Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive391

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:SVIwaishi1982 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Ro Khanna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SVIwaishi1982 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Economics */ readded citations that were censored"
  3. 16:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Economics */ This belongs up top, as it is a properly sourced from two publications with opposite political views, NOT PUFFERY, but if the censors won't let it live where it belongs, it should live here instead."
  4. 18:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899984911 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) properly cited from publications of opposite political viewpoints, proper explanation of ideology for a member of congress, not puffery"
  5. 17:53, 2 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 899978839 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) properly cited explanations of political ideology, the man is a politician, this belongs here."
  6. 16:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ro Khanna. (TW)"
  2. 12:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Ro Khanna. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been at first, friendly invited to participate in the talk page, continued to ignore pleas from multiple editors, only reverting, claiming to be censored, ignored questions about a COI on his/her talk, and ignored further warnings both in edit summaries and detailed explanations on their talk page. They are clearly not willing to participate in any conversation and only want to shoehorn their preferred links into the article, heedless of BRD or any other process. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 16:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Carizona reported by User:Ostealthy (Result: redirect protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Rather than block, I just protected the redirect. Feel free to try to gain consensus to change or remove it. El_C 05:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Ericthearcher reported by User:DrKay (Result: 24 hours, OP warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13], which reverts [14] (addition of category after removal of category)
  5. [15], which reverts [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Comments:

Absolute and blatant lies in the edit summaries: [19][20]. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. You should not be violating 3RR, either, DrKay. No matter how heated things get. I won't warn you about this again — and you're only getting a warning this time because the other user's explanation are not adding up. But I seriously considered blocking you, as well. El_C 18:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't violated 3RR. DrKay (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
On closer look, you're right. I miscounted. My apologies. El_C 20:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Devlet Geray reported by User:A man without a country (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Assassination of Boris Nemtsov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Devlet Geray (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [21]
  2. [22]

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

Also on my talk page: [24]

Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR — you only list two. El_C 20:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Different users reported by User:Devlet Geray (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Assassination of Boris Nemtsov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs of the users' reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]
  5. [29]
  6. [30]
  7. [31]

Comments:

A piece of information has been deleted many times by different users. Seems strange. Can somebody protect this page? --Devlet Geray (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. It's not strange — it's promotional and there seems to be consensus for it being removed. Participants should not keep restoring it. El_C 19:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bje1128 reported by User:ApLundell (Result: page protected/warned)[edit]

Page: Fenn treasure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bje1128 (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. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. [36]
  6. [37]
  7. [38]
  8. [39]
  9. [40]
  10. [41]
  11. [42]
  12. [43]

Diffs of the users reverts after commenting on this discussion:

(Of course, after I added this section header, the date/time on his comment was changed. It was originally 17:53. ) ApLundell (talk)

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

  • He replied on my talk page here insisting that his edits are ok because he has first hand facts. ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:


Here's the page as it stood yesterday. [48]

Since then a single-purpose account has shown up to change the article and aggressively defend it to match his own personal research on the subject. With edit summaries like "My sources are reliable. My evidence is firsthand, and I am accountable for the evidence"

Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to reply. I don't have a "single-purpose account" (wow), I was an inactive user who lost the keys to his old account and chose to create a new account to upload crucial photo evidence. I have also recently edited the Presidential Election of 1824 and certain antebellum House elections, but not while logged in, so I have done so marked by IP address. My name is Brian Erskine and I can be contacted at (kattigara at gmail). I am not edit warring. The Fenn quest is solved, and I have independent visual proof. I am accountable for my evidence, which is detailed here.[1] There is no treasure in the woods. The persistent idea that there is, is tantamount to a hoax. I seek to publish the proven solution - tangible facts, rather than perpetuating years of public deception, is what Wikipedia is for.

