI--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

one more destructive edit here--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Asks:

Oshwah your actions are incorrect. you protected vandal version which was not explained once. according to Wikipedia rules I have the right to stop vandalism, however I didn't overstepped 3-reversion rules and made many requests on the talk page of the article in question, here, on vandal's talk page and during reversions. you should correct your actions.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, hi, could you please pay attention? I think because a few understand the topic, admin made incorrect protection keeping vandal edits, which is utterly strange.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arsenekoumyk! I apologize for the delay responding to your inquiries here. I had a few urgent Wikipedia matters come up that I needed to resolve immediately, and they required my full attention. Please see the response I left for you here on my user talk page. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to respond there and I'll be happy to assist you further. :-) Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
hey, Oshwah, a little above there are links to me pinging him in various forms, he cares not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Arsenekoumyk - Ugh, I apologize... I'm an boneheaded idiot. You already provided them and they're right in front of my face... LOL ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Oshwah unnecessary self-criticism :) hard to pay attention to everything all the time--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Arsenekoumyk - HA! I appreciate that. :-) Between reverting vandalism, taking action against disruptive editors and sock puppets, assisting new users and those who need my assistance, processing reports at WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, WP:UAA, WP:ANI, and other noticeboards (as well as making sure that those backlogs are clear), and my other daily tasks - my ability to keep track of everything and remember what users are talking about can fall short at times... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Oshwah: Sorry, I'm normally on top of this noticeboard but I've been busy writing Bollocks to Brexit and ranting about RfA as usual. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 - There's absolutely no need to apologize. There is no deadline, and you were busy focusing and working on important things. It happens... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

uchar haji chechen 1 23 4 5 Lamberd (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Lamberd 1) there is talk page for these. 2) some sources were given about your version, deleting everything and deneutralizing article isn't fit for wiki. 3) you started warring. 4) chechen online non-scientific websites aren't eligible as sources. i could write 5 articles like that.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
also what's the reason of giving 2 sources copied as 5 here? is it for mass effect for the case no one checks?--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: Three days of EC protection by User:Oshwah. The present article seems garbled, and I wonder if a better job could be done. I notice that the Russian article at ru:Учар-Хаджи is much longer and more detailed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • EdJohnston vandalism issue isn't attended to. the request isn't about warring only, but warring with vandalism. basically the user succeeds in sabotaging the article, sources say one thing, vandal just changed pieces of text contradicting sources, but leaving the sources at place. at least pre-war version should be reverted to--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • EdJohnston excuses, I've not seen measures were applied to the user in question. however, vandal version is still intact though--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Arsenekoumyk: It looks like you already reverted what you consider to be the bad edits on 4 April. If you still think that something is wrong you should explain your concerns at Talk:Uchar-hadji. By coincidence, I had blocked User:Lamberd during this period due to an edit war at Chechens. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
EdJohnston I'm done explaining it for now, did it around 5 times on different pages. hope he comes to talk page.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Friedrich von Bodenstedt 1847: Soon the house, where there were two generals with their environment, is fearless Chechen. “Why are your people – the Greeks begins his speech, violation of the agreement, again started the war?” “Because you were the first to break the Treaty and because my people hate you as their executioner,” said the Mullah. “Silence, traitor! – the General was angry, "interrupted him," do you not see that your comrades have left you and that you are in my hands?" I'll have you tied up and your lying tongue torn out.…” “Ah, so you honor your guest?” – screams in rage Chechen, and rushes to the General and stabs it with his dagger. Present rush, sword in hand, a Mullah, a cry, a few people becomes the victim of an angry Chechen, until he falls, pierced with bullets and bayonets. Among those killed was also Lieutenant General Lisanevich, one Colonel and two other officers were wounded. So within a few minutes found the death of two brave Russian General, not to mention the other victims.

– немецкий писатель, переводчик и поэт, долго жил на Кавказе. «Народы Кавказа и их освободительные войны против русских», 1847 г. Lamberd (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Softlavender reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Jack Lowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Softlavender (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891204934 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) Per WP:BRD, get WP:CONSENSUS for these changes rather than re-reverting."
  2. 10:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891199790 by Krimuk2.0 (talk) per WP:BRD, please discuss and get WP:CONSENSUS for these bold changes."
  3. 07:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 889815751 by Softlavender (talk): Undiscussed changes (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* WP:BRD */ new section"
  2. 11:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* WP:BRD */"
  3. 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jack Lowden. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ new section"
  2. 10:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ re"
  3. 10:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ more"
  4. 11:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */ re"
  5. 11:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Undiscussed changes ? */"
Comments:

The reverting editor is repeatedly citing WP:BRD, when our policy explicitly states that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and mentions, "Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text." In addition, I began a talk page discussion, but the user chose not to explain their repeated reverts. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four revert to exceed 3rr. That said, I'm a bit mystified as to why the new addition was reverted. El_C 11:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Softlavender says that: ":Your reverts were not an improvement, they were inaccurate, and they were not an adequate summary of the article per WP:LEAD. They were unexplained, they made the article clearly worse, and there was no element that was an improvement." Do you agree with that, El_C? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, she must have added that comment while I was writing mine. Personally, I have no opinion, but more details would be helpful. El_C 11:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure why Krimuk2.0 has filed this report, particularly since there has been no 3RR violation. He has failed to explain, much less make a case for, his changes but instead is edit-warring to preserve these unexplained changes, even though he has been reminded of WP:BRD. Meanwhile, he is blatantly WP:CANVASSING his wiki-friends on the talkpage rather than explaining or making a case for his changes. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I made an improvement to the article, and you blindly reverted it. The onus is on you to explain why. I started a talk page discussion and asked you explain, but you did not. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Softlavender (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Jack Lowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]
  5. [17]
  6. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

  • As mentioned above, rather than making any attempt to explain or make a case for his edits, the user (who has already been previously blocked for edit-warring) is simply battlegrounding, blatantly canvassing, and edit-warring to ram them through, and has now violated 3RR. Softlavender (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I did not. The very first edit was not a revert, but my original edit. Also, "already been previously blocked for edit-warring" is false because i was unblocked within minutes because the admin decided that the block was a mistake. Please don't misinform. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. As mentioned, the first edit is the original addition, not a revert. El_C 11:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
El_C, that is incorrect. Please see WP:3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. The user has now made 6 (series) of consecutive edits that undid other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part. Softlavender (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The first and the last two of of your above-mentioned diffs had nothing to do with "undo[ing] other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part". The first was my original edit, which you reverted; the last two were an MoS correction and removal of puffery. As previously said, please don't try and misinform. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what undoing means. WP:RV is clear: "A reversion is an edit, or part of an edit, that completely reverses a prior edit, restoring at least part of an article to what it was before the prior edit." El_C 11:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
That's not what WP:3RR says. 3RR is what is being reported here. If you do not understand 3RR, I will create a thread on WP:AN for clarification. Softlavender (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Edit-warring =/= 3RR... ——SerialNumber54129 12:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This is WP:3RRN, and in fact WP:EDITWARRING is the same page as WP:3RR. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Meaning: One does not have to revert thrice (or more) to be an edit warrior. I hope that clarifies things. ——SerialNumber54129 13:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Beyond the problem of your misunderstanding of what a revert is (you need four to exceed 3rr), is the problem that you've yet to explain what was "inaccurate" about the edits you contested. El_C 12:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
He has made six so far, and five of them were within less than 2 hours (see new links above). WP:3RR says clearly: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (italics mine) -- Softlavender (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
A one-time removal of longstanding text, in and of itself, does not count as a revert. El_C 12:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
That is incorrect. What part of "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" do you not understand? Softlavender (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
That would make any removal of text a revert. El_C 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
For the purposes of 3RR, any removal of text is a revert; that is precisely why WP:3RR is worded precisely that way. Softlavender (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not interpret 3RR this way. El_C 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Then you are in error. What it says is very clear and not subject to misinterpretation except by deliberately ignoring what it specifically states. Not only that, it's a policy, and a brightline. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Then we are at an impasse, because I interpret the policy differently from you. El_C 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
You believe what the policy says is not what it means. If you belive that, then please go to the talkpage of the policy and have it re-written to say what you want it to say rather than what it does say.

