Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive376

Page

National Front (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mrnobody1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860881013 by Snowded (talk)"
2. 13:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860848391 by Emeraude (talk) They wouldn't put Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XX if their headquarters weren't in London. Unless you find something else that is credible something please leave it as London as stated on their website."
3. 13:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860844681 by Emeraude (talk) That is their official website"
4. 11:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 860741025 by 87.102.4.150 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has been blocked for editwarring before Doug Weller talk 18:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Why am i being reported for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)‎

@Mrnobody1997: The notice on your Talk page includes a link to the community's policy on edit warring, and specifically the three-revert rule. Have you read these policies? General Ization ^Talk 18:37, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Because you are edit warring.--RAF910 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

People are undoing my edits though and not getting reported. I haven't done anything wrong though. People are removing what i've done. Read the edits i've done. I am trying to improve the article but people keep undoing what i've done— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)‎

No one but you has violated the three-revert rule, which I again encourage you to review. General Ization ^Talk 18:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

If you read what the edits i've done people are undoing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnobody1997 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)‎

Yes, three different editors (myself included) have now reverted you (which should be a rather strong clue that you need to rethink your edit, not keep making it), none more than three times. General Ization ^Talk 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It is their official website though which you keep dismissing Mrnobody1997 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

You must convince your fellow users that your edits are worthy of inclusion. If not, they may be reverted and you may be blocked, again. I recommend that Mrnobody1997 receive a 30 day block. If he still cannot play well with others, we can indefinitely block him later.--RAF910 (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

http://www.nationalfront.info/ is The National Front official website which says their headquarters on there so why are you dismissing that and reporting me for including that on National Front wiki Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997http://www.nationalfront.info/ is the website of the national front uk and it says their headquarters on there. http://www.nationalfront.info/contacts/ is their contact information and has their address so where they are based. I don't understand why i'm being reported for linking http://www.nationalfront.info/contacts/ to national front uk wiki saying their headquarters is London when it says it on their website look.Address: The Secretary, BM BOX 4630, London, WC1N 3XXPeople keep removing national front headquarters are London even though it says it on their website and i'm getting reported for undoing people removing headquarters London on National Front UK Wikipedia page. You obviously don't know anything about National Front as you are dismissing a fact on their website coming from them. Absolute pisstake i'm being reported for making the national front uk article correct. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

No where on that website does it say "Headquarters London." You are making an assumption. I change my mind, I now recommend that Mrnobody1997 be indefinitely block.--RAF910 (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say headquarters London but it says address London. It doesn't need to say headquarters as address is another word for it. Phone up the National Front and ask them if you don't believe what it says on their website. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997Why should i get blocked for doing that? Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997Until this issue gets resolved i will not edit on the headquarters of National Front again until i can clarify with National Front themselves where their headquarters are and hopefully they can state it clear enough for you to see so we can not have this problem again. If they can put on their website stating Headquarters London instead of just address London then maybe this problem we have can be sorted out. Whatever happens to me i will not edit anymore about the nf headquarters until the evidence is clearer. I understand you need more obvious evidence so i will find out and get back to you. Mrnobody1997 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

Noce that you have stopped, but it doesn't excuse your behaviour. You were blocked twice for editwarring just three months ago by User:EdJohnston and yet your actions today and your comments above show that you still don't understand what why you were blocked or why I brought you here. I have no confidence that you won't do this again. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I stopped because i get that you need it to say headquarters London instead of just address London. That's what i'm going to find out and get back to you on. I understand my behaviour could have been better and i could of realised this sooner before you reported me. Hopefully the administrator will realise that i admit i could have done things better. As i said next time i will make sure things are much clearer.Mrnobody1997 (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Mrnobody1997

• Mrnobody, as amazing as it is, you still don't seem to get it. You needed to stop because you needed to stop. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
• I don't know if there is any point to blocking now; it seems punitive to me since the editor stopped edit warring two hours ago. We could try something else--actually, we can try two things. First, we can ping EdJohnston, who's blocked this editor twice before for edit warring, to see if they think a block would be useful. Second, we can ask Ed if maybe we should go and put this editor on 1R or something like that. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Mrnobody1997 can avoid a block if they will promise to make no further edits at National Front (UK) before getting prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mrnobody1997 is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: People's Alliance of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theboo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:See this comment[52] for more details on this user's behavior which has been persistent for a couple of years. See this user's Talk Page for previous warnings and blocks[53]

