Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive342

Page

Linda Katehi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 778549183 by James Allison (talk)"
2. 23:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 778411232 by James Allison (talk)"
3. 23:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "It is unacceptable to remove accurate and cited information that has been appropriately incorporated in the report. It is called vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 00:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC) "attempt at resolution"

Comments:

Hypaattia insists on reverting to their edits, which are shoddily written, full of red links, and subtle POV pushing ("hiding" seemingly negative information by moving it from the lede to the body of the article, which violates SUMMARYSTYLE). They have not responded to discussion on the article talk page, and based on their edits to their user talk page, do not seem to grasp our policies on content inclusion. James (^talk/_contribs) 21:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

They have now violated 3RR with this revert. James (^talk/_contribs) 23:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that I reverted it back to James's version as the version preferred by

WP:CIR block is in order. Pushing a viewpoint with edit warring and lack of competence is a bad combo. John from Idegon (talk

) 00:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

One further thing: I counseled him on how to proceed going forward at the article talk page, and he sought and received essentially the same advice I gave him from the hosts at Teahouse. He reverted my change on the article after that. John from Idegon (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Blocks will rapidly escalate if Hypaattia returns to edit warring after the 24 hours, even without passing 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Miracle of the Sun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "What talk? The deleted addition is merely a few weeks old, and has utterly no associated talk with it. Until a more objective standpoint is presented, it ought to scrapped."
2. 20:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "The sources are misleading, the heading also is a leading conclusion; and hints of not letting the reader adjudicate the evidence on his or her own terms."
3. 19:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Quite frankly, it is the other way around."
4. 19:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Violates NPOV"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor is edit warring to remove skeptical content from the lead the article. This content is primordial as the article is already near from fringe theory territory. (Note: I've reverted many edits from a previous user on this page earlier, who was making disruptive edits and has been blocked) KarlPoppery (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. The IP is warring to remove properly-sourced skeptical commentary from the article, with no policy-based argument for their changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Hargeisa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:21, 1 May 2017 ‎ (UTC) "Reverted to revision 777676932 by Kzl55 (talk): Restoring pre edit-war version. (TW)."
2. 08:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 778076861 by Kzl55 (talk): Restoring pre edit-war version. Please cease the disruptive editing."
3. 08:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 778126966 by Kzl55 (talk): De facto status added. No more edit warring please."
4. 19:49, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC) "

Page: Adal Sultanate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [21]

1. [22] 00:20, 1 May 2017
2. [23] 08:44, 1 May 2017
3. [24] 19:50, 1 May 2017‎

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:34, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC) "(→‎Edit war)"

Comments:

False. Same editor filing this report was in violation of 3RR last week link, and has refused multiple [25], [26], [27] requests to perform a self-revert. They are not willing to defend their edit in the talkpage Talk:Hargeisa#Edit war yet continue to engage in edit-warring. They are very disruptive across multiple pages. My edits were to return the page to its pre-edit-war state, seeing as the editor has violated 3RR previously. Attempts were even made to reach a middle ground [28]. Please also see disruptive editing history on other pages [29], [30] and [31].Kzl55 (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result:
  Extended-confirmed protected for six months. There is a long running dispute as to what status to ascribe to Somaliland, which claims to govern territory but is not a generally recognized state. The Hargeisa article is about the capital of this region. Editors should use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to decide what wording to use in the Hargeisa article. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]
6. [38], another after I filed this.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Talk:Samuel_Fraunces#Request_for_Comment, an entire section trying to deal with this over weeks and weeks. The entire thing has gone on for many months, possibly years.

