Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive330

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Anonpediann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC) to 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "Unsourced material there. Credits taken from official Twitter confirmations, sourced in talk page."
   2. 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "Sacrifices as a single unsources."
2. 19:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 748167330 by Livelikemusic (talk) Don't retriee without checking. There are bad sourced material and you messed up some other changes."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC) to 19:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "Genius is not a reliable source for credits, anyone can contribute there. I put on Tinashe because his brother Thulani is also credited. Credits taken from official Twitter accounts, can be used per
      Wikipedia:TWITTER
      ."
   2. 19:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
   3. 19:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC) to 18:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
   1. 18:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ Credits taken from Twitter confirmations by producers."
   2. 18:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Genius' use as a source */ new section"

Comments:

User has history of edit-warring on articles, and has resorted to

Despite talk page, user is continuing to edit-war against

Musicedit98, who are both participating on the talk page's discussions. livelikemusic talk!

19:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The user has also continued to leave rather inflammatory comments on my talk page, too. See: User talk:TheKaphox#Genius as a reliable source. TheKaphox T 21:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Also notifying Anna Frodesiak given their history with this user, and might be able to add something into this conversation. Should also be noted that user has continued to edit-war on the page in-question, and is still resulting in personal insults onto other members of the community. livelikemusic talk! 21:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if i offended any of you any moment. I find it really defamatory to use mistakes i made in the past (i don't even remember lol) to block me. Some of the edit warring they keep taking down isn't always unfair about what they said. I corrected a lot of times fake information that was disengaged to what they try to accuse me for deleting, tearing down severals edits of mine without even reading what i just corrected. Anyway, despite what someone could say at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums they keep believing that Genius is a reliable source. Thank you. Anonpediann (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: André (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chisme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:André (artist)

Comments:
I kindly tried to refrain user:chisme from imposing his personal opinions that everyone can clearly feel it when you read Talk:André (artist). I have been very patient, open and welcoming of his point of view in spite of his inappropriate behavior. He has acted as though he were editing his own personal blog, not an Encyclopedia. He called me a « bitch ». I just want to render the article André (artist) neutral as it should be with an impartial tone. --Polaert (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

• No violation. The user has reverted only twice somewhat recently. After that, you have to go back months.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

I did not warn him myself but he had been warned by other users. He evidently has a history of being warned about doing this, having looked at his history of edits.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There is no talk page discussion with the user as I was unsure what to do in the circumstance. If this results in action against me then I accept that consequence, and am sure another user dedicated to historicity and accuracy can maintain the page.

Comments:

The User Sabir Hun had his edits reverted by User:Crovata and also by myself. He was asked for sources, but provided only two sources with statements that one of those sources do not corroborate (e.g. he states the Huns used Leather Armor but if you actually read Nikoronov 2002, which in itself is inaccurately cited, he makes no such statement). The "Huns" page is always susceptible to innacuracies since so many people are so undereducated or miseducated about the Huns, due to nationalist bias in Eastern Europe and Asia. There was recently another long discussion on a talk page with a different user which resulted in the page being closed to non-registered accounts due to sockpuppeting. I was also involved in that discussion. I decided to look up what to do in this situation with the reported user as I did not know exactly what Wikipedia's policy was in this regard, and had decided after his recent edit to wait until I had time to write an accurate summary of what is known about Hunnic warfare and arms rather than revert his edit again (which would have resulted in myself breaking the 3-edit rule, after I looked up the policy). I therefore decided to refer to the site moderators.

Thank you for your time.

MMFA (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Page

Scots language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seumas Mactalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 23:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC) ""
3. 22:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 21:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 22:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ""
6. 19:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ""
7. 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC) to 13:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"
2. 22:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC) "/* Germanic/English */ read the 2nd para"

Comments:

The user has continued to edit war today: [12] [13] and blanks all talk page warnings agtx 19:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

And another. agtx 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

An additional attempt to discuss has been rebuffed followed immediately by another revert. agtx 20:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Huon (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Page

2017 World Rally Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:18, 5 november 2016 (UTC) "Get a consensus first - especially since you're holding similar pages to different standards"
2. 11:44, 5 november 2016 (UTC) "They're the defending champions whatever they do, and this is covered in more detail in a morr appropriate section"
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:01, 4 november 2016 (UTC) to 22:28, 4 november 2016 (UTC)
   1. 21:01, 4 november 2016 (UTC) "Captions complement articles - they're not a substitute for content"
   2. 22:28, 4 november 2016 (UTC) ""