This appears to be a year long edit war between two editors who have edited little else. However, by theboo77 own admission. He is personally involved and possibly a paid editor..."I updated the information, as I was asked to by the political party involved. Other rival parties have been taking done updates and added their own unfavorable information from former members who were expelled for misrepresenting party policies on social media. The upset individuals made up a story and a local paper ran the story which this rival party continues to add. I was asked to re-add my contribution with citations from wikipedia. I complied and added the references requested however now I am blocked?"...Therefore, I believe that theboo77 should be indefinitely blocked. --RAF910 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. It appears that each party has reverted 8 times or more since 18 September. Conflict of interest is a valid concern. But handling a case of COI is a job for editors generally, not a single opponent who follows them step for step. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I came here after taking care of some issues on a discussion at the COI noticeboard here involving this article and the users reported here. If EdJohnston had not already blocked both Theboo77 and A slithy tove for edit warring on People's Alliance of New Brunswick, I certainly would have. I agree with EdJohnston that both users have been edit warring and in violation of policy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Criticism of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. + More in the previous days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60], [61], [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Requested that the user reverting my contributions begin a discussion as each time, they are removing and keeping different portions of my edits over many edit sessions. Thus, I am unsure of how to approach the issue and have requested the user discuss it on the talk page per WP:REVTALK. User has not cited any policies, yet I have. Instead, they are citing vague reasons such as: "{{who}} and {{by whom}} are unnecessary, as readers can just click on the wikilink "Criticism of Islam" and find them; i agree on the invasion; 6 years old, that's what the source says." First statement is not grounded in any policy and does not make sense. Last statement violates WP:SYNTH because the source does not explicitly state that it was consummated when she was six years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batreeq (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

I have already explained to the User Batreeq that i agree with his latest changes to the lead, in fact i kept them and everyone can check out the latest version of the page to verify it. My point of contention is that Batreeq claims that the phrase "modern religious and secular criticism of Islam" in the lead requires templates "who" and "by whom", but the page's sections themselves provide both religious and secular criticism of Muhammad and Islam, and that's the same case for the page "Criticism of Islam", which i suggested him to read.--GenoV84 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:GenoV84 is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at Criticism of Muhammad without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: User continues to edit war and will not discuss on the talk page. – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

User:GenoV84 is now blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert in spite of the warning. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Am I permitted to restore my changes as they have not been officially contested by the user on the talk page? – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 03:34, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "go for it; WP:N isn't negotiable and this is such a minor, easy fix that your insistence on trying to override a core policy is utterly perplexing"
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC) to 06:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:18, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "no, WP:N isn't negotiable; it's a core policy"
   2. 06:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Alumni */ better wording?"
3. 05:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "no, this essay cannot overrule a core policy; I've opened a discussion in Talk so please participate there"
4. 05:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "no, this is completely misstating the cited policy; either this needs to be changed or you can try to have the cited policy changed but the previous text was in blatant contradiction to the cited policy"
5. 05:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "/* Alumni */ NO, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE DAMN POLICY SAYS; READ IT, PLEASE (but feel free to make suggestions on how to better word these guidelines so they're still useful!)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No warnings given to subject during this edit war, but this is an established user with previous 3RR blocks. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

First, the previous block from several years ago was an error by the admin. Second, I stand by my actions here with this essay that directly contradicts two critical policies, WP:N and WP:BIO. ArbCom and the larger community are clear that a smaller group of editors [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS}cannot override site-wide policy]] which is what these editors are explicitly doing. I have proposed multiple alternatives in my edits above - not all of which are reverts to the same version, by the way - but no one else has proposed anything other than retaining the current version of the essay that directly contradicts WP:N and WP:BIO. Third, the earliest edit in this report wasn't a revert and later edits in this report are not reversions to the same version as earlier edits so there are multiple technical errors with this report.