Even beyond that, whether or not you agree that Krimuk2.0's first block of edits was a revert according to 3RR, he subsequently made five more reverts (please see the additional links added above after you added the result to the header), and they were all within less than two hours. Can you please view those edits and comment/act on them? Softlavender (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit 5 changes "(post-production)" to "Post-production" — I don't see how anyone was reverted by that. Ditto for edit 6, which removed "popular national" from "a television advertisement." El_C 13:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a very straightforward situation. Not counting the first edits by Krimuk2.0, they have reverted three times. Softlavender has also reverted three times. The 5th and 6th diffs added by Softlavender are two of the consecutive edits that are part of Krimuk2.0's last revert. They do not count as additional reverts. There can be no argument about that. Thus, the only issue is whether Krimuk2.0's first edits count. This issue has arisen many times before, and administrators have different views. AFAIK, it has never been resolved, and it ain't gonna be resolved on the noticeboard (and probably never on the policy talk page). Softlavender, give it up. Your conduct here is overly aggressive. You and Krimuk2.0 have both edit-warred regardless of who started it or how many times the article was edited by whom.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Bookworm857158367 reported by User:Anotherwikipedianuser (Result: No action necessary)[edit]

Page: Lady Louise Windsor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bookworm857158367 (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
  5. 5
  6. 6

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

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

Comments:
Several reverts without good argumentation and refusal to discuss it or throwing the onus of discussing on me. He has a history of edit-warring on this article. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I referred you to the discussion on the talk page and asked you to discuss it there before reverting again, which you did not do. I’d still suggest that is the best place for the discussion to take place rather than here. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bookworm857158367: You didn't ask, you gave an order, when you are were the reverting user in the first place. And I don't take orders like that. You were the first reverting, you start the discussion, not the other way around. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
There’s already a discussion on the talk page, which is where this conversation probably belongs if you want other interested input. Once you knew someone disagreed with your edit, the talk page is the best place to discuss it without continuing to restore your edit. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bookworm857158367: The same would apply to you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
So why don’t we go discuss it there instead of here? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Bookworm857158367: You would have to start it yourself. I won't give you an order to do that. Either you want to do that or you don't. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Please discuss this further on the talk page. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Since the reported editor is willing to engage in discussion on the talk page, I don't see the need for any action here. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@C.Fred: I agree. User:Bookworm857158367 started the discussion on the talk page and asked me politely to participate (albeit without pinging me), which I agreed. You can consider this closed. Thank you. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for moving this discussion off the noticeboard and to the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Charlesdrakew reported by User:Bonner16 (Result: no violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]
  3. [23]
  4. [24]
  5. [25]
  6. [26]
  7. [27]
  8. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments: User:Charlesdrakew is involved in edit warring with different editors (including myself) across several airport pages. He continually disrupts the pages by removing future destinations, claiming they are spam or promotional material. However, they comply with the templates as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/page content 3.4 [31] and are properly referenced. User:Charlesdrakew refuses to engage in proper discussion, either on the respective Airport Talk pages or the Airport Project Talk page [32]. The fact that he does not apply his 'policy' across all airport pages only serves to show his prejudice against several specific airport pages and renders them inconsistent with all other airport pages on Wikipedia. User:Bonner16 (talk) 17:40, 06 April 2019 (UTC)

  • No violation of 3RR. And user seems to respond promptly and courteously to queries on their talk page - see User talk:Charlesdrakew#Reversion for example. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:45.222.28.101 reported by User:Funcrunch (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: ACT! for America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 45.222.28.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [34]
  2. [35] (..."I will just keep re-adding until you just edit (some) info and not just push a propagandist opinion. "...)
  3. [36] (note personal attack)
  4. [37]
  5. [38] (..."I can do this all day - I have an automated system being setup that will just keep changing the article...")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

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

Comments:

Edit summaries indicate editor is not acting in good faith. Funcrunch (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RockHippie reported by User:Zoolver (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Jill McCormick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:ECF5:F7F2:4FBD:F100 and Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:787a:d2cd:4b31:116c are sockpuppets of RockHippie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/889071132

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]
  5. [44]
  6. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

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

Comments:


Three reverts in 20 minutes. Ignored suggestion about finding a source and then ignored message on user talk page to stop edit warring. I suspect User:RockHippie, Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:ECF5:F7F2:4FBD:F100 and Special:Contributions/2601:702:4202:5310:787a:d2cd:4b31:116c are the same person. Same edits/reverts for the same claim without source ("and three brothers") since March 28. Zoolver (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The IP range 2601:702:4202:5310::/64 was Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. No comment on whether User:RockHippie is engaging in anonymous socking, but I did make it a hardblock to prevent any logged in editing from the same range. You can refer to WP:SPI if you believe a sockpuppetry investigation is warranted. ST47 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Themanhascome reported by User:Nicoljaus (Result: Users warned)[edit]

Page: Taras Bulba-Borovets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Themanhascome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [48]
  2. [49]
  3. [50]
  4. [51]
  5. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