Comments:
One user, an SPA who brings in OR simply will not listen to others and insists that she is the only one with a say of what is in the article Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There are three editors who will not even allow a correct citation to be added to this article. It is necessary to get this looked at up the food chain. I have tried adding the corrections one by one but the response is that they revert to the original article instead of looking at each change. I have added it to sand box uploaded it and was told to upload the complete new article which I did. Now they are reverting again without the corrections. GramereC 17:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GramereC (talk • contribs)

Another diff on 3rr warning 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

If you decide to take action, please remember User:GramereC's aliases – a.k.a. User:Coroinn, a.k.a. User:CRCole; a.k.a. User:71.58.75.28, a.k.a. User:166.217.248.24, a.k.a. User:72.69.56.203, a.k.a. User:69.86.246.30, a.k.a. User:71.58.105.199 == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. Though several people have reverted, the only person who I noticed breaking 3RR was GramereC. This is a long-running dispute, and one of the editor's statements above tends to illustrate that GramereC's views are usually in the minority. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• talk page: [45],
• request for third opinion: [46]
• third opinion: [47]
• suggesting other forums of dispute resolution: [48]

Comments:

I am afraid,

He seems to have accepted the third opinion. It is quite time-consuming that consensus can only be reached through reports about him on this notice board. I am not sure that he is able to cooperate with other editors. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he is still at it with this edit Scr★pIron^IV 12:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet again, here That makes five reverts of two editors in the last 20 hours. Scr★pIron^IV 14:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:3O, he continued to revert at 14:05 on 5 May, which is after this report was filed. The user has also made personal attacks at Talk:Ivan Asen I of Bulgaria. If he comes to this board again I think an indef should be considered. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Jay T M Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have attempted several times to place a db-hoax template on his page, due to the fact that the notable claims on the page are wholly false. The editor continues to repeatedly remove the template. GabetheEditor ^(talk_cont) 14:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the article. ~ GB fan 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Article deleted as a hoax and socks blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JaySmith2018. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Bosaso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:34,6 May 2017 ‎ (UTC)
2. 09:37, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
3. 12:46, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC)
4. 15:17, 6 May 2017‎ (UTC) "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: 3RR Warning"

Comments:

User:Kzl55 has reverted four times now, on another article this time Bosaso, with out explaining, and claiming old 2004 article and removing 2014 municipality website which claimed that the city have 700,000 population. and he is keep doing disruptive edits again and again violating NPOV.

This is getting ridiculous. I have already explained to you in the article's talkpage why you cant remove estimate numbers cited by UNOCHA and UNDP and replace their estimate with a number not based on any study from a reliable source that we know of. The number you are using is taken from a website that is no longer operational. I have also given you advice to search for updated numbers from UN agencies currently working in the region. Please stop your disruptive edits. Kzl55 (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• verified. El_C
  09:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: First Epistle to Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Antinoos69" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I went to his user page instead [58] Discussions I had with a wiki admin over this, who suggested that I go to dispute resolution over this, so here I am. [59]

Comments:
The editor in question here has engaged in edit wars with no fewer than four other editors on this page over the last 6 weeks, see history [60]. He has raised false [61] allegations of sock puppets against two other editors. He has shown a long history of vitriol and ad hominen attacks against editors with which he disagreed[62] [63] Just search through his talk history page for more examples.

EDIT: One brief note on the history of the article, prior[64] versions[65] of the article contained similar (and better sourced) material to what is currently being warred over. However these sections were deleted[66] by an IP editor in 2010 with no explanation given, and no discussion on the talk page at all. Since that time, I counted at least 15 edit wars over this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric the fever (talk • contribs) 01:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

EDIT2: I have found additional warnings to this user about edit warring on his talk page history, should I link them in this report or file a new one? Eric the fever (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Page protected - 2 months. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Nasrid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]
6. [73]
7. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76][77][78]

Comments:

User:Tarook97 has been edit warring, under this particular name, since 30 April. It should be noted that an IP has been doing the exact same edit-warring since 5 April. Tarook's edit warring has included;

• Why did you revert? The Nasrids were in fact Arabs. And "Lineage" is much more appropriate than "Nasab" since this is an English article. No source given.
• See the "Lineage" or "Nasab" section for for your reference. No source given.
• Going by your tactic, I'd remove "Muslim" too. No source given.

When Tarook finally posted a source, researching this source indicates the Nasrids, claim and presented themselves as Arabs. Nothing in the source states they were Arabs. As I explained on the talk page and was met with a snide comment(Your opinion is not more reliable than academic sources[79]), Wikipedia does not present claims as fact.

