Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive389

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:ConcernedCitizenUSA reported by User:El_C (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Scientific opinion on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ConcernedCitizenUSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 21:49, 20 April 2019
  2. 21:53, 20 April 2019
  3. 22:17, 20 April 2019
  4. 22:19, 20 April 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:26, 20 April 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 22:42, 20 April 2019

Comments:

Gave the user the chance to self-revert, but they declined (22:52, 20 April 2019). El_C 03:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)



You have accused me of taking sides and supporting "climate skeptics" and taking one side. This is false. Absolutely nothing, not one word I added, gave any weight to "climate change skeptics". Nor did I "take sides" nor was I "one sided". Everything I added was neutral and factual and revolved around a review and analysis of the seminal Cook study. It's laughable because the remainder of the article is very much "one sided" and full of misleading information cherry picked from the Cook study.

Furthermore, the issue of whether climate change is happening is not addressed nor even relevant to THIS article. There are other wiki articles that make it clear that climate change is happening, so the only controversy is whether that climate change is anthropogenic or cyclical (natural). What I added directly reviews the actual Cook study which is 100% on point to the purpose of this article, which covers the scientific consensus and controversy.

Furthermore, your statement that I undid another editor's work is false. I have not undone anyone else's work. I simply added a completely new section. So in fact, YOU have undone my work several times now in violation of Wiki rules. Please stop doing that!

Your accusation that I have violated Wiki rules regarding an "edit war" is also false. This is very Orwellian, because you have not followed Wiki's own rules regarding how and why additions from other author may be reverted. You have not supplied any foundation or rational reason why you reverted my additions. So in fact, you are violating Wiki rules regarding editing the work of others.

I urge you to follow Wiki's rules if you're to disagree with ADDITIONS to articles rather than summarily reverting changes.

ConcernedCitizenUSA 8:06 PM (PST) April 20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConcernedCitizenUSA (talkcontribs)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear-cut edit-warring - you don't get a pass for asserting that you're right. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:39.42.60.142 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
39.42.60.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893416980 by General Ization (talk) revert rollback abuser as usual, see consensus on talk"
  2. 05:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893416016 by General Ization (talk) Revert rollback abuser, see talk page and user talk page of this user"
  3. 05:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893415234 by General Ization (talk) Revert rollback abuser, see talk page"
  4. 05:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 891903951 by 89.72.59.22 (talk) see talk page and stop reinserting this without very reliable sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [1]
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours — JJMC89(T·C) 06:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Since edit warring continued between two other users, I have fully protected the page for 4 days. El_C 07:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Qasee1230 reported by User:Argumentdebate (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qasee1230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: I think the edit war is understandably futile to discuss and it appears to be more akin to vandalism. The discussion of the Civil War is more pointless considering the riots between the Sinhalese and Moors that have taken place more recently and deserve more attention, yet this user refuses to allow reputable sources to be used...

  • I blocked both of these for 31 hours for racist harassment. Qasee had this to offer in retaliation for this racist gem by "Argument". I'm about to look a bit closer to see if Argument shouldn't be just blocked indefinitely (and they seem to lack competence as well). Drmies (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: I don't think it's competence they lack so much as an inability to restrain their POV-pushing. Admittedly, the effect is much the same... ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
SN#, I was thinking of certain syntactical things inside that edit they were fighting over. Mind you, I have not looked carefully at the edit warring, and who's worse than who. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Argumentdebate 'wins' the number of reverts over a single issue since several people were reverting them. But Qasee1230 'wins' overall since they were reverting quite a few things, many of which were unhelpful but not really vandalism or otherwise 3RR exempt although it depends how you count these as it's likely some could theoretically be combined. There's also an IP who has well exceeded 3RR although to their credit challenged the racist comments simply by asking people to avoid racism Special:Contributions/71.218.108.117. I've only just warned them [2] Nil Einne (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: do you find it as suspicious as I do that about 14 minutes after you blocked Argumentdebate, User:Athiestsupporter is registered and starts arguing for the inclusion of the same material Argumentdebate was edit warring over [3] [4]. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I support the user but I am not actually the user. You can do an IP check on me if you want. I will state that the people removing the edits under the claim of Islamophobia aren't actually local Muslims - they appear to be mostly foriegn with one from Pakistan. The religious landscape of Sri Lanka is far more tolerant and it may not be considered Islamophobic by local Muslims to post the content - it's worse that the conflict between Tamils and Sinhalese is brought up when that is not a non-existant conflict, and I am sure that the Muslims would agree that the conflict is far lesser than the one between Sinhalese and Muslims, but of course all the editors here claiming to fight Islamophobia aren't even from Sri Lanka... Athiestsupporter (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Athiestsupporter. And guess what, Nil Einne--the other was a sock too. Thank you Bbb23. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Epf2018 reported by User:Kwamikagami for repeatedly deleting maintenance tags under discussion (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: People of New Guinea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epf2018 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Not sure this is the right place for notification. This isn't a 3RR violation. Rather, in reverting to the version of the article that he prefers, Epf2018 is intentionally deleting the OR, merge, cn and content fork tags that I added to the article and another editor (Diannaa) provided some attribution for. (E.g., on the talk page, Epf2018 said a tag 'was an unwarranted one and only you decided to add it.' I wrongly called this 'vandalism' in my edit summary, when it's merely disruptive.) He did that twice after I twice told him not to, the second time after I threatened to take him to ANI if he did it again. So, here I am at ANI.