Two edits preceded the above sequence, demonstrating that the edit-warring sequence started earlier:

1. 8:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC) "They'll be the defending champion whatever they do - and captions aren't a substitute for content)"
2. 8:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC) "Details aren't necessary for the article lead - they are covered in more depth in a more appropriate place elsewhere in the article"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:43, 5 november 2016 (UTC))

Comments:

Clear violation of

This is little more than an attempt to shut me up because he disagrees with my edits on

2017 Formula One season over the past few weeks, and so Tvx1's actions feel like an attempt to force a conflict on a separate article because I will not back down from my position on my talk page. He has previously admitted that he encourages edit-warring, stopping at two revisions and waiting for the other party to make a third so that he can then come to 3RR and use it as a weapon against people he disagrees with. Given the context of the ongoing debates on other pages, the inconsistent editing practices that he uses, and his obvious attempts at subterfuge by misrepresenting the content of the changes and his attempts to resolve the issue, it's quite clear that he is simply trying to shut me up because he cannot convince me elsewhere. Prisonermonkeys (talk

) 14:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, look at the time-stamps. His attempt at resolving the dispute was posted to my talk page at 13:42 on 5 November—but he posted this 3RR report at 13:43 on 5 November. How, exactly, are we supposed to be able to resolve anything in under a minute? Especially given how much he prepared for this 3RR report—he had to have written it first and posted it here as soon as he posted the message on my talk page because he couldn't file a 3RR report without one. While the subject of 2017 World Rally Championship had previously been broached on my talk page, it was not in the context of attempting to resolve a content dispute. Furthermore, Tvx1 knows perfectly well that I live on the other side of the world to him, and so on any other night, I would be fast asleep when he posted it. He's counting on my being asleep when the report is reviewed and action taken by an administrator. If you want evidence that he is misusing 3RR, there it is. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No this is intended to stop your disruptive, uncollaborative and unconstructive editing. Neither in the discussion on the talk page of

2017 Formula One season, nor in the one on your talk page is anyone agreeing with your opinion. Yet you keep reverting to your preferred version while discussion is in progress, braking the 3RR policy in the process, which is something you have done many times before. Maybe my post on your talk page was very fresh, but others had disagreed with your stance on the issue way before me as well. And this report was filed shortly after you made a revert to the article concerned. Your are still replying at this instant so the accusation that I'm counting on you to be sleeping is quite simply a joke. Wikipedians have patience but eventually run out of it. We (thus not just me) have given your arguments more than enough consideration on the talk pages.Tvx

1 15:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Most importantly, when you are reported for breaching the 3RR policy you should comment on your own editing and not launch into an attack at the reporting editor.Tvx1 16:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

My editing takes on a very different light when you consider the broader context of what is going on here. You presented this as an issue limited to a single article, which is clearly untrue. Look at that 690kb edit of yours that I undid—you made substantial changes to it without any consensus based on an argument you had originally made on another article. But crucially, you didn't make those same substantial changes to the original article. You claim to have attempted to resolve the dispute, but you were posting the report here before anyone had an opportunity to reply. Everything that you have done looks like you are trying to use 3RR to shut someone up. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No-one agreed with you on either article with either of the related issues you raised. That is self-explanatory regarding who is acting against consensus and policy. Think what you like about my motives, the reality is that you broke this policy again and that's what you should be commenting about here. And now your using being reported for it by someone as a trump card to launch a rant of

personal attacks against the reporting person, which is another serious breach of policy. Tvx

1 20:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

You had a consensus on one article, and tried to impose it on another, unrelated article without any discussion there, or any attempt to introduce that consensus on the original article (which you still haven't done). You can call it a personal attack if you like, but I am simply pointing out your inconsistent behaviour and I think that any administrator reviewing this report needs to be aware of it because I think that you deliberately provoked an edit war so that you could come to 3RR and use it to silence an editor that you are frustrated with. But if you want to focus on the policy, then let's focus on the policy: you didn't file the 3RR properly; you didn't make any attempt to resolve the dispute before coming here because you had already written the 3RR report. It doesn't help that you have a documented history of only taking people you disagree with to 3RR (you have ignored dozens if edit wars in the past) and have repeatedly tried to get me blocked in the past—at last count, there have been three previous attempts where no action was taken.