Judging from Tarook's previous block for edit warring, their continued edit warring whilst logged out(multiple IPs)[80][81][82], this editor is

Blocked – 4 days. Previously blocked for edit warring in April. The user has reverted five times since April 30 to make the Nasrids be Arab. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Maryam Nawaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "yet again dont complain about me reverting something when youre doing the same. you wanna talk or you wanna revert?"
2. 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "dont tell me not to revert when youre doing the same"
3. 10:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "It is something relevant and from good sources. It can stay"
4. 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "No it isn't. It's relevant enough to deserve detail."
5. 09:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "no whitewash please"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"
2. 10:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
3. 10:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"
4. 10:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Dispute */ new section"

Comments:

Repeated reversion of content the user believes should be in the page, but was removed. Complains about others' behavior without stopping their own. 331dot (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

what am i supposed to do here? this guy jumps into an article and reverts my edits and now he complains about me doing the same. we are doing the same thing so why complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

he did lots of reverts as well so how can he complain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

this is all really unfair. this guy obviously knows all the rules really well and pushed me into breaking them. he should be punished for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not force you to keep clicking the mouse, and gave you several warnings. Even if you are unsure about the rules, you could have stopped to ask what the warnings were about. Please stop blaming others for your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

no you just sent me some automated server message and kept on reverting me. if you had stopped reverting me yourself and discussed the problem then everything would have been fine. you were just goading me into breaking some obscure rule while stay 0.01% within the rule yourself. you deserve a punishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you continue to blame others for your actions. I don't want anyone to break any rule, which is why I was informing you of it. You don't have to know any of the rules or policies, but you do need to respond appropriately when they are pointed out to you. I twice told you what the proper procedure was when an edit is in dispute, but you chose to revert again each time. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

as did you. dont act innocent you sent some automated server message and then went back to reverting me. this is very much the pot calling the kettle black — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.129.178 (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: Semiprotected one year. The protection log shows a long history of BLP protections, and this particular IP has broken 3RR while attempting to add further negative material. (Five reverts on May 7). It is not enough for material to be sourced, it also needs consensus for its inclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]
5. [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
Myself and 2 other editors have added a small update to this page. At first StAnselm said he removed it for reference reasons. So I added several references. He then said there was a word missing from a reference and removed it again. I added a 4th reference that had that word as well. He then moved the goal posted and removed it again. He then called me out by name, in the headline, on the talk page. This was his first time posting about this on the talk page and used it to try and call me out. StAnselm has a long history, and block history, of edit warring, 3rr, and even blocked for 1rr as well. His editing style is to edit war when he does not get his way and try to keep at it till the person just gives up. He has been warned about this, even recently, yet still edit wars when he does not get his way. He is editing in bad faith and calling users out on talk pages. ContentEditman (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: It's late at night and I'm not able to comment at length, but it should suffice to say that I explained the BLP violation on the talk page, explicitly stated that I was claiming a BLP exemption to edit warring (because yes - I have been blocked before and don't want to be blocked again) and posted at BLPN just to make sure. StAnselm (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

It should be noted he did not post to the BLPN till after his 5th revert. Look at his history and he has done similar things... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=StAnselm&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search&searchToken=2d92b25tpg3qmsbkpt2jdtr78 You can see he got out of one report by acting like he did not know and was told to be more careful. His history shows he has done no such thing but is great at working the "system" after he is called out for his edit warring and other behavior. ContentEditman (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• It seems a shame to the project that a contributor worth over 120000 contributions over ten years and acting in good faith claiming blp protection can be blocked becauce a user with only 112 contributions, none of them real content improvements, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/ContentEditman&offset=&limit=500&target=ContentEditman reports them Govindaharihari (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. If reverts continue, blocks are possible. It is unclear what the BLP violation is supposed to consist of. Anyone who wants to *add* negative material is advised to include a literal quote from the source on the article talk page and include page numbers. Anyone who wants to claim a BLP violation should point to the article text that they think constitutes the offence. It can't violate BLP to quote what Michael Pearl says in his own book, if his words are quoted correctly. In this context, the fact that his book is a primary source does not matter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow so because someone has more post they get more power and ability to revert 5 times with nothing? The same person who has been warned over and over again let alone has a history of edit warring? And why am I being warned? I added references and then reverted once? Is adding references to an article that StAnselm was edit warring with 2 other editors mean I should be warned not to mess with someone who has so many edits? ContentEditman (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Nobody broke 3RR in 24 hours, but if there are more reverts from either party without prior consensus on talk, a block is possible. ContentEditman's citation of http://culteducation.com may be questioned, since it may not qualify as a reliable source for BLP matters. That site is associated with Rick Alan Ross. You will notice there are many past discussions of Rick Ross at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