The new user readily joined the old "holy war"; blanked the warning from his talk page: [54]--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Both users have been sternly warned by User:DeltaQuad a few minutes before this report was made, and no further reverts have continued. ST47 (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
As you can see, I was writing this report instead of edit warring. -Nicoljaus (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ST47 for the ping. Users Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Themanhascome had previously deleted the same warning from his talk page ([55]) and made once more revert ([56]). So, he successfully deleted unpleasant information--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Adrian Fey (Result: protected for one week)[edit]

Page
Fraser Anning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 891137192 by StAnselm (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE - this has already been determined to be a BLP violation (TW)"
  2. 22:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891065987 by Adrian Fey (talk) - that is certainly NOT the consensus on the talk page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Fraser Anning. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated 3RR attempts to remove sourced biographical material, despite the fact Senator Anning's quote about the so called "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory was cited verbatim and the fact that said canard has been verified to be anti-semitic in nature by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that monitors rightwing extremism in the United States. Adrian Fey (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: I had claimed a BLP exemption for my reverts. An uninvolved administrator (User:Abecedare) had already noted that this contentious material must not be restored without consensus. StAnselm (talk) 02:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Except that said extract from the speech was already presented at https://www.sbs.com.au/news/full-text-senator-fraser-anning-s-maiden-speech and thus said event happened in reality, therefore it is not libel to describe Senator Anning's actions in this manner. The fact that you repeatedly reverted legitimate edits by contributors attempting to reinstate said paragraph (With the original even going as far as to shift his sources in order to pass BLP standards) does not help your case either, and did escalate to borderline editwarring on numerous occassions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrian Fey (talkcontribs) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
StAnselm has continued to edit war and has now broken 3RR on the page. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you've weighed in to continue to reinstate the BLP violation. Did you read the admin note on the talk page? I've continued to remove the contentious material per WP:BLPREMOVE. I have been claiming the BLP exemption to 3RR which is designed for this sort of situation. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@StAnselm: You have not established why the content is a BLP violation - WP:CRYBLP. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, your reverts are doing more than removing the content you insist is a BLP violation. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Protected for one week. Hopefully, that's enough time to sort out the consensus. As mentioned, another admin has already instructed editors regarding the the blp issue, so no action on the 3rr front. El_C 07:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@El C: The editor is not just removing that which they claim is a BLP violation when they do these reverts. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Or, in the spirit of Che Guevera himself, after full protecting the article of a racist moron who found himself in parliament after receiving a full 19 votes because his other racist compatriot got kicked out and they had to get someone to replace him, you can simply refuse to respond. Nice one. What the fuck do we have WP:ADMINACCT for anyway? PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Now, now. Deep breath. I simply have not noticed the response, because I was busy elsewhere. Anyway, the reverting is over as the page is protected now and if you feel there's a problem with part of that, you are free to make an edit request, which I'm sure another admin will attend to, eventually. El_C 08:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@El C: Bite me. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
You need to take a breather. This is not an acceptable manner in which to conduct yourself. El_C 08:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
+1. "in the spirit of Che Guevera himself" indeed? I suggest a nice walk in the park. You'll feel better. -- Begoon 11:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Begoon: I understand how the reference may be lost on the average passerby. Here's why I brought it up - [57] - my anger being that the person they profess to admire wouldn't approve of the blase fire and forget way they chose to use their community granted power. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Sarcasm is hard to understand at the best of times, and I'm not the clearest communicator. Sorry for the misunderstanding. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I take exception to that characterization. El_C 13:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
lol cool now try to explain away "Bite me". Everyone can see that you had a Heated Gamer Moment, not a misunderstanding. Reflect and be better. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
All this talking about biting is making me hungry. Does anyone mind if I just take a little nibble? Alpha3031 (tc) 05:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Go for it, as far as I'm concerned - but be healthy. Remember that you are what you eat... -- Begoon 12:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Sanglahi86 (Result: both blocked)[edit]

Page: Philippine Drug War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61] (removal of content)
  1. [62] (1st revert)
  2. [63] (2nd revert)
  3. [64] (3rd revert)
  1. [65] (removal of same content)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:

User persistently removes arrests information from the infobox of the article. Please see Talk:Philippine_Drug_War on details. In addition, the user has vindictively renamed the talk page section into "Trolling". —Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Both Signedzzz and Sanglahi86 have violated WP:3RR on this article. Signedzzz's actions on the talk page are also troubling. I have blocked both editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:TheRingess reported by User:206.214.54.16 (Result: no violation)[edit]