There has been a degree of accommodation: I went from redirecting the article to Melanesians, as the other user in the discussion, Austronesier, also prefers (what Epf2018 calls "blanking"), to editing out OR and bullshit (which was the majority of the content) and tagging much of what remained as a content fork. Epf2018 on his part deleted a completely OR section that I had also deleted, to accommodate me, though this section also contradicted his own POV (that there's a racial divide in New Guinea that follows a linguistic division, even though this is contradicted by the very sources he cites). The rest of the content dispute we should be able to handle with RfC's and the like, but the deletion of maintenance tags just because Epf2018 doesn't agree with them is not acceptable. — kwami (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This user has been making highly disruptive edits, making vulgar, insulting comments and personal attacks in his edit summaries ([8] [9] [10] [11]) and insulting and hostile discussion on the relevant talk page (see [12] [13] [14]), and has been repeatedly moving the article to a new title without properly consulting all of the other editors. I have only reverted the article to its original format prior to this user's page moves and redirections. The maintenance tag was added without a valid explanation, so I'm not sure why it was included. In any case, the threatening, uncooperative and aggressive behaviour of Kwamikagami has not allowed for any form of consensus, so how can I deal with the issue? Epf2018 (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know where I've made personal attacks, unless you consider me pointing out that you don't appear to understand your own sources to be a "personal attack". Or vulgar, unless you consider the word "bullshit" to be vulgar -- but then, it is what it is. Edit conflict: it appears to be the word 'bullshit' that you take to be a personal attack. But it's not. Much of the article *is* bullshit. When Fareed Zakaria talks about Trump's "bullshit", he isn't being vulgar, he's just stating the facts. And in any case, as you say, you didn't write it, so how is it 'personal'?
BTW, the closest to consensus we have is to delete the article and rd it to 'Melanesians'. I'm willing to accommodate you on a separate article if it isn't nonsense, and I suspect Austronesier would be willing to too, but when you don't understand your own sources and insist on restoring (let's call it 'nonsense' to be polite), it's difficult to come to an acceptable compromise.
In any case, the fact that you don't know how to "deal with the issue" is not reason to delete the merge, OR, cn and content-fork tags, esp. when one other editor agreed on the merge and another agreed on the content fork. The cn tags for OR go without saying. You could solve that by providing refs. Oh, and not deleting refs that contradict your POV would be nice. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Your edits are highly aggressive and uncooperative, you refer to the other editors in derogatory terms, you use foul language as a poor excuse for an edit summary, you don't give any consideration of the points made by other editors who disagree with you, and you are clearly not acting in good faith. You go ahead right here to claim I don't understand the studies I actually use and reference, almost verbatim. I have explained, in incredible amount of detail, the findings of the studies and presented enormous evidence. You have not presented ANY evidence or sources to back up your edits, and just make silly, childish attacks and repeat nonsensical comments without even reading another user's arguments. There was no support or validation for the maintenance tags. There is no original research. Everything stated in the article is cited by valid, academic sources. The article is also distinct from Melanesians in its content and purpose. You are ridiculously claiming that the findings and information from valid studies are "nonsense". Just because you find it to be nonsense, because of your personal ideological perspective, is irrelevant. Seriously, did you even read the studies? Every one makes the clear point of the major cultural, historical, geographic and linguistic differences between Austronesian and Papuan groups in Melanesia, which they then find also exist modestly in genetics as well. How can you not grasp this? Are you denying this? If so, where's YOUR evidence contradicting these facts stated by the studies themselves?? Every ref used in the article supports what I entered, since everything I entered is taken from those studies. You have admittedly stated you have no interest in consensus, and thus continue your unacceptable behaviour. At least an administrator will now be made aware. Epf2018 (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Your own sources are my evidence. You prove my point for me. — kwami (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The article has been fully protected by SlimVirgin. @Kwamikagami: Next time you file a report in this forum, you must include diffs.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Could you leave in the tags (2 users want the article merged, but the merge tag is gone, a 3rd user notes the content fork, but the CF tag is gone, 2 sections are blatant OR, but the OR tag is gone, and all the cn tags are gone) or at least restore the pre-EW version, rather than locking in epf's version? They only "compromised" on the section that contradicted their POV. — kwami (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources I use, the studies themselves, do not support your position. As for OR, there is no OR in the article, as everything is taken from the content of the studies, which clearly differentiate between Papuan and Austronesian groups in Melanesia, and discuss their cultural, historical, linguistic and geographic differences, before also discussing their genetic differences. Epf2018 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
If that's true, then you still need to ref the sources. That's why I tagged so much of the article as 'citation-needed', so you would know exactly what needed to be done. A bunch of unattributed claims is indistinguishable from OR. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
You're both experienced editors. The fact that the article has been protected should show you that discussion needs to take place. You both need to brush up on WP:OWN then step back and actually participate in a discussion and allow consensus to guide further edits to the article, else you're likely to end up either back here and/or blocked. This discussion here is over - move the discussion to the talk page where it needs to be. Dusti*Let's talk!* 19:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dusti: And about either restoring the tags, which per WP conventions should not be summarily deleted, or restoring the article to what it was before the dispute, rather than favoring one of the disputants? — kwami (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, you're continuing the discussion here and on my talk page, when you should be discussing the issues on article talk. The recent move should be agreed upon or reverted before starting a merge discussion; otherwise you're going to cause more confusion. The discussion here has been resolved, so please continue on article talk. SarahSV (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

