AllSportsfan16 (talk | contribs) |
AllSportsfan16 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 316: | Line 316: | ||
:: See [[WP:MEATPUPPET]] – if what you're saying is true, it's no different than socking. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
:: See [[WP:MEATPUPPET]] – if what you're saying is true, it's no different than socking. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::Thanks for showing this to me, because it sounds exactly what you three did to me. Here's proof of one instance that you did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_Perez[[User:AllSportsfan16|AllSportsfan16]] ([[User talk:AllSportsfan16|talk]]) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
:::Thanks for showing this to me, because it sounds exactly what you three did to me. Here's proof of one instance that you did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_Perez[[User:AllSportsfan16|AllSportsfan16]] ([[User talk:AllSportsfan16|talk]]) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::Issue has been resolved. I found another source that had the same information but was deemed more "reliable". I apologize for my conduct, but the others involved should as well. It's nice to see some of us can have a conversation without resorting to using the noticeboard. I've also started a discussion as to why famousbirthdays is a reliable source, but I think I will be stick to editing sports articles.[[User:AllSportsfan16|AllSportsfan16]] ([[User talk:AllSportsfan16|talk]]) 03:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Amaury]] reported by [[User:AllSportsfan16]] (Result: ) == |
|||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Jacob Bertrand}} |
|||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|Amaury}} |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
|||
;I was forced to undo edits |
|||
# {{diff2|776600027|01:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 776461300 by [[Special:Contributions/IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|776576591|21:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 776461300 by [[Special:Contributions/IJBall|IJBall]] ([[User talk:IJBall|talk]]) is his official social media account reliable enough for you" |
|||
# {{diff2|776458629|03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 776378660 by [[Special:Contributions/Geraldo Perez|Geraldo Perez]] ([[User talk:Geraldo Perez|talk]]) when you google jacob bertrand birthday it says March 6, 2000. It's a fact." |
|||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
|||
# {{diff2|776600747|01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on [[Jacob Bertrand]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
|||
This user along with {{U|IJBall}}, and {{U|Geraldo Perez}} make up their own rules about what a reliable source is and continue trying to assert their version of the article.[[User:AllSportsfan16|AllSportsfan16]] ([[User talk:AllSportsfan16|talk]]) 02:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: It goes without saying that this is a frivolous report – I suggest a block is in order for abusing the process... --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::No it's not. The reasons that were provided to me about why famousbirthdays is not a reliable source do not make any sense. It is a reliable source, you can't edit the edit the website like you can do with wikipedia. It also has a real address, they've hired actual editors, writers, managers with college degrees. It's not a fan website where anyone can post. A social media post I supplied from March 6, 2017 is another source stating when his birthday is, but that was also rejected. I'm tired of editors making up their own rules, it's happened to me way to many times, the amount of collusion on this website is ridiculous. I'll take mine down if he takes his down.[[User:AllSportsfan16|AllSportsfan16]] ([[User talk:AllSportsfan16|talk]]) 02:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:35, 22 April 2017
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:Staples88 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 60 hours)
- Page
- Stanley Gerzofsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Staples88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Edited the "NRA sponsored" part about legislation. Gerzofsky sponsored and supported bills that limited and restricted firearm use and ownership. These bills had nothing to do with the NRA, and using the phrase "opposed NRA supported bills" is incorrect"
- 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
- 22:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Wording"
- 10:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 22:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stanley Gerzofsky. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
First edit listed here is a revert, see previous version: [1]. Warning pt. 2 by Namiba: [2]. This would seem to fall under discretionary areas such as American Politics 2 and Gun control. GABgab 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I also left discretionary sanctions alerts for American politics and gun control on their talk page. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like the same user is trying to evade the block and remove reliable sources.--TM 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Page protected NeilN talk to me 14:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Standing Steel reported by User:Spike Wilbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Eagles (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Standing Steel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [3]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]
Comments:
This user has been trying to change the "dates active" for the Eagles and refuses to engage in discussion. After their initial edit was reverted (by me), they have performed it six more times in the last two days, reverting a total of four different editors who dispute this change. Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- The issue the user is editing is currently being discussed on the talk page. I support a short block for this user (and any possible socks) because he is refusing to participate on the talk page. But, I will point out, that in the end, the user may be correct. It all depends on what happens with the current discussion(s) on the talk page. My plan is, if no one else participates with new information, to change the article on Sunday or Monday based on the consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours based on the RFPP request before I saw this. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
User:59.102.20.8 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
- Page
- Elena of Avalor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 59.102.20.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
- 19:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code please don't delete!"