I acknowledge that if multiple editors are set on violating even our most important policies that I cannot single-handedly stop them so I won't make further edits to this essay especially if other editors do not intervene. ElKevbo (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring and civility are policies, while the issues with the essay you refer to are a matter of opinion. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, not "Kevin has appointed himself the king and arbiter of policy". There are appropriate venues for expressing your displeasure and inviting intervention of the most experienced wikipedians; shouting, profanity, and edit warring are not appropriate.Jacona (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:N is also a policy that this essay clearly contradicts so why are you so focused on an editor using one mild profanity and insisting that this issue be addressed? ElKevbo (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Protected. Yes, ElKevbo has effectively breached 3RR - but if I was going to block them, I would also have to block @John from Idegon:, who also managed to rack up 4 reverts in less than an hour. I suspect a far better approach is to do what I have done, and fully protect the page for a week. Discussion may now continue on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, User_talk:Black Kite. There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), at which USER:ElKevbo invited the participants to come to this article. The involved editors at Notability (people) were not persuaded to change the guideline as ElKevbo suggested......WP:CIVILITY is not a part-time policy As to the edit warring policy, W:3RR is a bright line. WP:CONSENSUS must be obtained, if not at the guideline talk page, follow appropriate channels. If consensus is not in favor of the change, then accept that it's not what you want it to be rather than createing a WP:BATTLEGROUND.Jacona (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Black Kite, but no, you would not have had to block me. I stopped. Blocks are to protect the encyclopedia. It didn't need protection from me. It is a ludicrous situation when ONE editor unilaterally can repeatedly change a long term established piece of guidance and insist that it must be done immediately, without discussion. The ceiling was not going to fall in if the particular piece of verbiage was not changed immediately. That kind of behavior is at best childish. The guideline in question has been essentially the same for at least 6 years, and I suspect much longer. When this crap started, I was getting ready for bed. Now I have to go to work. I'm reasonably certain this is a situation we all have to some degree or another. The attitude of "I want it and I want it right now" is not behavior I tolerate from my child. Why should anyone here have to tolerate from a colleague? It's extremely destructive to a collaborative environment. John from Idegon (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask everyone who is interested in this topic to please participate in the essay's Talk page. There is a lot of misinformation and confusion posted above (e.g., I didn't advocate to change WP:BIO but I asked a question to ensure that my understanding of the policy matches other editors' - which it does) but this is not the place to hold this discussion. 14:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• I am seriously disappointed that ElKevbo , with a similar academic background to my own, totally fails to understand the principles of a collaborative online project such as Wikipedia. Let him take very good note of WP:5P5 , and WP:5P4 and understand that whatever his qualifications are in RL, they do not permit him to demand or impose 'his' rules on Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:05, 25 September 2018 (UTC) "So, the delusional guy has sought reinforcements in order to push his parochialist view of history? Block is not a problem, I have access to several computers..."
2. 23:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC) "I like how you keep not replying to any of my points. And we already have a proven liar here, one who has already supported his claims with references to sources (D'Este) that do not say what he claims."
3. 17:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC) "I also like to point out how Sicily, unlike, say, Tuscany, Lombardu, Campania, Latium, Piedmont, Veneto, Abruzzo and other regions, did not have a shadow of an armed Resistance movement, the only "anti-fascist" activity consisting in clapping the Allies when they came. Not bad for a "hotbed of anti-fascist sentiment". And how come I don't see "Hitler's Nazi soldiers" instead of "German troops" in pages describing the battles in Germany in 1945?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC) "better warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has been engaged in a revert war with multiple editors, doesn't seem interested in the "discuss" portion of bold, revert, discuss beyond heated edit summaries, highlights from which include calling an editor a "delusional guy" and calling my one reversion of his edits a response to someone "seeking reinforcements" as well as threatening to IP hop if blocked. (here) cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:41, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. In light of the "I have access to several computers..." announcement I chose to semi-protect this page rather than block the IP. De728631 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'm not actually directly involved in the content dispute per se, I just hopped in to try and stop the edit warring and reversions against consensus when I noticed it on Recent Changes. I'll reach out to the IP and encourage them to engage in discussion. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: CadZZilla (custom car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frayae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: complicated.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/861048842
2. Special:Diff/861129870
3. Special:Diff/861193360

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I don't need to warn myself. I am making the report. I informed Trekphiler, Special:Permalink/861129785.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• User talk:Trekphiler#CadZZilla (custom car)
• User talk:Frayae#CadZZilla
• User_talk:Frayae#CadZZilla'd
• Talk:Cadzzilla#Naming
• Talk:Cadzzilla#Requested move 25 September 2018