Thank you. Bje1128 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last good revision appears to be 898403395. Is there also a quick way to scrub the spammed website? It appears to be in any edits he's made (including on other user's talk pages). Orville1974 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Orville1974. The website is not spam. The source material for the proof is the epilogue illustration in Fenn's book, which matches the photo. I don't have the right to publish that illustration on Wikipedia. I am not aiming to start or win an edit war and might not at this time be able to publish the facts on Wikipedia, but the log of edit comments is of value. No harm at my end, since for me, this isn't personal or a crusade, I'm just the person who happened to find the independent visual proof of solution to the quest (details of which are elsewhere). Thanks! Bje1128 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg WarnedPictogram voting support.svg Page protected. That's a lot of reverting, but I chose to go with full protection as these two (Lummifilm and (Bje1128) may be too new to know how strict we get with edit warring and 3RR. Now that they've been properly warned, they (and everyone else) get a week of trying to sort it out on the article talk page. Good luck. El_C 19:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

References

User:Zoomzeta reported by User:Areaseven (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Dark Phoenix (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zoomzeta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
  2. 02:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
  3. 01:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Critical response */I removed a segment meant to clearly paint the film in a deceptively positive way."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Multiple mandatory fields left blank. And, ultimately, you need four reverts, not three, to violate 3RR. El_C 18:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User:FobTown reported by User:Trillfendi (Result: Warned/protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]
  5. [54]
  6. [55]

Comments:
Many users just love littering Drake’s page with tabloid-grade idiocy and irrelevant inane rumors best reserved for the Daily Mail, E! News, or ESPN as if we don’t have policies or standards for BLP. Since when is “trolling” at a basketball game encyclopedic content for a Level 5 vital article? Since when is rubbing someone’s shoulder worth inclusion for someone’s biography? Last I checked, this article is about his career and important aspects of his life like family, heritage, his home, etc. Not IMDb trivia about hobbies that won’t be a story in 2 weeks. Why can’t people understand that you can write about ambassadorship as a business endeavor without turning this article into a First Take segment? (And yes, I did say “for fuck’s sake” in an edit summary, if people are “offended”, welp. I can’t help how I talk when I see stupidity happening. So, sorry that they were offended.) Trillfendi (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

In the Reggie Miller article it talks about his feud with Spike Lee, so Drake's courtside antics are appropriate. Miller became a household name during the 1994 Eastern Conference Finals against the Knicks, due to a phenomenal shooting performance in Game 5 on June 1, 1994, in which he scored 39 points (25 in the fourth quarter alone) in the Pacers' 93–86 victory at Madison Square Garden. Miller made several long 3-pointers during the quarter and engaged in an animated discussion of his ongoing performance with noted Knicks fan Spike Lee, who was, as always, seated courtside. The win gave the Pacers a 3–2 series lead over the heavily favored Knicks, but they lost the next 2 games and the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FobTown (talkcontribs)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Clearly, there is edit warring, on both sides, but I don't see where either side violated 3RR (I am unable to tell if diff number 5 actually constitutes a revert), but I would watch out for further edit warring. Myself, I would recommend FobTown to subscribe to the bold, revert, discuss cycle — and generally note that there should be strong consensus to include when it comes to material that may come across as trivial. Whereas, my advise to Trillfendi is to tone down the heated rhetoric, even and despite her finding this dispute obnoxious. Finally, rather than limit the dispute to the two of you, which is likely to produce undesirable results, I would recommend seeking outside input, by utilizing your dispute resolution options. Hope this helps! El_C 19:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at least when it comes to the subject of Drake, that talk page is rarely if ever of any productive use. Full protection until this series is over is the decent solution. Take care (no pun intended). Trillfendi (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Though there needs to be a record of it on the article talk page, you are not required to resolve the dispute on it and may employ one the specialized noticeboards, instead. El_C 20:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Also protected via RfPP, granting the protection request of a third editor. In hindsight, I should have done so here on-the-spot, but am a bit slow, apparently! El_C 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