- 19:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code please don't delete!"
- 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code."
- 09:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code from looking at Foxtel guide."
- 08:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Found out about unknown production code."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 19:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elena of Avalor. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
No attempt to bring it up on the article's talk page or the talk pages of those who reverted them. Keeps adding in unsourced content. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- And add another. Also, ignored request to add whatever "Foxtel guide" is as an inline citation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN talk to me 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Abductive reported by User:DHeyward (Result: Warned)
- Page
- Todd Heap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Abductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
- 02:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Source added: police say tragic accident."
- 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
- 05:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Abductive has been blocked for edit warring previously. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017 */"
- Comments:
Continues to add questionable material to a biography without trying to get consensus or address BLP concerns. DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- A simple check of the history and talk page will reveal that several users have independently attempted to add the same sourced and uncontroversial material to the article, only to be reverted endlessly by DHeyward with his invented rule that Wikipedia cannot report anything until the Medical Examiner makes a pronouncement. It is DHeyward that is edit warring. Abductive (reasoning) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Abductive: You have three previous blocks for violation of the bright line 3RR. Why should I not block you for this violation of 3RR? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Because previous infractions should be irrelevant. I regard DHeyward's edits as whitewashing and vandalism, and have said so. Blocking me will send DHeyward the message that he can continue to impose his will on Wikipedia through Wikilawyering. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I take issue with that characterization and is why I used the talk page to explain my edits. It's hardly "whitewashing" to show concern over the portrayal of a tragedy in a BLP. A tragedy completely unrelated to the reason of notability. Caution is required in abundance. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- You made up a rule, and told other users that Wikipedia must not post such information because the little girl's name was not reported. You are perverting Wikipedia and discouraging editors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Abductive: Your responses do not give me confidence whatsoever that you have learned anything from your previous 3RR blocks and that you will refrain from continuing to violate it. As I said, 3RR is a bright line rule. DHeyward's edits are not vandalism; this is a content dispute, and thus 3RR applies. I will give you one last chance to self-revert your fourth revert and engage in dispute resolution (such as seeing out outside opinions via 3O or on the dispute resolution noticeboard); unfortunately, if you fail to do so, I don't have confidence enough that you will refrain from continuing to edit war to not block you to prevent disruption on the page. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, reverted. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Now, could you be so kind as to venture your opinion on the matter, since you are now familiar with it? Perhaps DHeyward might listen? Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sincerely, thank you. Now please, both of you, please refrain from further reverts and seek outside input (not from me, though thank you for offering) on this matter, preferably through one of the methods I suggested above. So long as edit warring does not resume, I'll consider this resolved. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Fine, reverted. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Abductive: Your responses do not give me confidence whatsoever that you have learned anything from your previous 3RR blocks and that you will refrain from continuing to violate it. As I said, 3RR is a bright line rule. DHeyward's edits are not vandalism; this is a content dispute, and thus 3RR applies. I will give you one last chance to self-revert your fourth revert and engage in dispute resolution (such as seeing out outside opinions via 3O or on the dispute resolution noticeboard); unfortunately, if you fail to do so, I don't have confidence enough that you will refrain from continuing to edit war to not block you to prevent disruption on the page. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- You made up a rule, and told other users that Wikipedia must not post such information because the little girl's name was not reported. You are perverting Wikipedia and discouraging editors. Abductive (reasoning) 04:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I take issue with that characterization and is why I used the talk page to explain my edits. It's hardly "whitewashing" to show concern over the portrayal of a tragedy in a BLP. A tragedy completely unrelated to the reason of notability. Caution is required in abundance. --DHeyward (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Because previous infractions should be irrelevant. I regard DHeyward's edits as whitewashing and vandalism, and have said so. Blocking me will send DHeyward the message that he can continue to impose his will on Wikipedia through Wikilawyering. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Abductive: You have three previous blocks for violation of the bright line 3RR. Why should I not block you for this violation of 3RR? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- For the bot's purposes, Not blocked. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Pending)
- Page
- Dangerous Woman Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Fan4Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 15:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776528844 by Calvin999 (talk) They are all official sources."