Comments:
I have reverted Trekphiler three times now, reversing a copy and paste move he did on CadZZilla (custom car) with content from Cadzzilla. I don't know how to proceed as he is now pasteing the article onto CadZZilla. There is an RM on the actual article at Talk:Cadzzilla. I can continue to revert, edit warring on multiple articles, but it would be nice to resolve the issue. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• I changed the header to show you are reporting User:Trekphiler. It is puzzling to report yourself. In the text of the report you already admit to making some reverts, so you are putting that on the record. But please don't continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The copy paste would never have happened except for an ill-considered pagemove to Cadzzilla, which makes a move to the correct pagename effectively impossible. So delete one of the stupid redirects & move Cadzzilla, & you won't hear from me on it again. Of course, since everybody involved with WP seems to think its standards for capitalization trump everyone else's, I have real doubts that will happen. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: I think the point is that you should go and make your case at the RM which is already open and just be patient. I would greatly appreciate it if you put all the pages back to how they should be. Copy and paste moves are prohibited because they break attribution. Attribution is not optional, it's a requirement. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Warned @Trekphiler and Frayae: Just stop it, both of you. You have a similar number of reverts, and so I'm not going to block either of you at the moment, but consider yourselves warned that further reverts may lead to a block without warning. Trekphiler; Frayae is quite correct in saying that a cut-and-paste move is inappropriate, and you need to obtain consensus at an RM discussion. Please do so now, and leave the redirect alone while you do. Frayae, you made a couple of reverts too many; requesting admin attention (or just any outside input on a talk page discussion) would have been the right thing to do. Vanamonde (talk) 23:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In the meantime could the copy and paste move be undone and the redirects put back? — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 23:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: I have reverted that copy-paste move as an admin action: it was clearly necessary to preserve attribution. Vanamonde (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I need to obtain consensus? I created the damn page at the correct page title in the fist damn place. If it hadn't been moved to an ill-informed title, rv & copy-pasting wouldn't be necessary, would it? But, of course, I'm to blame for everything, as always, right? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Chuck Grassley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.243.178.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments: Editor has ignored requests to discuss on the talk page with increasingly-hostile edit summaries.

• Blocked for 72 hours. --Jayron32 03:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [70] - I'm attempting to allow them a partial revert of another user's edit, but they keep reverting everything

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

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

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

Comments:

Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Warned user. It sounds like they might not be aware of what they're doing and why it's disruptive. The warning I left assumes good faith and helps to explain to the user what he needs to do - which is discuss the matter on the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Ahvaz military parade attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 181.177.218.145 (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. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Comments:
Hi, this IP is vandalizing the above article, adding personal comments. 3RR is not broken, however, IP's contribution is purely disruptive. Maybe an admin could deal with this. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism only account....indefinite block.--RAF910 (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Ritchie333. clpo13_(talk) 21:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Heqin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Transition from Ming to Qing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)User being reported: Opasney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Thor's Axe (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:Opasney

1. Heqin
2. Heqin
3. Heqin
4. Heqin

More in the other article

Thor's Axe (sic)

1. Heqin
2. Heqin
3. Heqin
4. Heqin

More in the other article

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82], [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84], [85]

Comments:

Filed previously at AN/I. Kleuske (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Result: User:Thor's Axe is blocked 48 hours. This is a war between User:Thor's Axe and User:Opasney. The discussion on the talk page suggests that Thor's Axe may be adding unsourced claims. Opasney stopped reverting after being warned about 3RR but Thor's Axe did not. There was an original post at ANI which gave more context. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: List of natural horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KaijuFan4000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

Editor is repeatedly reinserting unsourced information despite multiple warnings from myself (in this instance) and other editors (in prior cases) and having been previously blocked for doing so. Requests for them to engage at the article's Talk page[93] have been ignored in favor of reverting. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• Stale Looks like the reverting between the pair of you have stopped. @Doniago: Is this supposed to be ironic? If I was going to block, it would have been both of you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: My apologies, but I'm not entirely following your reasoning here. The article was last edited by Kaiju under 24 hours ago, so how can this be considered stale? I also don't exactly understand the question, but I'll offer my perspective: the article was tagged for needing citations in 2016. Roughly 20 days ago I posted at the article's Talk page expressing my concerns that as a list article the entries should be sourced per WP:LISTV (which is to say, films were being added to this list without any sourcing to indicate that anyone actually considered them to be natural horror films). When that failed to garner any replies I proceeded to remove the unsourced entries. Without explanation or any attempt to discuss the matter Kaiju summarily undid my removal, a violation of WP:BURDEN, and continued to revert to readd the unsourced entries even when I specifically asked them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page. I would deeply appreciate it if you could provide some clarification regarding how you reached your determination. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If somebody adds unsourced content, it is courteous to look for sources yourself and supply them if you can find them. I think he's concluded "well if Doniago's going to edit war, then bugger it I'm going to do it as well, at least we'll both get blocked". [94]. I see people adding unsourced content on List of Hammond organ players day in, day out, but threatening sanctions over it is like Cnut looking at the waves on the beach and thinking "oh, just go away". It's not realistic. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I see your point, but a) there seems to be an assumption here that I made no effort to find sources, and b) I did start a Talk page thread raising my concerns well before I took any action on the article, and then even while warning Kaiju I did urge them to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page, even beyond the canned template messages that already suggest doing so (certainly the edit-warring advisory does so). I may not have been as courteous as I possibly could have been, but I also don't feel that I was being given anything to work with either, given that Kaiju would simply delete my messages without replying and then go back to reverting the changes. I would note that right now even the work I did of formatting the list into columns to make it a bit easier to read (IMO at least) has been reverted without explanation. In any case, thank you for responding. My apologies if the ping was unnecessary at this point, but I didn't want to take the chance of this being overlooked. DonIago (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, two editors have now spoken at the article's Talk page supporting my removal of unsourced entries from the article. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Eugenics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MPants at work (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 82.132.233.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Several versions; see below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