User:75.135.117.109 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked by Materialscientist)[edit]

Page
Ed and Lorraine Warren (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
75.135.117.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893528114 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
  2. 00:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893527951 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
  3. 00:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893527763 by ReclinerOfMars (talk)"
  4. 23:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC) "Removed false information and slander."
  5. 23:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ed and Lorraine Warren. (TW)"
  2. 00:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Ed and Lorraine Warren. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP refusing to follow WP:BRD on the page when multiple editors have reverted. WP:BLP violation claim made by IP appears to be false, as the section they are removing is sourced, thereby passing WP:BLP. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 00:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Elchubbo reported by User:fishhead2100 (Result: Warned)[edit]

FYI, this has nothing to do with me. I am just reporting the issue.

Page: List of independent wrestling promotions in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elchubbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)}

Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. January 31, 2019 at 23:28 - "removed non-notable promotions" (the edit being reverted)
  2. February 15, 2019 at 21:15 - "Removing "not noteable promotions" is a matter of that editors opinion. Many of these promotions are notable for their presence on the indy scene and have/still do host many "notable" wrestlers." (First time it was reverted. It was reverted by an IP.)
  3. February 16. 2019 at 12:45 "Wikipedia lists should only contain notable items (items with a Wikipedia page). This isn't my opinion, it's policy" (The last revert for two months)

Where the edit warring begins:

  1. April 16, 2019 at 8:10
  2. April 16, 2019 at 8:56 - "WP:NOTDIRECTORY. You can't argue with policy."
  3. April 16, 2019 at 10:29 - You Don't even live In Ontario. Leave this alone or I will continue to Undo your edits. You are screwing over many feds who could use the exposure. If you continue to re-edit this page, I will contact Wiki directly to have it locked. (Elchubbo is threatening to get his way)
  4. April 16, 2019 at 13:41 - "I am leaving a more detailed message on your talk page."
  5. April 16, 2019 at 15:16
  6. April 16, 2019 at 21:07 - "This is your final warning. I've tried reasoning with you on your talk page already. Respond there before reverting again or you will be blocked."