So I can revert 5 times and change why and be ok? Just want to make sure that is what you are saying so I can edit like that as well. Edit warring and even 1rr can be a violation and StAnselm more than crossed that line. And why are you calling out a single reference? You did see there are 4 of them now. I added that many as he kept edit wearing, like he has a history of, and moving the goal post. There are dozens of references but he made his mind up he was not going to allow anything. And why am I being warned? All I did was add references when he was edit warring with 2 other editors? How about this why don't you read all the references and add something to the talk page? 2 other editors already added something but you are allowing StAnselm to revert 5 times and be ok with that. ContentEditman (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The decision has been made, and given the circumstances, count yourself lucky IMO. This is definitely not the place to be

WP:POINTY. — InsertCleverPhraseHere

21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"count yourself lucky IMO" for what? Adding references 2 times to try and break up the edit war StAnselm was having with 2 other editors is against the rules? Following Wikipedia rules and posting here properly was wrong? Care your explain your threats? ContentEditman (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Well, I've woken up on Monday morning and I'm glad I'm not blocked. @EdJohnston: I'm sorry you weren't clear about the violation; I thought I had explained myself. ContentEditman added (among other things) the words It describes Debi Pearl repeatedly "switching" a toddler because he would not play with a certain toy she gave him. There is a string of citations after this sentence but the claim does not appear in any of them. They are, in fact, fake references. Surely this is what we mean by a "BLP violation"? Our policy requires that unsourced statements like this be removed immediately. I'm OK with receiving a warning but I'm a bit disappointed you missed what was actually going on. StAnselm (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]

Comments:
Violation of the 3RR. I didn't use the talk page, but I reverted only once.Judist (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a baloney report because the reverts were for different items in each case and in different sections of the article.

WP:CONSENSUS. --Taivo (talk

) 13:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The reporting editor is quite right about one thing--he/she has made absolutely no attempt to discuss their addition of material on the Talk Page or to gain a consensus for doing so.

I apologize if I made a mistake with the report. I will withdraw the report if Taivo justifies any exemption. I report per

WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.... A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."Judist (talk

) 16:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected three months by
  WP:ARBMAC. I have previously explained to Judist that they should be more careful about neutrality. It would not come as a shock if some other admin decided that Judist's behavior already justifies a topic ban. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 16:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment by SilentResident: I am afraid that the

WP:ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Judist already has a bad record of two (2) blocks in the past exactly for the same reason: disruption on ARBMAC-protected articles: one in November 2015 and another one in 18 June 2016. It is unfortunate however to see that after two blocks, he still didn't familiarize himself with Wikipedia's rules and core policies. Frankly, Judist's move to report Taivo here on Admin Noticeboard is nothing more but a retaliatory filling that aims to punish this respected member of our community just because he does not agree with his POV edits. Taivo has done nothign wrong and I am urging that no action is taken against him and that Judist's filling is dismissed without hesitation. User:EdJohnston, a respectful administrator of the community, has already tried the best possible way to explain Judist on his talk why his behavior is problematic, but it is unfortunate that he could not heel to anyone's warnings, even to an admin's warnings. At this rate, I couldn't be surprised if Judist gets a topic-ban on Macedonia articles. --SILENTRESIDENT

10:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, I feel obliged to bring to the attention of Admins the possibility that this retaliatory AN filling of purported 3RR violation by