User:2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1‎ reported by User:David Gerard (Result: semi 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Alternative DNS root (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2606:6000:6004:2C00:0:0:0:1‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57]
  2. [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Diff of GS/Crypto notification: [60] [61]

Comments:


New anon user repeatedly adding crypto promotion to article. Notified of WP:GS/Crypto, and specifically of WP:GS/Crypto#1RR; claims "This article is not under any active sanctions so this is not in violation in GS" - ignoring that GS/Crypto is "broadly construed", so adding cryptocurrency material engages it. I would block for blatant spam were I not directly involved - David Gerard (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I'm not sure this constitutes spamming, but it is clearly not a mainstream source. I reverted and semi'd for 2 weeks. El_C 00:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Editor with dynamic IP addresses in range of 1.129.xxx.xxx and 1.144.xxx.xxx reported by User:Y2kcrazyjoker4 (Result: semi 2 months)[edit]

Page: Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [63]
  2. [64]
  3. [65]
  4. [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:

IP user persistently is adding unsourced, unverifiable information to the same article. The page was protected twice and the user blocked, but each time protection has expired they have returned to disrupting the page, evading their block with dynamic IPs. I left warnings on the user talk page for each IP address, but this frankly is exhausting trying to keep up each time it changes. Not only did the user refuse to respond on the article talk page, but they reverted my edit to the talk page completely: [69] Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. El_C 04:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Somville243 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Bob Marley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Somville243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 22:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC) to 22:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    1. 22:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 22:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 22:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 21:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 900831989 by Moxy (talk)"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 21:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC) to 21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 900800335 by Ronz (talk)"
    2. 21:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 19:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC) to 21:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC) ""
    3. 21:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

We are getting zero reply from this editor ....zero gagement Sorry....the editor has told us they are an expert on the subject as seen here..using a self published book.Moxy 🍁 13:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours 331dot (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Stefka Bulgaria reported by User:Kazemita1 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Mohammad-Reza Kolahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This has nothing to do with 3RR (diffs above go back to May 23rd). This is concerning a dispute over the misrepresentation of a Dutch source to support the claim that "dutch sources reported (Mohammad-Reza Kolahi) as the person behind the IRP headquarter bombing". The discussion of whether this should be included is taking place here, and as of yet, there is no consensus to include this claim, but filer continues to add it to the article, and now reported me here even though there hasn't been a 3RR violation. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1 did almost as many reverts as Stefka over the two week span (first diff 23 May, last diff 4 June). The content Stefka is removing is newly introduced. Icewhiz (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
That's exactly why Kazemita1 is condemning the double standard. Both are making "as many reverts as" the other while just one is blocked. --Mhhossein talk 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Myself, I had no idea that this was happening. But I'm gonna let another admin handle this report, because I feel I've been tested enough. El_C 20:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The closing admin needs to know that the reported user has a history of edit warring in MEK-related pages:
People's Mujahedin of Iran (see how he made six reverts in less than one day, without receiving even a single warning)
List of people assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran
Masoud Rajavi
Manshour Varasteh
Hafte Tir bombing
Mahnaz Samadi
Robab Farahi
Masoud Keshmiri
and etc.
Moreover, he received a warning from an and admin against "edit-warring over contentious material". --Mhhossein talk 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
One would have to question intent here. Mhhossein et al. have been reporting me repeatedly for all sorts of frivolous things since I first got involved cleaning up MEK-related pages. One would presume that it would be better to have a rational conversation on TPs about content, but instead there is constant coordinated efforts between these editors to accuse me of things I didn't know one could be accused of (such as this 3RR report which spans about two weeks and involves the filer making as many reverts as myself - this being unrelated to the reasons why the filer was blocked recently). About the warning Mhhossein is referring to, this included all parties involved in that ANI case, including Mhhossein, which noted not to treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The history of those articles speak for themselves. That you label your edit warrings as "frivolous things" should be a sign for the admins (just imagine; you made 6 non-consecutive reverts in less than 24 hrs!). You were warned not edit war, but you're still doing it on multiple pages against multiple editors, even stronger than before. Btw, I strongly warn you against accusing others with things like "coordinated efforts". --Mhhossein talk 05:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This is yet another WP:BATTLEGROUND report. I'm done responding to this. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – One week on 5 June by User:El C. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Sangdeboeuf reported by User:Netoholic (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 22:08, 26 May 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:05, 5 June 2019 (a full revert to 22:08, 26 May)
  2. 23:10, 5 June 2019 (a full revert to 11:05, 5 June)
  3. 02:27, 6 June 2019, 02:28, 6 June 2019 (combined makes a full revert to 23:10, 5 June 2019)
  4. 04:01, 6 June 2019 (a full revert to 02:28, 6 June)
  5. 06:24, 6 June 2019 (a full revert to 04:58, 6 June 2019 ) (added after report)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, see comments.