MPants at Work:

1. 15:40 "Undid revision 861166124 by 82.132.233.249 (talk)"
2. 16:26 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by Binksternet"
3. 16:34 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"
4. 16:45 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"
5. 16:52 "Reverted edits by 82.132.233.249 (talk) to last version by MPants at work"

82.132.233.249:

1. 15:47 "rv PC activist vandal"
2. 16:03 "Undid revision 861169974 by MPants at work (talk) WP:NPA"
3. 16:08 "Undid revision 861171374 by GreenMeansGo (talk) Because of WP:NPA"
4. 16:18 "Undid revision 861172589 by Binksternet (talk) Why? Why are the leftist pseudoscientists allowed to make personal attacks and box comments?"
5. 16:44 "Undid revision 861175146 by MPants at work (talk) why does this guy get to call people "white supremacists" and delete talk page comments?"
6. 16:51 "Undid revision 861176497 by MPants at work (talk) hypocrite. pseudoscientist. lysenkoist."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not for edit warring, but earlier this month Mpants at work was reported at AE under an arbitration case that covers this article. [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not possible, because the talk page is where they're edit warring (and I don't want to get sucked into the edit war).

Comments:
In addition to violating 3RR, Mpants at work and the IP both are violating WP:NPA and WP:TPG. The IP is violating NPA with his name-calling in edit summaries, and Mpants at Work is violating it with his accusation in this edit that I'm "pushing a White Supremacist POV". Both of them also are violating the talk page guidelines by removing one another's posts.

The IP has already been blocked 48 hours, but he made only one more revert than Mpants at work did. In addition, all five of the reverts from Mpants at Work were removing others' talk page comments, while half of the IP's reverts were restoring his own comments after Mpants at work removed them. They both appear guilty in this situation. Deleet (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Warned The reverting has stopped, and blocks are not punishment. Seriously, though Pants, if somebody calls you a div, just let it go, man. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, Ritchie, but if your expect me to feel bad about reverting tp comments that did nothing but screed against another editor and make personal attacks... Well, I'm not. In fact, I'm pretty sure the policies Deleet claims I violated explicitly makes an exception for those kinds of comments. As for claimingi violated NPA: Deleet admits to being a white supremacist all over his blog. How is that a personal attack? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 11:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Surely you agree that blocking you now would be punishment and counterproductive, though? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course, but I stand by everything I've said here (and now at the IP's talk page). I think warning me is ridiculous, considering the nature of the stuff I was reverting. This was pretty clearly a retaliatory filing for me referring to Deleet as a WS (by the way, there are also numerous RSes attesting to that, including the SPLC who monitors his blog). Honestly, Deleet needs an indef, considering that he's yet to make an edit to this project that wasn't either pushing a racist, WS POV or bickering with editors who push back. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Independent of this report, 82.132.233.249 (talk · contribs) has been blocked 48 hours by User:Caknuck for disruptive editing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

• 82.132.233.249 (talk · contribs) Showed up on WP:AIV. It was clear that they had an WP:AXE, so a block seemed warranted. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 18:25, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that IP was just here for personal attacks and disruption; MPants at work was right to try and keep that nonsense off the talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sci fli889 (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]

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

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

• There have been multiple reverts --I am losing track.There are several editors who seem to be tag teaming the article. It needs to be locked down ASAP. The admin who was helping out appears to be on vacation. Neurorel (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  

Already blocked - Blocked indef as a sock by User:Someguy1221. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Page: Daniel Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ralph11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)