- Consecutive edits made from 15:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC) to 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
- 15:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776259280 by AnomieBOT (talk)"
- 15:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776256478 by Calvin999 (talk) Just because they haven't been announced yet, doesn't mean it isn't happening, that is WP:CRYSTALBALL."
- 21:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Background */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dangerous Woman Tour. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has long-standing history of edit-warring across multiple pages. Has been told, multiple times, by multiple users (including an Administrator) to stop the edit-warring, and to take their editing to talk pages, which they are not happy to ever do. This user's long-standing history of edit-warring has gone on far enough, and action should finally be taken. User has received three (!!!) edit-warring notices this month, and continues this highly disruptive pattern of behavior. livelikemusic talk! 16:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Note: User can choose between a sanction of a 24 hour block, or 0RR on all articles for 72 hours. El_C 17:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Livelikemusic: You gave me a warning saying you would report me if I violated, which I didn't. Fan4Life (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:2.232.70.45 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Blocked)
Page: Riccardo Freda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.232.70.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [12]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and here.
Comments: Its easiest to just read the recent talk page on Talk:Riccardo Freda and Talk:I Vampiri to get the idea. I think the user is trying to help...sort of? I just do not think he or she can speak English. They seem to copy + paste posts and do not respond to questions regarding their edits and contiously cite WP:POV for their reasons for reverting...which I still don't understand as the content we have included is sourced? Help? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for one week for vandalism. They've been blocked before.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Koala15 reported by User:Wufan10304 (Result: No violation)
- Page
- Ghostface Killah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 7:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC) No reason cited.
- 19:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC) No reason cited.
- 4:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC) "there not collaboration albums"
- 20:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC) No reason cited.
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 17:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776241716 by User:Koala15 Warning: Three Revert Rule."
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
User has been asked to cite sources for reasons of reverts, to which none have been given. Before changing the article, I commented on a request to move three of the artist's albums from studio to collaborations here. I then moved the one album requested along with two others of the same concept ideas along with posting a discussion in the article's talk page about the reason for the move here. No one disagreed or answered back, yet the user kept reverting my changes without reason and/or overlooking the necessary given information about the moves. I asked for replies to my discussion in the Talk page, and/or cited sources regarding keeping said albums under full studio albums, as I had listed interviews with the artist himself which reinforced the artist having not created the projects, and none was given. User reverted changes four times without reason, surpassing the 3RR rule. User is being disruptive. Wufan10304 (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Wikipedical reported by User:Sagecandor (Result: )
Page: The O'Reilly Factor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikipedical (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Versions that do not mention name change to The Factor, versions that do not mention new host Perino. Edits are disruptive and edit-warring. Edit-warring against multiple other registered users.
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:50, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
- 19:05, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
- 19:08, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to add back unsourced info on multiple WP:BLPs.)
- 19:15, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
- 19:17, 20 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
- 04:51, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
- 04:53, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of Perino)
- 17:35, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of Perino)
- 17:47, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of name change to "The Factor")
- 20:39, 21 April 2017 (reverts, to remove mention of Perino)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Comment by MrX there: "Edit warring is not the answer. Wikipedical needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt to resolve at WP:BLPN -- Comment by MrX there: "Edit warring is not the answer. Wikipedical needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)"
Unfortunately, exact same behavior pattern continued immediately after this report, and continues to this day, now, without stopping.
User repeatedly chooses to use edit-warring as form of communication, over and above talk page. With no break. Does not wait for talk page consensus. Continues edit-warring during talk page discussion. Without end. Even in face of edits by multiple other different users over time. Even after the warning by MrX.