Comments:

  • I'm not involved with editing this article. I found this edit warring after the fact by seeing a request for page protection submitted by Sangdeboeuf. Also note that the net effect of Sangdeboeuf's edits today is to revert the article to an 11 May version, which itself was in relation to a spat of edit warring that required page protection. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Netoholic has been making a serious nuisance of himself on numerous gender-related articles and projects lately. I guess this is some kind of retaliation for challenging him at Talk: Masculism (multiple threads there) and other related pages. He is also mistaken about the reason for page protection. Look at the edits I reverted here – IPs and non-confirmed users giving faulty or no edit summaries for clearly disruptive edits. Suggest a speedy close to this and a WP:TROUT to the nominator. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added a 5th revert to the list above, made after this filing. I believe this editor is flaunting and playing games. -- Netoholic @ 06:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:3RRNO: undoing clear vandalism does not count toward the total. The one playing games is you. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • A wording change does not seem like "clear vandalism" - and even if you thought it was, with an open report here you should have erred FAR on the side of caution. -- Netoholic @ 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
        • How about an IP removing text from the lead with no edit summary? You admit to not editing the article, and have done nothing to contribute to it that I can see. And yet you are apparently watching it to try and catch me "out". Either participate yourself or just drop this. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Swarm: I'd like an explanation about this. Sangdeboeuf has been edit warring against several editors about several very different content edits, none of which are obvious vandalism. All this level of indefinite page protection does is endorse Sangdeboeuf's edit war and doesn't address his behavior. -- Netoholic @ 04:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The article was already protected by Dlohcierekim by the time I saw this, which is what the response to this report refers to. I did apply discretionary sanctions after reviewing the page history overall, but I consider the "edit war" to have been resolved with Dlohcierekim's protection. This is a contentious article, plagued by disruption, under discretionary sanctions. That's not a content dispute. There is no identifiable content dispute. We don't block editors for reverting disruption, on the basis of a "not obvious vandalism" argument, we assist them in protecting the article. Also, I would be careful about trying to get your opponents in a content dispute blocked like this. We're not oblivious to the implications of a bitter content dispute translating directly into an attempt to have your opponent blocked over a situation you're not involved in. There's little room for AGF when you start pushing the boundaries of grudging and harassment with dubious block requests. You better have a damn good case to bring something like this to us. "He's reverting disruption, which technically isn't a 3RR exemption" is not a good argument. And there's little tolerance for it in an AC/DS topic area. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: Did you actually look at the diffs? The types of edits are varied, from inline tagging to minor wording changes, and involve multiple editors, so I think its a stretch to call it "disruption" unless you believe that there is some ideal version of the article which Sangdeboeuf is defending. I am not involved in this article in the slightest, so I resent the implication otherwise, and I haven't asked for a block, so I don't know why you're lecturing to me and casting aspersions. This is a very clear set of diffs showing five reverts in one day, and you haven't said even a single word to Sangdeboeuf at all - no questions, no warning, no advice - nothing. All this indefinite protection and lack of interaction with this edit warring editor does is encourage his actions and will embolden him, leading to future problems. Do what you want, but you now are responsible for what he does in the future. -- Netoholic @ 02:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Unexplained removal of content, unexplained deletion of source, obvious POV-pushing, advocacy for violence against women, more POV-pushing, tag-bombing in the lead, misogynist vandalism, personal meta-commentary, POV-pushing, POV-pushing, POV-pushing, POV-pushing, unsourced content, POV-pushing, vandalism, vandalism, unsourced content, the list goes on and on. The repeated removal of "North America and Europe" could potentially become a valid a dispute, as it is being considered to be sourced only by virtue of the sources all discussing the topic in the context of NA/EU society. I.e., it's not directly sourced. If someone wanted to argue it, I could totally see that being a legitimate dispute. But even that, just being repeatedly removed by drive-by SPAs, is still disruptive editing. I'm not taking any position on the article, and looking at Sangdeboeuf's reverts, I don't see him maintaining some sort of POV or controversial content. From my perspective, he's literally just reverting the disruptive riffraff that's plaguing the article. I'm not sure why you're even advocating for the disruptive edits and against Sangdeboeuf. The disruption on that article is so obvious, I can't even understand it. Sangdeboeuf's behavior, if it's protecting articles from disruption until an admin can get around to protecting it, should be emboldened. And, yes, you're not even involved in the article. You're involved with Sangdeboeuf. In a negative way. Hence my concern over this dubious report. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I am not involved in this article in the slightest – maybe not, but Net was involved in content disputes with Sang at, e.g., Talk:Masculism and Template talk:Masculism sidebar. Levivich 03:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SunCrow reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SunCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 18:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC) to 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Early life */ reword; add source"
    2. 18:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Early life */"
    3. 19:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 901104779 by Muboshgu (talk) this content was reverted by another editor who said, "these seem WP:UNDUE, given the slight coverage; they add little regarding her views or positions on these topics." i added more sources to address the first stated concern, and i respectfully disagree with the second."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 18:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC) to 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    1. 18:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Healthcare */ re-add relevant, sourced material with additional sourcing"
    2. 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Immigration */ re-add relevant, sourced information with additional sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