WP:HARASSing those who couldn't agree with Judist's POV and consent to his disruptive edits, because recently, the same happened to me: Judist seeing that I couldn't let him pass his disruptive edits on Macedonia articles, he placed an ARBMAC warning ( a copy of the one EdJohnston sent him), on my own Talk page, in a bid to discourage me from intervening again against his disruptive edits on these articles: [95]. I suggest the Admins send him a very strongly-worded warning. --SILENTRESIDENT

11:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

And last: Page protection is unrelated to Judist's disruptions as it was requested by Taivo on the RFPP Board due to anonymous IP edits: [96]. Furthermore, this level of page protection does not affect Judist, a registered user. Therefore, further disruption on this article and other ARBMAC articles by Judist is expected to resume, given his past records. --SILENTRESIDENT 11:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ViperSnake151 (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

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

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

Comments:

• No violation Charlesaaronthompson, please don't make pointy, incorrectly formatted reports here. You also failed to notify ViperSnake151 of this report which is a requirement. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.14.236.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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
5. diff
6. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (some point between their fourth or fifth revert from the diffs above)

Discussion takes place on the article talkpage, but the IP goes ahead and makes the changes without consensus. Also a request to protect the page was declined, so the IP editor was free to continue with their edits.

This IP editor makes changes to this guideline with the summary "see talk" as their believe a consensus has been reached (which it has not). This slow building edit-war has been going on for about 2/3 weeks now, with every single edit made by this IP user reverted by multiple editors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Let me just point out that only three of the six reported edits were reverts, and one of those was weeks before and unrelated to the others. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This isn’t edit warring. It’s the B part of

WP:BRD. You are free to join in the discussion. —67.14.236.50 (talk

) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So both Rob and Neil are incorrect when they posted in this section on your talkpage asking you not to edit war? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you were talking about the outdated Hills Have Eyes example, with the demands to seek

owned or considered sacrosanct, then yeah, I might say he was edit warring. Otherwise, it’s the normal process. —67.14.236.50 (talk

) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

To be fair IP, it is BRD, not BRDBRBRBR and I am not convinced that BRD should even apply to a MOS. All substantive changes to naming guidelines should arguably gain consensus before installation. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@

alternative to BRD. —67.14.236.50 (talk

) 02:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought what we’ve been doing was BRDBRDBRD. Occasionally with myself being the only one attempting the third step, so yeah, it doesn’t really work if no one else participates. But even if BRD is inappropriate here, we should certainly discuss the change, which is intended as mere clarification rather than a substantive change. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have participated in the dicussion. As I noted there you seem to be coming up with solutions looking for a problem. I think the reason the discussion hasn't caught fire is because there seems to be no evidence of the current guideline causing problems. If it were leading to articles being given the incorrect name there would probably be more desire to "fix" it but nobody seems to be arguing that the articles should be called something else! Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted a revision six days ago. It has gone undiscussed, even when the change was eventually made and reverted. Yesterday I posted a response to the revert. Still nothing. So yeah, I seem to be the only one here even attempting discussion.

Anyway, there’s a subtle difference between a solution looking for a problem, and a solution to a problem that you can’t or won’t see. Fresh eyes would help here, rather than the local consensus […] opposed to making any changes whatsoever. But this is a matter for the talkpage (or DRN, etc.), not AN. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This was moved into the archive without any action being taken. The IP continues with the same disruption on the page concerned. Reverts this edit saying their are no objections (incorrect), which is then itself (correctly) reverted by another editor. That IP revert comes after they have commented here and the original report was archived.