So yes, your motives are key to this because your behaviour shows that you prefer to use 3RR as a means of getting even with others rather than enforcing policy. If anybody deserves sanctions from the administrators, it's you for abusing the 3RR process. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin observation) You two seriously need to stop bickering and point scoring with each other and actually work together! I've seen that you two have been at loggerheads for quite a while now and it's time you stopped and attempt to work together. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Class455 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I am more than willing to collaborate, but Tvx1's attitude is that you agree with him from the outset, accept his edits even if you disagree with them, or be paraded in front of the administrators if you continue to disagree. This 3RR report has nothing to do with

2017 Formula One season. Prisonermonkeys (talk

) 21:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No it's only you breaching this clear-cut policy once again. Class455, Prisonermonkeys has raised the same content issue on my talk page and I made a collaborative reply there. That all preceded Prisonermonkeys' continued reverting and the subsequent filing of this report. I have tried to be collaborative and I have no problem to continue to do so. At the same time I'm also a human being and a normal human trait is running out of patience. Especially if one is at the receiving end of continued unjustufied rants of personal attacks. If you take a look at the discussions mentioned is not between PM and only me. Multiple users have replied to PM's concerns and they are all running out of patience.Tvx1 22:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"Prisonermonkeys has raised the same content issue on my talk page and I made a collaborative reply there."

First of all, you posted that message at 13:47—four minutes after you filed the 3RR report. How am I supposed to be able to respond to that in time?

But more importantly, would it be too much to ask if you tagged me with "{{U|Prisonermonkeys}}" so that I actually know that it's there? Or maybe posting on my talk page? Or leave a note on your own talk page saying "if you leave a message for me here, I will respond here unless you ask differently". This is the first that I am hearing of it, and had I known about it before now, I would have responded to it. I am, after all, involved in half a dozen different discussions on half a dozen different pages, all of them progressing at different rates, so I can't always keep on top of them when they're updated if you don't draw my attention to it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, 13:47 is six minutes BEFORE this report was filed. Secondly, If you wan't to keep aware of all the discusions you start, you can use your watchlist. I would also be easier to do if you wouldn't raise the issue on multiple talk pages simultaneously. Regardless, none of this has to do with the issue at hand here, which is you breaking the 3RR policy again. Tvx1 23:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

''Regardless, none of this has to do with the issue at hand here, which is you breaking the 3RR policy again."

Actually, it has everything to do with it. A recurring theme of our discussions over the last few weeks has been the need to adhere to the letter of Wikipedia policy. And while you hold me to one standard, you yourself are apparently quite free to pick and choose which parts of the policy you observe and when—and this is the attitude that I have been dissatisfied with for the past eighteen months; the one that you claim doesn't exist, even though we're seeing it in full force right now.

Even if you posted on your talk page six minutes before you posted this report, how am I supposed to be able to respond in six minutes? You have technically observed the policy, but you have made it as difficult as possible for me to respond. There's one rule for me, but another rule for you. How do you expect this or any other 3RR report that you file to be legitimate when you're so obviously abusing the system? As has been pointed out, Wikipedia is about collaboration—but here you are deliberately making collaboration as difficult as possible and using 3RR to settle a score. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The relevant policies have been applied consistently to all the concerned articles. That has been explained to you quite blatantly by multiple editors during the relevant discussions. That the filing of this report and replies in multiple discussions happened in a short timeframe and you having been unable to read them all did not give you a trump card to make that last blanket revert in complete ignorance of the discussion. Rest assured, my behavior will be reviewed as well, as is common courtesy in edit war (or any report on administrators' noticeboards) report. Now please stop your futile attempts to turn this around trying to avoid having to discuss your behavior. You have been reported for edit-warring and that's what you should be discussing.Tvx1 02:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

"The relevant policies have been applied consistently to all the concerned articles."

No, they havent. You argued that the

2017 Formula One season to avoid committing to future events—you have done parts, but not the whole thing. The opening line of the article still reads "The 2017 Formula One season will be the sixty-eighth season of [...]" whereas the edits you made to 2017 World Rally Championship

read "The 2017 World Rally Championship is scheduled to be the forty-fifth season of [...]". Please explain how that is the consistent application of policy.

"Rest assured, my behavior will be reviewed as well, as is common courtesy in edit war (or any report on administrators' noticeboards) report."