More reverting:

  1. April 18, 2019 at 7:47 - Your Threats don't scare me. I have already requested mediation and I have multiple accounts. As long as you keep editing this, I will keep undoing it as you are doing detrimental harm to function of this page.
  2. April 18, 2019 at 13:54 - "You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to collaborate and build an enyclopedia. It is in your best interest to communicate on your talk page and name your previously declared "multiple accounts"."

Elchubbo eventually just reverted any of NotTheFakeJTP's edits because he doesn't like him and wants to get his way.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. April 16, 2019 at 13:51
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

No attempts to resolve on talk page of the article. Told Elchubbo to stop reverting on his talk page. No response from him. Continued to revert. Take a look at the following:

  1. April 20, 2019 at 00:29 - You see that it has been apparently taken to moderation. But he also said there are other people who are going to continue to revert if he gets blocked. That could constitute harassment. Regardless, the three revert rule was broken on April 16th as you can clearly see. Elchubbo doesn't care about policy. He just wants to get his own way.
Comments:

Also would like to point this edit to my talk page out. Apologies for not filing this for myself, I've been busy all weekend. JTP (talkcontribs) 00:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Stale. Left the user a note, however, about discussing their changes and to avoid edit warring. Also cautioned them regarding their threat to meat/sock. El_C 00:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sirlanz reported by User:bacondrum (Result: 36 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&type=revision&diff=893399804&oldid=893399746

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402110
  2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402480
  3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402521
  4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402818
  5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893402828
  6. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403055
  7. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403069
  8. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403264
  9. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893403399
  10. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=prev&oldid=893409662
  11. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893409912
  12. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893412050
  13. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893520398
  14. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Guard&diff=next&oldid=893522273

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bacondrum#The%203RR%20rule%20(New%20Guard)
  2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Guard

Comments: The user has made a number of improvements, but I have contested a couple, adding citations etc, and they immediately revert back rather than take it to talk, they've taken some edits to talk now, but continued reverting before I could respond, they've made many edits and reverts with inaccurate edit description, suggesting they are tryin g to game the three revert rule. The way I read it, one editor makes an edit, if another contests the edit/s, the original editor is meant to take it to talk before reverting back again, and they are not meant to keep reverting back to their edit without discussion. Bacondrum (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours. El_C 01:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:116.90.229.186 reported by User:CordialGreenery (Result: Proxy block)[edit]

Page: The Gulag Archipelago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.90.229.186 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]

Comments:

Anon user refusing to participate in talk, reverting constructive edits and ignoring consensus CordialGreenery (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


This report is in retaliation for my report above. If you look at Talk:The Gulag Archipelago you will see I am very clearly participating, in fact I have left multiple comments there. As for "consensus", Cordial Greenery has none for his recent edits. I challenge CordialGreenery to provide such evidence. I await patiently.116.90.229.186 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This report was made one minute after yours and was much more thorough. I took my time making it in order to be constructive. I'm not that fast. Don't give me too much credit. CordialGreenery (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 3 months as an open proxy, per tools.wmflabs.org/ipcheck. Previously blocked by User:Zzuuzz for the same thing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:73.8.85.54 reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Page: Shamil, 3rd Imam of Dagestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.8.85.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The editor made around 8 vandal reversals in one day, here.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Ramesmurmu214 reported by User:GermanJoe (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Birsa Munda International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ramesmurmu214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Birsa Munda International Airport"
  2. 12:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Birsa Munda International Airport"
  3. 11:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Birsa Munda International Airport"
  4. 11:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Birsa Munda International Airport"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Birsa Munda Airport - use article talk */ new section"
  2. 12:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Birsa Munda International Airport. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birsa_Munda_Airport&diff=prev&oldid=893587411 (name is disputed, thus the different talkpage)
Comments:

Repeated change of article title to a disputed version by copypaste moving. See history of Birsa Munda Airport for related name changes in the correct article version. I have started a thread at Talk:Birsa Munda Airport and asked the user to join there to no avail. Technically not the 4th revert (the 1st edit introduced the erroneous copypaste mess), but per WP:3RR it's clear that this disruptive editing won't stop without an admin looking into it. GermanJoe (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 19:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sundeki reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Fraser Anning's Conservative National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sundeki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Has all the hallmarks of a POV-pushing single-purpose account, but the first revert listed and the previous version reverted to (original addition) are the same edit. I already semiprotected the page for 2 weeks per the RfPP report. I suggest further discussion regarding the disputed addition be taken to the article talk page. I also note that the user was not informed of this report nor warned about 3RR (perhaps why those mandatory fields were left blank here). El_C 03:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find the 3RR warning on the Twinkle interface. I would also ask you consider which version of the article you have left it as, since the current version is against consensus. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't pick and choose the right version. El_C 10:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:73.8.85.54 reported by User:Arsenekoumyk (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Shamil, 3rd Imam of Dagestan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.8.85.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Aggressive edit warring by the user, he made around 11 reversions of reversions, 8 of them in one day.