1RR violations, as well as re-adding undue and discussion-rejected content from May 27. See page history. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 19:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Response: There is no 1RR violation. Only one of my edits listed above was a revert. I re-added some other content that had previously been reverted by an editor who claimed that there was only "slight coverage" of the content. This time, however, I added more sources to hopefully alleviate the editor's concern about WP:UNDUE, and I stated as much in my edit summary. I understand that the 1RR rule applies to this article, I have respected that rule, and I will continue to do so.
The assertion that I re-added "undue and discussion-rejected content from May 27" is factually incorrect. The history of the article's talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&offset=&limit=500&action=history) reflects that there was no talk page discussion at all on May 27. The article's history (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez&action=history) and talk page (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez) reflect that I made some edits to the article on May 27, that those edits were reverted, that I created three RfCs on the talk page to discuss those proposed edits, that the discussion on those RFCs is ongoing, and that I have not re-added any content to the article that is under discussion at the RFCs.
With respect, I ask that User:Tsumikiria please consider retracting this report. Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
P.S. I would like to add that User:Tsumikiria's sole effort to engage me directly on this issue consisted of posting a warning template on my talk page five (5) minutes before reporting me on this noticeboard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SunCrow). SunCrow (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, you added something, I reverted it, and rather than WP:BRD, you reinserted it, even though another editor had also reverted it previously? 1RR violation or no, it's bad form and you know better. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, as you know, WP:BRD is an optional process. However, I regret that you were offended by my revert, and I'll be more than willing to discuss the issue on the talk page. SunCrow (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, the other "option" isn't edit warring, it's forming consensus without the bold part. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Muboshgu, as was mentioned below (and contrary to what I said above), WP:BRD is not optional, but is enforced on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page. I failed to recognize that. My apologies for failing to abide by that rule. SunCrow (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
SunCrow, as you edit the article and use the talk page, you must have read the glaring "WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES: Enforce BRD, 1RR restrictions" countless times. 1RR have been breached, BRD is enforced and you breached that too. Initiating three RfCs without prior discussion is not a encouraging either. You're walking yourself into a dangerous territory. Please stop this edit warring and disruptive editing. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 21:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
User:Tsumikiria, I have taken responsibility below for what I did wrong here. I would appreciate it if you would do the same and retract the inaccurate portions of what you said about my editing above. I did not re-add "undue and discussion-rejected content from May 27." I also did not initiate three RfCs without prior discussion; the prior discussion occurred at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Content_suggesting_that_AOC_is_lying_about_her_background_+_other_faux_right-wing_scandals. SunCrow (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @SunCrow: You did violate 1RR. If you weren't such an experienced editor, I would have already blocked you for it. But I prefer that you understand the violation so it won't be repeated. In your first set of edits you added information that had been removed by another editor on June 6. The fact that you "improved" it is immaterial. That is a revert. Then, of course, your second revert you acknowledge. If you now understand and say so here, I will close this with a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Bbb23, after taking a look at WP:EW, I acknowledge that I violated the 1RR rule on the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page. I did not believe I was violating it at the time, but the policy does state that a revert consists of reversing the actions of other editors "in whole or in part." Because I changed the material before re-adding it, I thought my edits were not considered reverts. I was mistaken. I also violated the enforced BRD rule on the same page, which I had seen so many times that I did not even notice it anymore. I apologize for the errors. SunCrow (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, SunCrow. I'm closing this as warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Metalhead94 reported by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (Result: Blocked 1 week)[edit]