I would start worrying about that, if I were you, because I have just clearly demonstrated that you abused the 3RR system. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take a look at this? Tvx1 12:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Tvx1 21:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Really, anyone?Tvx1 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• Declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm sorry Bbb23, but I cannot understand such an action without any rationale. Do you have any reasoning for you decision? Did you even look at the diffs and look at the talk page discussions.Tvx1 16:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Bbb23, but I looked at this report some time ago and didn't see an obvious closure, one way or the other. The report does not show four reverts by Prisonermonkeys. The rest is unclear. Anything that takes thousands of words to explain is probably not a case for a block. There is no discussion at all on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed their is no discussion on the article's talk page. Rather it occurred on the

this discussion, during which five users disagreed with Prisonermonkeys' view on how to represent the information to our readers. I don't know why the discussion on PM's talk page wasn't moved to the article's talk page, but I can only guess that people instinctively preferred to keep discussing on one place. This discussion on PM's talk page featured three editors disagreeing with them. It was also started with an explicit request not to get embroiled in edit-wars and have a constructive discussion instead. The reported users simply ignored that. Bottom-line, this dispute is not between Prisonermonkeys and only me and they have been edit-warring against what is seen in the discussions' courses as the way to go as well as against policy. I have listed five reverts by Prisonermonkeys in the above report. Tvx

1 21:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it looks like you're just trying to get me blocked because I disagreed with you rather than serve the interests of the article. You clearly misrepresented the situation in the initial report, but now that the 3RR report has been declined, you've changed your story to suit. The discussions that you refer to did not specifically relate to the article you're reporting me for; indeed, those discussions deal with a completely different subject matter. You reported me for changing captions, but the discussions in question are about WP:CRYSTAL. Really, I should go to WP:ANI and have the administrators look at your behaviour during this debacle—the misrepresentations, the way you made it as difficult as possible for me to respond to the discussions that you used as evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and the obvious way that you arecusing 3RR to settle a score—but if the admins didn't see fit to deal with it here, then I will leave well enough alone. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Your concerns regarding the captions were addressed by another user here. I also have left a constructive reply regarding them on my own talk page. This report relates to both issues. Your last revert was a blanket revert of me removing crystal ball statements. Tvx1 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: Joe Slovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sleeping is fun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 3 November

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 7 November
2. 7 November
3. 7 November
4. 7 November
5. 8 November
6. 8 November
7. 8 November
8. 8 November
9. 8 November
10. 8 November
11. 8 November - Reverted twice again after this report was filed and after he filed a counter-complaint against me at
    WP:AN/I

All dates/times are U.S. EST. That's four reverts on one day followed by six reverts the following day; a total of 10 reverts in 48 hours.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 7 November
2. 8 November

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User talk:Sleeping is fun#Joe Slovo
2. User talk:Sleeping is fun#November 2016
3. Talk:Joe Slovo#Yossel Mashel "Joe" Slovo

Comments:

This editor is engaging in edit-warring at other articles, such as The Birth of a Nation (2016 film).

This editor will accuse me of abusively using multiple accounts -- I don't; my accounts comply with

Check how Shabazz's behavior on Talk:Joe_Slovo. That should speak for itself. He has reverted me numerous times with zero explanation, and despite my best efforts to have a constructive conversation on the talk page, he continued to revert me and make childish insults against me. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Shabazz is trying to game the system by painting me as the bad guy based solely on my amount of reverts, but look at my edit summaries. Look at my attempt to argue my position on the talk page. Then look at how Shabazz responded. Brief, uncivil, condescending remarks and ghost reverts with no edit summaries or false accusations of vandalism. What a laughable abuse of the system. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

3RR is a simple, bright-line test. If you make a fourth revert within 24 hours, you've violated 3RR. You violated it. At least twice. Your silly edit summaries and their half-truths don't change that. And 3RR's a policy, not a guideline. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

On both occasions, you violated it first. And you're only proving my point by dismissing my attempts at reaching consensus as "silly". —Sleeping is fun (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still haven't figured out how to count past three, eh? Maybe the good folks at

WP:AN/I can help you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

04:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Still haven't figured out how to behave like an adult and recognize your own hypocrisy, eh? —Sleeping is fun (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Wash whites separately. This is his fourth block for edit warring since July 1. There was also a discussion at WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: The Visit (2015 American film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.176.38.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on the actual article talk page (due to a complete inactivity on it and concerns that the IP user would therefore not notice the discussion) but I did advise him to leave a message on my talk page if he/she believed a mistake was made or if he/she had any questions.