The pre-war version is this

User User:73.8.85.54 made

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8

All of them are vandal edits because 1) sources removed 2) text of the vandal contradicts those sources

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by El C. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:75.111.203.5 reported by User:Atsme (Result: protected)[edit]

Problematic IP - see TP. Edit warring at Alligator gar:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]
  4. [30]

See TP of IP and other warnings from other editors in Feb & March. IP made multiple reverts and changes at Alligator gar. Does not understand some of the terminology - refused to discuss on TP. I did request semi-PP to prevent further edit warring from this IP. Atsme Talk 📧 02:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

El C, please accept my apologies for the malformed report. While I saw the red notify other user notice at the top of the page, I somehow missed seeing the form itself. I try to avoid the dramah boards and 3R so I'm not well-versed in protocol. By fully protecting the article, you locked in the errors made by the IP and prevented me from easily repairing the damage. I'm surprised you didn't opt for semi-pp considering the IP has received other warnings about their behavior during the short 2+ short months they've been editing. Semi-pp would have stopped the IP's disruption, and may have even encouraged them to the TP or possibly even to register and start a dialogue instead of causing issues at a longstanding GA by introducing errors and changing context in some instances. Full PP not only prevented me, a long time content creator and GA/FA participant, from doing damage control as a watchlist steward of that GA, but you locked it down with the errors in tact. I hope you will reconsider your full PP and change it to semi. Atsme Talk 📧 14:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The version protected just happened to be that version at the time protection was applied. Four days is not a long time, and if the IP refuses to participate on the article talk page during which, they will forfeit their right to continue reverting to their preferred version after the protection lapses. El_C 18:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. First diff listed is the original edit, not a revert. Page protected for 4 days. It's disappointing neither editor has yet to make use of the article talk page. Please do so as soon as possible. In future, please observe the assigned format as this report was malformed, with several mandatory fields missing. El_C 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

User:RalphinSanDiego reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: 24, 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Hoover High School (San Diego) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
RalphinSanDiego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Look at the edit John ... then look at the page of the document.."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC) to 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "unsourced information...community information for City Heights has no proper link"
    2. 18:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "this is what this should look like...please see cite 3..probably your best chance at fixing this mess"
  3. 16:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "This editor is horrible. perhaps hire someone from the local area"
  4. 16:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "It doesn't seem the person that just checked my edit has any clue about San Diego"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC) to 15:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 15:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Common misconception that this school is located in City Heights when it is actually located in the Talmadge community of San Diego"
    2. 15:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "talmadge community link added for proper identification"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Hoover High School (San Diego). (TW)"
  2. 16:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Re"
  3. 16:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "/* April 2019 */"
  4. 16:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! */ new section"
  5. 16:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
  6. 17:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "/* April 2019 */ re"
  7. 17:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Ted Williams. (TW)"
  8. 19:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hoover High School (San Diego). (TW)"
  9. 19:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "/* April 2019 */ re"
  10. 19:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:John from Idegon. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Pretty much his entire talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Invited user several times to start discussions on article talk page. Told them specifically what the issue was. Gave them a welcome template and a Teahouse invite. Recieved for my troubles EW and PAs. John from Idegon (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There was proper citation made and John continues to disregard the citations. I have no clue who this person is, but he appears to be from Oregon and doesn't verify the citations that I have included. I ask that this be evaluated for his removal as an administrator if he is found to be overly aggressive in his assertions towards new posters. This is no way to cultivate editors of your incorrect content. Who has all day to go back and forth with a person from another state over a high school right down the street from the house. Given my limited posting on this site, I am definitely unlikely to post again on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talkcontribs) 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This shouldn't be about winning John from Ogden. It should be about getting the right information on your site. I am not a coder nor do I care to learn to code (which is what interacting on this site is like for me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talkcontribs) 20:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/planning/community/profiles/pdf/cp/cpmcfull.pdf see page 106 for verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talkcontribs) 20:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there was no edit warring, there were continuous (apparently incorrect in form) attempts at correcting erroneous content with different sources that were said to be deficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RalphinSanDiego (talkcontribs) 20:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Both users violated 3RR and both users failed to use the article talk page — I haven't decided what to do yet, but I semiprotected the page, for now. El_C 00:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 and 24 hours, respectively. El_C 00:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: No action)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: (grouped somewhat logically; those with >3 reverts might be WP:GAMING of 3RR)