Page: Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Metalhead94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [72] (14 May)
  2. [73] (15 May)
  3. [74] (1 June)
  4. [75] (2 June)
  5. [76] (7 June)
  6. [77] (7 June)
  7. [78] (9 June)
  8. [79] (10 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80] (7 June)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:

Slow but persistent edit-warring against several other editors over a lame naming issue. Refused to join talkpage discussion for almost a month. Explicitly stated his intent to continue edit warring ([82]: "I will continue to combat you"). Finally responded to talkpage today, saying that he "couldn't care less what the sources" do and that he finds "annoying" what is done "everywhere in modern English literature" [83]. Clear case of somebody being out to "right great wrongs". Also keeps carrying that same issue over into yet more articles [84][85][86][87]. Fut.Perf. 09:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Oska and User:Jheald reported by User:Jheald (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Sabine Weyand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

Oska (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Jheald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of User:Oska's reverts:

  1. diff (also includes some rearrangement of retained material)
  2. diff
  3. diff

Diffs of User:Jheald's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff

These follow similar reverts by both users earlier in the week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see edit summaries on [88] [89] -- neither editor has yet gone beyond 3R

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

Comments:
I would like to request page protection of the page Sabine Weyand until mediation or 3rd-party opinion can been given re the dispute on the talk page, regarding inclusion of the subject's comments on the Brexit process.

By my reckoning, both User:Oska and myself are at three reverts, but the current situation is not healthy.

Jheald (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Response: My edit [1] was made after I spent considerable time reworking this living person biography to fix a perceived WP:coatrack problem. (And it was done after discussion on the talk page and my making a proposal for compromise and inviting comment). Jheald does not appear to have considered the merits of my reworking of the article but simply reverted it in their edit [1]. My edits [2&3] were to restore the version which I felt kept the article within the BLP guidelines and were made on the instruction therein to take immediate action against breaches. However, I did not perceive my edit [3] as a 3rd reversion, otherwise I would not have made it. In all my time here (since 2004) I have backed away from edit wars. My more persistent actions this time were because I was dealing with a BLP which I felt was in breach of guidelines and not fair to the subject. I have opened an RFC on the article's talk-page to better resolve the question of a perceived coat-rack problem and on which version of the article serves the subject better.