Comments:

No violation – Neither party has broken

WP:3RR but at the same time neither has posted to the talk page. If there is more reverting without discussion it is possible that some admin action will be taken. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments: There are discretionary sanctions on the page that limit the reversion by users to one per 24 hours. The user reverted three different users over the course of a few minutes. Whether this was correct to do or not, sanctions are in place and should be followed. Calibrador (talk) 09:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is somewhat misleading, it turns out that both the page and the image are under sanctions, the former from arbcom and the latter from an rfc whose mention is conspicuously absent from the edit notice but is considered binding for the parties on the page. In reverting multiple times Stemoc (talk · contribs) was acting to preserve the latter rfc based sanction for the article's image, and therefore was not in fact edit warring on the page as reported here. As a result of this I am informed that the image has been moved someplace else and protected (apparently a standard practice in these cases) and the account has been unblocked based on this preliminary evidence. If there is any fault to be had here, it should be on me for not having looked into this thoroughly before acting on 1RR to block what at the time appeared to be an edit-warring account. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

In that case, I think it would be best if I withdraw my report. Not sure if I am allowed, or able, to do that. Calibrador (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Nothing more to be done here. The submitter, User:Calibrador has asked to withdraw this report. Stemoc was blocked but then unblocked with an apology. For more details see this thread on Stemoc's talk. They speak about a special restriction on changing the image, so potent that it allows 1RR to be exceeded. TomStar81 also changed the edit notice. EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: FC CSKA 1948 Sofia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BG89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]
6. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:FC CSKA 1948 Sofia

Comments: For the third time reporting him. BG89 keeps re-entering highly controversial text about a person who has nothing to do with this specific club. The text is not neutral and bad-faithed, written in an offensive way that target specifically the person, violating

response by the person reported by TV Boy
He has officially reported me two times in the last few weeks and several times on the talk pages of regular users and administrators. Every single time he was explained by them that I did nothing wrong and his requests for actions against me were declined. All of my reverts were intended to preserve the page from his persistent vandalism which is evident from the edit history. In fact he is the one who broke the 3RR rule and as far as I'm concerned there is an exemption: "4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." A week ago he reported me for the very same thing and the his requests were declined. The administrators didn't find offensive content, lack of neutrality or bad faith because they aren't presented in this case. TV Boy is known for his highly disrespectful and arrogant attitude towards other users on both Bulgarian and English Wiki. In addition to that there is evidence he has been socking for a really long time and tried to use his puppets against me. For further details read this. I really hope that TV Boy systematic violations of Wiki's rules and ethical standards will no longer be tolerated. --Ivo (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As before, BG89's defense lies completely on turning accusations that I have made about him against me. This is really the third time I am reporting him, information can be founded on his talk page. BG89 still adds irrelevant text to the topic, that is there only to attack this specific person and he knows it, he just tries to manipulate and turn everything around. I accused BG89 for editing under dynamic mobile phone IP's on several of the pages he started edit-warring on, re-entering similar controversial content and dodging and inverting the discussion when it comes to the real reasons behind his actions. These IP's pop directly after BG89's edits. After that, BG89 again tried to invert my accusations against me so that it can look that my actions are disruptful, and he even goes that far trying to turn his own IP edits against me as sockpuppets. Every discussion I start with the user gets twisted away, every accusation about his actions that I make gets twisted and inverted against me on every page. I tried to have a normal conversation with the user, unfortunately to no success so far, just because of BG89's persistent bad-faithed and manipulative behavior. In his contributions you can find everything that he has written in the past month and the edit-wars he has started. I tried warning him several times on his talk page, only to see him invert my words against me once again. I hope some actions is taken against BG89's behavior--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

TV Boy's perception of discussion and consensus is that everybody should accept his opinion and has no right to disagree with him or otherwise will get reported for... having an opinion and fighting TV Boy's persistent vandalism. His current report against me is a perfect example. My opinion is shared by other users of the English and Bulgarian Wikipedias but no other user except for him has ever accused me of these things. The dynamic IPs have closely followed your edits FOR YEARS. Then they popped out of nowhere and started "supporting" me in a discussion with you. When I checked the edit history all those IPs I found out that they have been contributing to the pages you edit in the same day as your official account. And suddenly those anonymous IPs started reverting pages without any explanation. Miraculously, you were involved in the discussions :D The anonymous IPs followed you year by year, month by month, day by day. We aren't idiots, TV Boy. --Ivo (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