  1. [31] (1RR violation)
  2. [32]
  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]
  6. [43]
  7. [44]
  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]
  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  1. [57]
  2. [58]
  3. [59]
  4. [60]
  1. [61]
  2. [62]
  1. [63]
  2. [64]
  3. [65]
  4. [66]
  5. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: any warning of the tons seen at User talk:Snooganssnoogans

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no; Snooganssnoogans always responds on the talk page in a timely manner (though it's not like Snooganssnoogans stops edit warring)

Comments: Snooganssnoogans has been reverting a lot on the article; I didn't list those times when Snooganssnoogans performed only one revert in 24 hours. Notice especially those reverts without an edit summary. If it's unclear why an edit is a revert, just click "previous edit" one or two times and you'll find the edit that was reverted by Snooganssnoogans. I believe there are only five solutions: indefinite article ban, indefinite restriction on reverting without providing an edit summary, indefinite WP:BLP ban, indefinite 0RR or indefinite block. wumbolo ^^^ 12:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware that the page was under 1RR. The 1RR restriction appears to have been added on 11 April, and I violated it on 20 April (I did not edit the page between those dates). I would of course never violate 1RR if I knew that the page had such restrictions, I would self-revert if I had been notified of the restriction, and I was (and am) 99% sure that any talk page discussion or RfC would go in my favor on the content dispute in question (the text is a classic case of violating WP:FRINGE), which would have obviated any need to edit-war on this (so why would I have willfully violated 1RR?). Note also that I started a talk page discussion after reverting twice (despite not knowing of the 1RR situation).[68] It is an honest mistake that could happen to any prolific editor. What makes this so absurd is that Wumbolo himself violated 1RR on the same article, stating on 11 April, "I didn't notice the 1RR - shouldn't it be in an editnotice?"[69] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
As for the other edits, I strongly suggest that people read those edits, because they symptomize the kind of nonsense that has to be reverted on the Owens page (a hotbed for conspiracy theories, fringe content and falsehoods). This edit[70], for example, removes the BLP violation that Sarah Silverman supports MS-13, a gruesome international crime organization, yet is proudly cited by Wumbolo as an example of my edit-warring. I'm pretty sure I have on multiple occasions asked for page protections for the article for this reason. Much of the other editing on this page is in the vein, with editors scrubbing RS content, adding fringe commentary and trying to add non-RS like BreitBart to substantiate text. Of course, when that is the case, you end reverting a lot. On a related note, my 1RR violation was restoring RS text [that Wumbolo himself describes as "consensus"[71]] that reflected the mainstream academic view on the Southern Strategy (which Owens calls a "myth"), consistent with WP:FRINGE and WP:RS policy. It is a good example of the typical kind of patrolling that one has to do on the Owens page, but which on this occasion led to a violation of 1RR because I was unaware of the restriction. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we need to see diffs that are nearly a year old. The way these diffs are presented makes it very difficult to determine the edit warring issues, so I recommend they be reformatted into day or week formats. I will say that using so-so to lousy references like dailydot, dailybeast, twitter to be less than satisfactory for a AmPol BLP.--MONGO (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Here we are, again, at a noticeboard report for potentially problematic edits by Snooganssnoogans at a conservative / right wing BLP article. In this particular case, however, some of the diffs go back to previous years, so taken individually, there's probably nothing to action. But taken as a whole, combined with the other reports, it still shows that Snoog (paraphrasing an admin at a previous AE) is nearly entirely focused on adding "shaming" comments in a potentially UNDUE and NPOV manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to note that all the complaints raised against me in a spurious ban request on 21 April[72] related to my purported misdeeds on BLPs for liberal/left-wing politicians and pundits (Jill Stein, Seth Abramson, George Galloway, Tulsi Gabbard), which kind of flies against the narrative that this editor tries to construct of me exclusively "shaming" conservatives (also, apparently, clarifying that the Southern Strategy was a thing now amounts to "shaming"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. Snooganssnoogans claims they were unaware of the 1RR on Candace Owens which was only applied on 11 April. The possible past 3RR violations from 2018 probably won't lead to any action at this board. We deal with current warring or with long-term warring that is well-documented and explained. Speaking of BLP, does anyone object to this edit in which Snoogans removes the claim that Sarah Silverman supports the MS-13 crime gang? This is one of the diffs submitted above by User:Wumbolo; it is the fourth one down in the list. How severely should we sanction Snoogans for removing a BLP violation? EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this editor is currently on the radar for many within the WP community. DN (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Aleenf1 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
2028 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893771448 by Aleenf1 (talk) This has been remove repeatedly as redundant with narrative. The burden is on you to gain consensus to include it. Use the talk page."
  2. 13:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893765116 by Aleenf1 (talk) And it’s still redundant"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Redundancy */ re"
Comments:

So far, across the Olympic broadcasters list, the narrative and broadcaster are co-existing, however this person keep revert and revert to disrupt the list so far. Having explain in article's talk page and her talk page, seems she can't get it and insist on her own. No MOS support her claim.[73] Aleenf1 06:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment: See the list List of 2012 Summer Olympics broadcasters, List of 2014 Winter Olympics broadcasters, List of 2016 Summer Olympics broadcasters and even 2022 Winter Olympics and 2024 Summer Olympics, see how the list and narrative being built before move to standalone article. --Aleenf1 06:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
This is just forum shopping by an editor who wants to call the shots and refuses to gain consensus for a redundant edit. He posted at WP:ANI earlier today, and was directed to the talk page then. Now this. ----Dr.Margi 06:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
By far an editor who are want her own way and keep revert without consensus. I just want a consistency and (not) warring. --Aleenf1 06:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Please work on building consensus on the article talk page, or seek dispute resolution elsewhere. El_C 14:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Joel.mugabe reported by User:Uglemat (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Rwandan genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joel.mugabe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77]
  4. [78]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: [79]

Comments:
This user is clearly not interested in following Wikipedia's rules concerning consensus. Uglemat (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's true that as a new user I have a long way in understanding all the rules, but so far, one of the crimes I am being accused of is to make a straightforward edit that I believe didn't require a consensus. I changed the title from "Rwandan genocide" to the official title being recognized by the UN "Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda"[1]. As for the rest, as long as I don't delete your sentences, but only add my sentences in order to shed more light, I still believe I don't have to ask for your permission. Joel.mugabe (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. You do not have to ask for permission, but you do have to adhere to our rule about not exceeding four reverts per 24 hours. When in doubt, stop and ask. El_C 20:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

References

User:188.221.14.231 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page
Pretty Little Liars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
188.221.14.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "I don't see any 'inline source' for its fanbase being quote "primarily on social media", so that's objective nonsense until cited with inarguable facts. And where did this "relative" success line come from exactly? Where's the inline source citing this show's ratings were middle of the road and "relative"? Yep, definitely going to require a citation there also. Fair is fair after all."
  2. 20:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893978647 by IJBall (talk) I CITED SOURCES as told. STOP."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC) to 20:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 20:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893940314 by IJBall (talk) There. Cited https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/A1FodZJiuML._SL1500_.jpg"
    2. 20:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "Cited in view history"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This isn't the only article they've been edit warring at. They've also edit warred at The End (Lost), as seen by the warning Greyjoy left them. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

And now they are making personal attacks on the article and on their talk page. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed – WP:NOTHERE: merits a relatively long-ish block for an IP based on the behavior. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Celaena1 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Utrecht tram shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Celaena1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "Concensus is unreachable given the unyielding opinion of my opponent. Please don't interfere."
  2. 19:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "WP:BOLD"
  3. 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "For the same reason as why Brenton Tarrant is named: because this is an encyclopedia and the name is a fact."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC) to 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Suspect */"
    2. 19:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "/* Suspect */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Utrecht tram shooting. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC) "/* April 2019 */ Replying to Celaena1 (using reply-link)"
Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. The earliest diff is the original edit, not a revert (perhaps why the previous version reverted to field was left blank). Please make use of the article talk page to gather consensus for or against the changes, everyone. El_C 20:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

El C, this is their first edit, then there were three reverts after it was undone, here, here, and here. The previous version is this. It takes four edits to violate 3RR, and this user did. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, that's the original edit — not a revert. El_C 21:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
El C, after the original edit, there were three reverts. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
For a total of three reverts. El_C 21:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
El C, yeah, you're right. I keyed in too much to the "four edits required" part. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Dolphin51 (Result: malformed)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: See comments.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See Comments.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Comments.