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&oldid=886552142

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=891000618
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889754308
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889632404
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889606870
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889592620

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=891403783&oldid=889648522

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siddha_Yoga&diff=889597372&oldid=856835955

Comments:
Siddha Yoga is widely recognized as a cult in many public sources over the last several decades. I happened to hear about this and was looking at the Wikipedia page but didn't see any mention. So I made a new section. It turns out they did cover some of this under "History" sandwiched between unrelated paragraphs about the group's history. I removed what I added and pulled this into a new section called controversy and added some. This was edited and removed. I tried to use the talk page, I warned them of the 3 revert rule, and finally they agreed to "compromise" and put controvery as a subsection of history. This was satisfactory to me the text included was only what had already been on the page. Then a few days later they reverted their "compromise" saying it was fine previously. This same user has a history in this article of reverting any changes which bring this topic up. While filling out this form I noticed they have previously reverted changes to try to make them seem less credible or otherwise push any discussion of this side of the organization out of the article. This person seems to be clearly biased in favor of this organization and attempts to claim anyone adding this information is being "non neutral" which is what they're doing. They shouldn't be allowed to edit this page anymore. 206.214.54.16 (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no edit warring by TheRingess here. However I would urge TheRingess to discuss this on the talk page with the OP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
Red Curtain Trilogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Nothing to discuss. Provide meaningful sources then we can move forward. So far you have nothing."
  2. 22:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Take a look at the talk page. This was brought up 8 years ago. No one objected/engaged in discussion then. Where are YOUR sources that establish this as an actual trilogy worthy of an article???"
  3. 22:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Please don't reinstate pages that lack independent reliable sources."
  4. 21:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891425875 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) to 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "what a load of bollocks. the only person to describe these as a trilogy is the director and everyone else just jumps on the bandwagon. not notable for separate article."
    2. 21:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Redirected page to Baz Luhrmann"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
  2. 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
  3. 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Red Curtain Trilogy. (TW)"
  4. 22:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Refuses to follow WP:BRD in full. I've tried discussing on my talk page here but they refuse to acknowledge my points, and have made a personal attack. Another editor has stepped in, but they have continued. They consistently replace the page with a redirect to Baz Luhrmann, saying that sources are "unreliable" and citing an issue resolved 8 years ago. They have violated the 3-revert rule (as the selected contribs show). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Correction. The above user has not attempted to engage in discussion and has refused to respond to my valid questions on their talk page, preferring instead to simply issue "warnings" and report me, rather than actually evaluating and responding to the point I make. The issue from 8 years ago remains unresolved. No independent sources establish these 3 films as an actual trilogy that requires a separate article. This was just a packaging gimmmick for a dvd release. I also refute the accusation that I made any personal attack. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I was a bit preoccupied with you continuing to revert despite being told to stop and discuss. And I was going to respond until you made a jab at me, so to speak - you're not supposed to comment on contributors, just content, when having a civil discussion on Wikipedia.AzureCitizen has also told you to stop. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Preoccupied? That's nonsense. I had stopped reverting long before. You had plenty of time to respond to my points, but instead ran off here. I'm still waiting for a meaningful reply when you're ready....2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • And at no point have I commented on you. I have made no personal attack at all. 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems Schazjmd gave some evidence on my talk page (kudos to him), if you don't mind taking a look. And I'm fairly certain "I guess using templates to hand out "internet bans" makes you feel important?" (from my talk page) is a personal attack. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And to answer the question on WP:BOOMERANG - I called on the edit warrior to take making the article to WP:AfD or a similar venue, since doing something as drastic as making it a redirect without consensus isn't exactly smiled upon. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

    • But where is your response to the points I raised? Stop focusing on trying to dish out internet bans and engage in the actual discussion as I am trying to do... relying on another editor's rather underwhelming google search result is simply not enough. Not a single one of those references actually establishes any notability for this "trilogy" (note, simply referring to something in text is not sufficient, context is key). 2A02:C7F:4839:D600:30F4:182B:D996:F701 (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • So:

note, simply referring to something in text is not sufficient, context is key

Ironic, considering that in context the article says it's not a trilogy, but rather a grouping of films by a director that use a similar style. I'm considering renaming it to "Red Curtian Trilogy (box set)" to avoid confusion (which is what this entire fiasco seems to be borne out of) - I'm not saying I disagree on the point that it's not a trilogy, I'm just pointing out that even if its not a trilogy, it's still notable. The Google Scholar sources do prove this, if actually read into. Also, again, drastic things such as blanking an entire article and adding a redirect is something we don't do without first establishing consensus between ourselves to do so. Ignorance of the fact this is a community project and that no one person has the power to do drastic things on their own (without being bestowed the power to do so in select cases in a RfA) doesn't mean you're not immune to that reality.
The reason you've been reported here is quite clear-cut: You violated Wikipedia policy by persistently reverting others edits instead of following WP:BRD. Even if you've stopped now, the violation still exists.
I'm sure this has been a waste of your time. It has been for me too. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It appears that the IP has stopped reverting. If there is still a concern that this is not a valid topic for an article, take it to WP:AFD. Renaming the article to Red Curtain Trilogy (box set) is conceivable but that might not be important enough for an article. The mentions in Google Scholar don't quickly decide the matter either way. It is at least a trilogy for marketing purposes, but maybe not for more than that. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:173.53.32.131 reported by User:Gouleg (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: The Secret Life of Pets 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.53.32.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71]
  5. [72]
  6. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user was warned twice in their user talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User claiming with no source that these are the names of the characters these actors will be voicing. Similar situation to that one months ago that ended up in me having my username changed -Gouleg (TalkContribs) 14:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring to add unsourced information about the voice roles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Solkarn reported by User:Paulmlieberman (Result: Warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [80]
  2. [81]
  3. [82]
  4. [83]


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

Comments:
This user makes the same changes every day or so starting March 31 (initially changing it on March 21, after which User:Fish_and_karate semi-protected the page). This user also edits a page Wakhan which is much less viewed, and which, perhaps, should be merged with the Wakhan Corridor page. The apparent reason is to assert a claim by Pakistan to this territory. Paulmlieberman (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Solkarn is warned. They may be blocked the next time they revert the Wakhan Corridor article unless they have obtained prior consensus on the talk page. The reliable sources are in agreement that the Wakhan Corridor is part of Afghanistan. Hence, edits such as this one appear to be inserting wrong information, perhaps through some nationalistic motive. The user may believe that the area should belong to Pakistan. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:93.177.75.254 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page
Bunny FuFuu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
93.177.75.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891528754 by Praxidicae (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) to 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891525988 by Praxidicae (talk) Take the criticism to the talk page, before you undo primary sourced edits"
    2. 14:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Gaming Romances */"
  3. 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891518951 by Praxidicae (talk) This is balanced with firsthand sources"
  4. 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Romantic Engagements"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bunny FuFuu. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is actually possibly just blatant vandalism, continuing to add blpviolations stating that the subject is in a sexual relationship with someone with no source that supports this (and also, no relevance.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Nick — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Black Kite reported by User:2600:1003:B01A:191F:C453:4015:1BFA:C31D (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: 2019 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [86]
  2. [87]
  3. [88]

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3rr. Also, you failed to add the field Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page—which I suggest you do (discuss your edits on the talk page, that is). El_C 00:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @El C: Yes, I've reverted three times because the information being added is speculative or simply false (especially after the vote in Parliament tonight). The IP has reverted four times - twice as User:198.200.181.196, once as User:204.153.79.113 and once as the IPv6 reporting here. All three IPs geolocate to Maryland. Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Page also semiprotected for 10 days. El_C 00:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Closed)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 14:33, 8 April 2019 - restores "alt-right" term to lead found in 11:07, 8 April 2019 version (moved slightly)
  2. 21:47, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 14:33 version
  3. 22:07, 8 April 2019 - straight revert to 22:05 version
  4. 22:43, 8 April 2019 - reverts to restore "false" term found in his 22:05, 8 April 2019 edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89] given at 22:17 before 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ben Swann#Synthesis

Comments:

That Pizzagate is false is indisputable. Removing that word, or the prior "debunked" wording, as Netoholic has repeatedly done, suggests that it could be true that named living people are guilty of serious crimes. It is, factually, not true. That Netoholic wants to suggest to our readers that it could be true suggests they may not be able to edit articles on this subject in a policy-compliant manner. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I've self-reverted because apparently Netoholic desperately wants everyone to know how much they believe Pizzagate is true; why else would they defend such utter freaking crazy libelous nonsense? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
You've got a couple of potential policy violations in that comment that you should consider striking when you've calmed down. 199.247.46.74 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I, too, would have gone with No action, as the user has self-reverted. El_C 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

User:D92AL reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: blocked for 1 week)[edit]

Page
Greeks in Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
D92AL (talk · contribs ·