BG89, something about manipulating the discussion again? No? What a shame then. As you can see I have reverted vandalisms made by these users on the TV pages, inverting this won't help you, simply because everyone can check it then. I told you that these IP's are used by hundreds of users and and vandalism is persistent from them on various of topics. They are used by people that have a Vivacom mobile phone. They edited and responded the same way you did, immediately after you, which means either you are reverting it from your mobile phone, or someone is making you a bad favor, i.e. is "meatpuppeting". You may not be tracked behind them because, as I said, hundreds of people are on the Vivacom network, and some Bulgarian registered users may be logging from their mobile network again. Inverting my accusations against me won't help you - nobody who checks that will believe your lies. They've been "following me for years"? God, how can I not notice that I have a double twin and I have been reverting my own vandalisms to the TV articles the whole time. You understand how silly and laughable everything you try to pull is now that you are out of ideas, don't you? And who are "we" that you call? Maybe you, yourself, and BG89, because you truly are out of ideas on how to twist the discussion to prove that I am the bad guy. Also, I showed you my mobile phone IP on Australian Rupert's talk page and asked for yours, but you never responded to that...--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 22:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

These users??? AHAHAHAHA You seem to be good friends since the summer of 2015 if not earlier. To anybody who reads this: TV Boy has been vandalising several articles, including FC CSKA 1948 Sofia. I requested protection of the page due to his vandalism and his response was to report me for ... nothing ... for the third time in row. The outcome will be the same as the outcome of his previous reports. I'll no longer write here because this is turning into a farce, which is TV Boy's ultimate goal. Of course I'll be here to answer if any administrator has questions. To finish with, here is the evidence that TV Boy is behind the puppet accounts:

--Ivo (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

For God's sake, stop twisting and manipulating that discussion! What Australian Rupert said was "G'day, frankly I also have concerns about dynamic IPs following your edits, such as here: PFC CSKA - Sofia and PFC CSKA-Sofia. YOUR EDITS, BG89! Immediately after that you tried your best to prove that I was the one behind your IP addresses, simply because you got afraid of what Rupert said. From what posted it turns out that I am some sort of mad man, because I've been reverting the vandalisms that these IP's made, accusing that it was me I would've been reverting my own IP addresses. You are truly a great manipulator, BG89, making things to look as I am the bad one to prove me guilty at all costs of the things you have done. I am sick of such behavior BG89, you can bet that in bgwiki you would have been blocked indefinitely by now. I showed you my IP, which was an Mtel IP. Dodging this one won't help you. I really hope that administrators close this case soon, because I cannot take any more of BG89's impudently behavior.--The TV Boy (talk · contribs) 23:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: Physicist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117.213.18.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 109.78.9.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: See below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54][55][56][57][58] (IP-hoppers so warned at last known used IPs)

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

Comments:
Seems to be and ongoing war between two IP-hoppers: A well known (involved in 4 ANI's) 117.213.18.84 IP-hopper from Kerala, India and a 109.78.9.237 "Irish IP-hopper". A previous revert war between these two editors was stopped by an admin protecting the page by blocking IP editors/Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access[60], but they went back at it a few hours after the protection expired. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Page protected — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment:

• User_talk:De728631#Physicist
• User_talk:Jauerback#Physicist
• User_talk:Clpo13#Physicist

Reverting and disruptions

Kindly revert edits by 109.78.9.237, otherwise it would be unproductive to engage in discussions (Talk:Physicist#Cleanup) and rewarding in vandalism and disruptions.

Page: Coandă-1910 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Removing "ducted fan" from the lead.

• [61]
• [62]
• [63]

Replacing it with "motorjet"

• [64]
• [65]

and another, since this was posted

• [66]

Coanda's 1910 aircraft is an obscure and misunderstood aircraft. It made no impact at the time and was ignored and forgotten. In 1956 Coanda, by now well-known for later work, made claims about this aircraft as it being the first aircraft with a jet engine, specifically a motorjet (he never claimed it was a gas turbine or turbojet). If these claims were true, this would be an important aircraft with a different article.