Prior warnings:
- November 2016 - by Amaury at [14]
- January 2017 - by Amaury at [15]
- February 2017 - final warning, by Walter Görlitz, at [16]
Sagecandor (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Comments:
- I've reverted my last edit, but all of the charges that Sagecandor has made applies to that user's behavior as well. My edits were reverts against bold edits to the page, trying to move discussion to the talk page first. BLP had absolutely nothing to do with the edits made, as mentioned by User:Masem at WP:BLP/N. The issue was brought there because living people are mentioned on the television series page (BLP was the user's excuse to remove information related to sections on the series' production and list of guests, nothing remotely violating WP:BLP). Sagecandor's bold edits to change the status quo of the article (changing the article's name, removing/changing the title card, etc.) were the source of my reverts. There is currently a page move discussion on the talk page created by the user who reported me here (an overwhelming consensus opposed to it), so major changes to the series' title should reflect consensus and not be inserted into the article, especially during a discussion. I'll now cease to patrol edits until it closes.
- As for Amaury's warnings, that was a similar situation when a user made extremely bold edits against a page, and I reverted to the status quo and moved discussion to the talk page. I haven't removed edit warriors' warnings from my talk page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- User neglects to mention their edits are reverts and edit-warring against multiple other users and not just one. Evidence above shows this. These include edit-warring against AKA Casey Rollins [17] and again [18], and edit-warring against Trainsandtech at [19] [20]. User explanations do not excuse edit-warring. Especially AFTER user was warned by MrX, "Edit warring is not the answer. Wikipedical needs to stop edit warring and stop adding unsourced content, otherwise I see a block in their future.- MrX 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)" Sagecandor (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:170.254.144.88 (and other alts) reported by User:VGN34D (Result: Semi)
User being reported: 170.254.144.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Manaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This anonymous user continues to remove tag references from the Manaus page and has repeatedly change IP address in order to continuously remove the tags and inciting edit war. Please deal with the anonymous user ASAP. Thanks.
Also, if you look at the history, you'll see that he's repeatedly changing his IP address in order to keep removing tags from the page and inciting edit war as a result of repeated IP changes. VGN34D (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Please use the talk page to get agreement on including the prison riot in the Manaus article. If the edit war continues it may be necessary to apply full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:ShawnDurrance reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: Blocked)
Page: Law firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ShawnDurrance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [21]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User has been repeatedly asked to stop adding promotional material and has chosen to either revert without explaining, revert demanding others explain themselves when they already had, or insist that promotional edits are permitted if they're sourced. CityOfSilver 23:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Result was blocked indef by Ponyo. Sagecandor (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- There's some SOCK/MEAT issues going on here, I thought indef blocking would be the quickest route to nip it in the bud. Interested parties may want to keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HART Legal in case more SPAs turn up there.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
User:AllSportsfan16 reported by User:Amaury (Result: )
- Page
- Jacob Bertrand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- AllSportsfan16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 01:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776461300 by IJBall (talk)"
- 21:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776461300 by IJBall (talk) is his official social media account reliable enough for you"
- 03:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776378660 by Geraldo Perez (talk) when you google jacob bertrand birthday it says March 6, 2000. It's a fact."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Jacob Bertrand. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
This user has been warned by myself, IJBall, and Geraldo Perez and refuses to accept that the source they want to use is not reliable and continues trying to assert their version of the article. They've also just now used this IP to reinstate their disruptive edits, which is clear and obvious sockpuppetry. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- That was my friends address I asked him to do that. You're also trying to assert your version of the article. AllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:MEATPUPPET – if what you're saying is true, it's no different than socking. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing this to me, because it sounds exactly what you three did to me. Here's proof of one instance that you did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_PerezAllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Issue has been resolved. I found another source that had the same information but was deemed more "reliable". I apologize for my conduct, but the others involved should as well. It's nice to see some of us can have a conversation without resorting to using the noticeboard. I've also started a discussion as to why famousbirthdays is a reliable source, but I think I will be stick to editing sports articles.AllSportsfan16 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing this to me, because it sounds exactly what you three did to me. Here's proof of one instance that you did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geraldo_PerezAllSportsfan16 (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- See WP:MEATPUPPET – if what you're saying is true, it's no different than socking. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)