Comments:
I initiated a Request for Comment – see Talk:George Pell#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister. Three days before the end of the 30-day period I proposed a strategy for finalising the RfC – see my diff. No-one raised any disagreement or made any special request. After the Legobot removed the RfC template I summarised the outcome of the process (diff) and implemented the majority view by erasing the offending paragraph – my diff.

User:WWGB reverted my implementation of the majority view – see his diff, insisting that I get an impartial closer. I explained the situation – see my diff. User:WWGB replied, saying he was happy with the status quo and insisting that an independent closer must participate if any change is to be made to the article – see his diff.

A third party (User:Cunard) made a formal request for an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus achieved at the RfC. See diff.

A second time, I explained my intention to implement the majority view achieved in the RfC – diff. I did so – diff. User:WWGB has again reverted the change, saying “wait for impartial closer” – diff.

There is nothing in WP:Request for comment#Ending RfCs to support the practice of frustrating all attempts to implement the majority view achieved in an RfC by reverting and insisting that we must wait for an uninvolved editor. Dolphin (t) 21:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. But doesn't look like a violation. Please try to reach consensus further on the article talk page, or failing that, pursue other forms of dispute resolution. El_C 22:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I have provided ten diffs. Are you saying that is not enough? Dolphin (t) 22:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • These need to be organized in accordance with the prescribed format. El_C 22:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh come on! “Comments” is part of the template! Surely that is compatible with your prescribed format. Please don’t fabricate excuses. Dolphin (t) 22:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you left too many mandatory fields blank. El_C 22:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Candace Owens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MPS1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [81]
  2. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not immediately but previous consensus was formed just a week earlier at Talk:Candace Owens#Southern strategy claims are "false" not merely "controversial". A few hours later a discussion was opened at Talk:Candace Owens#Fringe commentary on left-wing violence and the Southern Strategy, and MPS obviously did not engage in it.

Comments: Article has 1RR edit notice (and MPS edited the article in one of the reverts so they were aware of it), and MPS knows what edit warring is. I will also be filing a separate report against Snooganssnoogans below, who has a history of edit warring on this article and also broke 1RR. wumbolo ^^^ 11:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I was actually aware this was under 1RR, and I don't edit in the topic area much so I'm less familiar with what restrictions are in force (unlike, for example, Israel/Palestine topic area which I know more about). Wumbolo has now kindly left me a notification about discretionary sanctions on my talk page, but this was after, not before, my edits to this article.
I haven't edited this article since, and I don't intend to -- I had already removed this article and a similar one (also about an American political figure) from my watchlist.
(Both of the reverts listed were more than 64 hours ago now I think.) MPS1992 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. MPS1992 says they were unaware of the 1RR restriction, and they agreed to stop editing the article after being informed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Dolphin51 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: George Pell, 12:13 21 April 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff


Diff of edit warring warning: diff 1, diff 2. See response: diff.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff 1, diff 2.

Comments:
I initiated a Request for Comment – see Talk:George Pell#Request for comment about coverage of some of the actions of Pell’s barrister. Three days before the end of the 30-day period I proposed a strategy for finalising the RfC – see my diff. No-one raised any disagreement or made any special request. After the Legobot removed the RfC template I summarised the outcome of the process (diff) and implemented the majority view by erasing the offending paragraph – my diff.

User:WWGB reverted my implementation of the majority view – see his diff, insisting that I get an impartial closer. I explained the situation – see my diff. User:WWGB replied, saying he was happy with the status quo and insisting that an independent closer must participate if any change is to be made to the article – see his diff.

A third party (User:Cunard) made a formal request for an uninvolved editor to assess the consensus achieved at the RfC. See diff.

A second time, I explained my intention to implement the majority view achieved in the RfC – diff. I did so – diff. User:WWGB has again reverted the change, saying “wait for impartial closer” – diff.

There is nothing in WP:Request for comment#Ending RfCs to support the practice of frustrating all attempts to implement the majority view achieved in an RfC by reverting and insisting that we must wait for an uninvolved editor. Dolphin (t) 00:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Two reverts three days apart is not edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a frivolous rational for reverting. So I have applied the edit myself. El_C 00:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

User:C2A reported by User:Useddenim (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: User talk:Useddenim (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: C2A (talk ·