These claims have been thoroughly debunked, starting with

We have been there before with this article. I do not wish to go back there. Especially not when Florin's responses are mostly abuse of other editors and their educational level [67] [68] Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation by User:John. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda from 2011, though the Committee didn't authorize discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Florinbaiduc is blocked for 24 hours but if he starts back up with edit warring the length of block will increase according to blocking policy. This guy appears to be

not here to help the encyclopedia but instead for the purpose of advancing a (debunked) position of national pride. Binksternet (talk

) 16:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]

Comments:

User has been blocked twice already for making the same edits without consensus. As soon as his block expires he comes back and just starts making them again. - Galatz^Talk 17:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Page

Presidential transition of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

63.143.192.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Page

Mike Pence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

73.114.33.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"
2. 00:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"
3. 00:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "/* LGBT rights policy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Disruptive editing, POV, controversial; has violated the discretionary sanctions for the page (limited to one revert). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. 1RR violation and tendentious editing ("Policy on Deviant Sexual Preferences" referring to LGBT topics). EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Page

Deniz Aytekin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shqipbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Hi"
2. 03:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Hi"
3. 03:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Jo"
4. 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Haha"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   Twinkle
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked as a vandalism-only account for edits like this [73] and for the username. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: Peter A. Allard School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section

Comments:
Instead of trying to constructively discuss and make appropriate revisions to the page, this user made a wholesale reversion. He or she is unwilling to compromise, unwilling to discuss the issue, and went straight to making attacks: claiming that my account is a single purpose account and that I'm attempting to post promotional material. All of this is patently incorrect. The material that the user deleted was contributed by many different users (not just me) over a long period of time. Another user on the talk page disagreed with the user's deletions. No other user agreed with the deletions. Instead of discussing the changes that were made, or making individual edits to fix whatever he believed the problem is, the user jumped straight to reverting the page. These deletions were not made in good faith as no attempt was made to discuss the sections or what he disagreed with. He went straight to reverting material and making accusations. He made 4 reverts. Instead of trying to resolve the problem, or putting the disagreement to dispute resolution in good faith, he went straight to reporting it here. For the record, I am willing to compromise, and work with the user in order to make page meet the wikipedia standards. I believe much of the information can and should stay. The page is by no means perfect, but with the appropriate modifications in can be greatly improved. The appropriate action would be to make compromises and try to resolve the issue in a mutually agreeable way as opposed to wholesale deletions, reverts, and attacks on other users. CanadaRed (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

oy. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, note that I am not familiar with the process of reporting, so if I've made any mistake please feel free to make corrections. I have myself been reported by this user (see above).CanadaRed (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Close as duplicate of above. Any novel issue raised in this listing would be better handled in one place. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok how can I close it. But I would like to post my above comment at least. CanadaRed (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, just leave it. An admin will probably tag it as merged, or move the comment. My point is that no action is needed on this one. Your comment should still stay visible and be read. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you for the clarification. CanadaRed (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Closing as a duplicate report of the same dispute as above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: Peter A. Allard School of Law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CanadaRed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Related article on the school's building went through

I may not be as experienced as you, but I have made my share of contributions to the Peter Allard Law page. Also, I'm willing to make compromises and try to resolve the issue. User Jytdog is unwilling to cooperate and constantly makes wholesale and unjustified deletions of content. The only other person to make comments on the talk page disagreed with him. I would like a third party or moderator to weigh in on the issue. I am willing to make compromises and fix things that need to be fixed, but disagree with wholesale deletions or reversions of sections. I would report user Jytdog if I knew how. Any help in resolving this matter would be greatly appreciated.CanadaRed (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your edit history is 100% advocacy. Your behavior at this article is that of an advocate, not a Wikipedian. None of that is OK. The appropriate outcome here is a block for you, so that you will stop abusing WP to promote things in Vancouver and start actually discussing things instead of forcing your advocacy into WP. Your calling my edits "wholesale removal" misrepresents the history visible in the article - i went through things line by line, ref by ref. Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

My account is not a single purpose account. I've mostly made edits to Canadian topics because it is what I'm familiar with. Please refrain from making attacks on my account. What should be discussed is the value of the sections that you deleted, and whether they are appropriate or not. CanadaRed (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Block both. I'm reluctant to call for this in CanadaRed's case as they do seem to have been making an effort to improve the article. However this is a bunch of edit warring and we do have a bright line against such.