Can some please either block this IP or protect the page. This will go quiet for a few days, then continue again, as per the edit history shows. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WT:NCF. —67.14.236.50 (talk

) 02:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  Many thanks CBW. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Meenakshi Jain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
2. 12:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
3. 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""
4. 05:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent vandalism Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]
5. [102]
6. [103]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[105]

Comments:

• Well 1) the user who has provoked the edit war (and others, yet he hasn't been blocked might I add) has used ridiculous reasons, because this is a page on a wrestling match not a page youtube channel so the youtube video about how the match is organised can't be...WTF , 2) I thought we have made a compromise,--TBBC (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment There's a policy for
  convenience link for material originally published elsewhere. In all cases, care should be undertaken to ensure that the video is genuinely authorised by the copyright holder." The video that you linked to was uploaded by Wrestling Hut, which is a fan page channel that includes shoots, opinions, news matches/spots from multiple wrestling sites, not an official one. Nickag989^talk
  08:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• You offered a compromise on the talk page and continued edit warring without waiting for a consensus. That's not how this is supposed to work.LM2000 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Many reverts for

Page

Mary Nolan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

108.178.115.3 (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 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 02:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
   2. 03:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779454227 by
      talk
      )"
   2. 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"
3. 00:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Later years */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Numerous warnings by multiple editors. One started a discussion at talk page. See discussions at the IPs talk,

• Note I have not warned him but others have twice. There are also many more reverts. Twinkle didn't pick the up because I didn't make the warnings I suppose. John from Idegon (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The four main issues with this user is that they have violated

• Y'all should look at their most recent tirade; I responded, and I'm done responding to them. If they edit that article again they should be blocked; I'll leave it to the next admin to decide if they should be blocked already. BUT BE PREPARED TO HAVE THE WRONGS RIGHTED ON ALL THE SOCIAL MEDIA ETC ETC. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, this user is clearly abusive/bullying in their language, and calling people "misogynists" with absolutely no basis. They even thought calling their rant a rant (which folks of all genders can do LOL) was sexist. In the final analysis, this user is fully intent on 1) not following or caring about our policies, guidelines and the way we write articles; 2) being very nasty in the process. We expect collegiality (or at least halfway reasonable attempts at such) on the wiki; this user isn't even trying to work in this manner.
    Talk • Work
    05:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "stop vandalism"
2. 12:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779354746 by
   talk
   ) explained on talk page"
3. 10:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not country wikipedia was not built for POV. explain your reason on talk page."
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) to 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 09:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779188891 by
      WP:NPOV
      "
   2. 09:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland is not country that is WP:PROMOTION and WP:NPOV)"
   3. 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "/* 3RR Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Nation */"

Comments:

Editor was blocked for edit warring just two days ago [106] and continued to edit war despite clear warning [[107]]. Further action needs to be taken due to their disruptive behaviour, including vandalism and removal of content for no reason [108], [109], [110]. Kzl55 (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

False , no one violated 3RR he is the one who making revert and removing sourced content,[111], [112] i just add content and I as explained it on talk page.[113], His edits are very disruptive across multiple pages. My edits were constructive, not distractive even other editor got involved but he ignore it [114] while edit waring his preferred POV,

and gain today on another page

[115] [116] [117] also this is him reverting other editor all because doesn't suit his POV; which is unacceptable [118], [119] Somajeeste (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

NeilN, I should have probably explained this better. I did not report the editor for their violation of 3RR on the Somali language page due to page protection by El C. I have made this report because, after they were warned by El C not to edit war again [120] they went to a different page and did just that [121].Kzl55 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:DRN? --NeilN ^{talk to me}

16:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, I think we have reached some resolution on the Adal Sultanate page (not with the editor in question here but a different one). My concern is the disruptive behaviour from editor Somajeeste, who was blocked two days ago, and came back to continue the same pattern of edit warring, even after being specifically warned by El C today. Their unexplained removal of content [122], [123], [124] and constant edit warring are very disruptive. Kzl55 (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected By El_C This is your chance to work it out on the talk page before blocks are issued. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Iron Fist (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oscar22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "This is nowhere near vandalizing. We all reached a new consensus we should stop using a critical reception term."
2. 21:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "It's a new consensus reached to all of us through private messaging. Now BACK OFF!!!"
3. 21:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Since I edited this myself instead of undoing, it does not count as an edit revert. Regardless, a consensus has been reached to not describe the critical reception term. Please STOP CHANGING IT!!!"
4. 21:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "The new consensus is that we shouldn't reach the term. It's not blanking the page but I can show you what it is (making the article empty). Now back off. Your changing after a new consensus is vandalism."
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC) to 21:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
   1. 21:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Enough with the trolling and vandalism. I did try discussing but those discussions failed as its more shouting than actual cooperation."
   2. 21:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "I removed the critical reception term on one's suggestion. It's better to not discuss the critical reception term than having the wrong one."
6. 19:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "Please STOP REVERTING THIS!!!"
7. 17:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC) "I did change the term a bit to reflect both of our interests. There are some mixed reviews but many negative ones."
8. 23:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC) "Next time you tell me to discuss on the talk page, make sure to actually follow through and discuss."
9. 22:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "I did try discussing on your talk page. You wouldn't answer me. Now stop being a fanboy and let reality set in. Reviews were mostly negative. Now please kindly shoo. DO NOT REVERT!!!"
10. 22:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 779257645 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"
11. 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Read many of the reviews and most of them were negative."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Iron_Fist_(TV_series)#Please stop with changing the critical reception term to suit your false lie (these aren't diffs but rather links to the discussion sections)
2. Talk:Iron_Fist_(TV_series)#Stop changing the critical reception term

Comments:

This user has been consistently edit warring with myself and other editors at Iron Fist (TV series). The user made a bold change, and continued to revert multiple editors before finally starting a discussion. And even then, they continued to revert to their desired edit while the discussion was ongoing (as it apparently was not moving fast enough for them) Additionally, they though consensus was reached in their favor after lack of responses (again to the point I feel they felt the discussion was not moving fast enough for them). Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

And edit-warring about the report here to boot. *

Bencherlite^Talk

23:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I just noticed that. Thank you Bencherlite. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Page: Argument from authority (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Also warned before 3RR violation: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126], [127] (See comments for the result of the latter)

Comments:
This would also not be the first time he has been found edit-warring on this page: [128] I had also attempted to bring in the opinions of others to help with a source dispute as stated on the talk page, yet MjolnirPants changed its title to a mocking one which fully derailed the discussion: [129]. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing one, two three four reverts by you within a 24 hour period. Even if the last one was over a different issue, it's still a revert. Are you sure you want this report to go through? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to add the fourth, my sincere apologies. It has now been added. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking over the fourth revert, which is 23 hours and 53 minutes after from the first revert... It only technically and barely qualifies as a revert. He replaced "*: " with "*" and a few other minor formatting things. Blocking him over that would be unnecessarily draconian and petty. @

MPants at work and MjolnirPants

: if Endercase reverts that formatting change, don't revert him. There, he's been Warned.

On the other hand, @PraiseTheShroom: those four reverts you made included actual content changes each time -- that's where edit warring is most likely to be disruptive. Do you really want action to be taken on this case or would you like to withdraw your report? (If you want to withdrawn, don't delete the thread, just say "I withdraw this report" and I'll close the thread). Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you do not feel that his fourth edit qualifies, surely the last there of mine would not: it was not a reversion but an edit which added material, as I saw it. My intention was not to undo, but to add. I would like to proceed: we have both taken our actions, I believe myself to be in the right and he himself. Now let us be judged. I would like to add though that it is only sensible that something more be done for a repeat offender warned beforehand than a first time offender (if indeed an offender I am) who did not believe themselves to be reverting. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You added material that had just been removed, that's a revert. Changing "*:" to "*" is almost nothing. I'm sorry you believe you're in the right on this, because (no comment on article content) you edit warred at least as much as he did. You need to look at the responses to this report and consider that maybe it's not MjolnirPants that's the problem here. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Note this is also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:MjolnirPants_on_Reliable_Sources_Noticeboard_and_other_pages --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Though that was more about the derailing of my efforts to bring other voices into the discussion by changing my submission - this is to report a violation of the three-revert rule, with that mentioned for illustration of the issues I am having with moving a discussion forward with this user. PraiseTheShroom (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• No violation I agree with Ian.thomson and am closing with no action. No substantive violation here. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Page

Horizon League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fresno St. Alum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)