Without meaning to sound too accusatory, I would also like to note that Jheald is the creator of this article and my experience is that they seem to not welcome any edits that differ from how they perceive the article should be (basically seeing this person very much through the prism of her role in Brexit negotiations). I have had previous experience with this perhaps proprietorial stance when I made an earlier edit that they reverted and that was in the end resolved in favour of my edit by a third opinion (but credit to Jheald for seeking that third opinion).

Thank you for your attention. Oska (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra comment: I see that Jheald has reported us both. Personally I don't think the behaviour of either of us in this matter, while being less than exemplary on both sides, merited reporting at this point and I wouldn't have been seeking administrative consideration and perhaps action (for either of us). But now we are here I would appreciate advice on how better we both, and I personally, could have resolved matters. Was my filing an RFC a good choice? I chose that course rather than posting to the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard with my coat-rack concerns but perhaps the latter would have been the better approach? Feedback would be appreciated so I can work more effectively in the future and not waste admin time with potential reported incidents. I believe in making as little demand on the limited resources of this noticeboard as possible. Thank you, Oska (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Result: Both warned. Jheald and Oska have each made about five reverts since 1 June, and the series of changes hardly show any compromise. Each editor is risking a block if they revert again prior to a consensus being reached on the talk page. The charges of WP:COATRACK are hard to fathom. (The mention of Brexit in the article is hardly "irrelevant, undue or biased", given Weyand's prominence in the Brexit negotiations, and mentioning Brexit does not interfere with giving a truthful impression of her career). The argument is about the relative emphasis to be given to a series of true generally-admitted facts. So this is a fight about article wording. If the parties want me to make suggestions on the talk page, I'm willing to do so. But meanwhile, further reverts look to be pure continuation of an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I feel Oska and I have reached an impasse, so I would welcome any external input. But User:Oska would need to be happy to accept you as well. Jheald (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: I acknowledge the warning. I also want to respond to some of your comments.
Firstly, on the matter of compromise, I think you may have missed the compromise that I attempted when I proposed a summary paragraph on the talk page to replace the, in my view, excessive quoting from a speech by the article's subject (taking up half the article). When I made that proposal I also asked for suggested edits or improvements. Jheald did not join in efforts to work on a compromise and simply reverted the edit when, after making the proposal, I replaced the Brexit section with the summary paragraph.
Secondly, you appear to misunderstand my position on the coat-rack issue. I have absolutely no problem with Brexit being mentioned in the article. My reworked version mentioned her role in Brexit negotiations in the lead and had a prominent career subsection on her role as EU deputy chief negotiator for the Brexit process. My issue was with Jheald's preferred version of the article being almost completely dominated by her role in Brexit negotiations, especially with, to repeat, half the article being quotes from a single interview. I do not think this is a fair treatment of the subject. Also, I'm a bit puzzled over what you're referring to when you talk of "a series of true generally-admitted facts". Do you mean the quotes? Quotes aren't facts.
I will make further attempts at engaging Jheald in discussion on the talk page to find a compromise. I note that they made this report directly after their own last revert which has effectively locked the article at their preferred version. I hope they will make a sincere effort to engage rather than just keep blocking. Oska (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:M R G WIKI999 reported by User:Doc James (Result: )[edit]

Page: Gonorrhea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M R G WIKI999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [91] Jun 9 10:46
  2. [92] Jun 10 01:14
  3. [93] Jun 10 01:38
  4. [94] Jun 10 02:15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95] Jun 10 01:44

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] Jun 10 01:16

Comments:
Additionally they made less than civil comments here.[97]