In Jytdog's case though, this is an experienced editor who knows absolutely better than this (and oh, does he like to hold that "experience" over any other editors). The

WP:IDHT behaviour when CanadaRed started some discussion on the talk: page is classic Jytdog behaviour: an editor far more interested in pushing their own viewpoint right over anyone else and completely ignoring any attempt to work to actually improve something. Andy Dingley (talk

) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

and the peanut gallery arrives. Andy calling edit warring restoration of promotional content an "improvement" is par for the course in their history of chiming in with misrepresentations like this . I have warned them that the next time they do it will seek and likely get a 1-way interaction ban. If you look at the restored edits that are badly sourced/unsourced and promotional. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog clearly disagrees that 4RR applies to him too. He is wrong in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

This: User talk:CanadaRed#Advocacy is also concerning, but unsurprising. An interest in one particular field is not the same thing as a bias. It is disappointingly unsurprisingly to see Jytdog, yet again using every tactic available to attack an editor with whom they have the slightest disagreement (ANI passim). Will you be using SPI next? That's one of your favourites. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly behavior like this, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy_Dingley&oldid=749205903, is grounds it self for a long ban. This has crossed into harassment, Jytdog's "warning" is nothing more than the harassment of a critic. This kind of behavior isn't welcome here. 2607:FEA8:2CA0:251:C463:1B4B:69A6:1354 (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why, hello again Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Filipz123. Short time, no see. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

God this place is ugly sometimes. We start with edit warring in of promotional content by a SPA advocate, then the stalker peanut gallery arrives, and now a peanut gallery of the peanut gallery. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• again, what happened here is that the article got worked over 4 months ago and settled then. CanadianRed shows up now, and undoes all that work and demands to start over as though all that work never happened, and then edit wars to retain the undoing. This is not OK behavior. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding, what others agreed to do months ago was merge the University of British Columbia Faculty of Law article with Peter A. Allard School of Law (based on the law school's name change). The deletion of sections seems to have been unilaterally done by Jytdog, and it seems that another user, Doncram, disagreed with the deletion.(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_A._Allard_School_of_Law&diff=725295916&oldid=725269742). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaRed (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC) The above is mine. Forgot to sign. CanadaRed (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

What I'm seeing with CanadaRed is part of the reason why it's a catch-22 to try to deal with editors intent on edit warring in content. Either you try to work with them (especially as a new editor) and they keep trying to push the content in while hoping your reverting finally gets them to stop and go to the talk page. Escalate it here and you're apt to deal with more drama. That seems to be especially the case for editors like Jytdog who end up working with a lot of troublesome editors (and gaining a bunch of editors following them around causing more drama). It seems pretty silly to still be seeing the drama following Jytdog that's become more of a hounding issue, but this board isn't really suited for dealing with that.

That being said, Jytdog also should know better to not go to 4RR (better to rely on other editors not involved to see a notice like this and clean up in obvious cases like this). I'm pretty confounded as to what they were thinking with their fourth revert as I could somewhat tolerate someone going up to 3RR in the face of CanadaRed's behavior. CanadaRed however seems to be the main problem here basically ignoring that they needed to stop reverting and gain

talk

) 03:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree to a form of dispute resolution, whether it's through having other editors weigh in and come to a consensus, or some other method. As mentioned earlier, I'm not the only user that disagreed with Jytdog's deletions of whole sections of the page. I have tried to take out language that might have come across as promotional in order to compromise with Jytdog. Again, I am willing to work with him to fix the page. There needs to be an element of compromise and good faith edits here. Furthermore, attacks such as: "you're inexperienced so you're automatically wrong" are hardly fair. I've made contributions here for a number of years, and although I may not be as much of a regular or daily editor as some other users, I've always tried to do my part to make wikipedia better in good faith. I'm just asking for third party, unbiased users to to weigh in with their opinions. CanadaRed (talk) 03:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Kingofaces43, just reverted all the changes that I had made to the article. Including the changing of the wording that I made to make it less promotional and the adding of sources etc. Not sure if he is working in conjunction with Jytdog, or in support of him. If he is a disinterested third party, then why not weigh in on the articles talk page as opposed to jumping to a wholesale revert as Jytdog had done. This is quite unfair. CanadaRed (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, CanadaRed. Your best bet now is to discuss any changes you want to make. I know its frustrating to add a lot of content and then have it reverted but this is the best option open when a bold edit was made as this was. Just take your time as you add and allow for discussion. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Page protected – 5 days. Please use the talk page to agree on where to go from here. The stuff Jytdog was removing does look promotional by our usual definition. But Jytdog need not assume the sole burden of removing promotional content, and when he breaks 3RR that is sooner or later going to be enforced. User:CanadaRed is risking a block for disruptive editing if he continues to restore material that has been removed after lengthy talk page discussion. Since this article has caused so much trouble in the past people need to step carefully. EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Page: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ayonpradhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)