As described here however the content in question is reflecting the position of the CDC.[98] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I stand entirely by my edits; they are justified, accurate and unbiased and secular. I herein point out that it was Doc James himself who began edit warring by unnecessary reversion of quality, good faith edits to the said page... It is my contention that Doc James is reverting my edit for political/religious/ideological reasons; his CDC point above (for example) is very clearly a misdirection to stear you away from the cited source's secular and explicit instructions NOT to moralise or be judgemental. Non-judgemental or moralistic education is absolutely the methodology being put forward in the cited source, not the bizarre, barely hidden form of religiosly motivated(?) sexual moralising being erroneously presented by Doc James ... I invite all to scrutinise my edits and tell me that they are wrong, unjustified, biased, improperly cited or in violation of Wikipedia rules, gudelines or best practices. Indeed, I only ask that you apply the same scrutiny to my accuser's "undo" editing of my work... I am supremely confident that you will find his actions are unjustified, based on these standards. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
PS. Please excuse my many spulling mistooks above, as I'm currently on an awful mobile device that has a mind of its own. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Your edits are "wrong, unjustified, biased, improperly cited or in violation of Wikipedia rules, gudelines or best practices." -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • They continue to revert[99] and appear to be under the impression that rather than new changing needing consensus, the article staying as it was needs consensus... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:GARY 809 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Marc-André ter Stegen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
  2. 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
  3. 16:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
  4. 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
  5. 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
  6. 16:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Walter Görlitz (TW)"
  7. 16:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 86.146.28.90 (talk) to last revision by Iggy the Swan (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

No warning? Nice.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There is a consensus on the subject's talk page. The anon is a known vandal who precipitated the discussion. I am simply reverting vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Repeated reverts without explanation of edit GARY 809 (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no comment on the matter at hand, but the IP is just as guilty if we're going to be reporting people for edit warring. Amaury 17:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree in part, the anon had already reached a dozen reverts on that article by the time I was reported. Surprised that GARY 809 had not reported the anon as well. The anon has eared a 31-hour block for various edits. The issue is resolved for now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Uninvolved passer-by comment: Personally I'd see the phrase "Spanish club" there in the lead as useful but not essential. More style than substance. I always try and leave one or two warnings and then swiftly report to WP:AIV, and let someone there sort it out. But I'm sure we all know how frustrating it is to see a known vandal edit without constraint. I'm sure you had only the integrity of the article in mind. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The consensus felt it should remain. Feel free to re-open the discussion. I personally think the term is problematic for the nature of the club itself as the club is a symbol of Catalan separatism. This was dismissed in the discussion on the subject's talk page.
I was following the consensus even though I disagree with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Good for you, Walter. Or rather good for Wikipedia consensus. For me, it's a plain fact that FC Barcelona is a Spanish club - that's the consensus over there. But then I'm not living in exile in Belgium. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. The anonymous editor's actions appear to be obvious vandalism (or at least willfully disruptive in the face of the RFC), so Walter Görlitz's reverts are not in violation of 3RR. That said, I would suggest taking Martinevans123's approach and letting the disruptive edit stand until the offending editor is blocked (with certain exceptions, of course). clpo13(talk) 19:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Always helpful advice, but when the anon is reported and the patrolling admin says that we should seek dispute resolution, it's somewhat difficult to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:CharlesShirley reported by User:MrClog (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
CharlesShirley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "It speculation and it needs to marked as speculation."
  2. 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "clarify quote is from Breyer and that Breyer did not refer to Roe directly. That is speculation."
  3. 00:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "replaced "likely" with "possibly""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Not "wild speculation" */ new section"
  2. 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Not "wild speculation" */ Replying to CharlesShirley (using reply-link)"
  3. 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC) "/* Not "wild speculation" */"
Comments:

CharlesShirley removed something they considered wild speculation June 9. I reverted the edit and started a discussion on the talk page. CharlesShirley is now refusing to use the talk page to discuss and has since June 9 reinstated a version that marked the "wild speculation" (according to them) as speculation in one way or another three times within 24 hours. Despite not using the "undo" button, the edits seemingly meet the definition of revert. MrClog (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

MrClog lives in a glass house and is throwing stones. He has reverted my work four times well within the last 24 hours.
Diffs of MrClog's reverts: