Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring 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. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) 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.
Click here to create a new report

User:Hillbillyholiday reported by User:Nihlus Kryik (Result: On break )

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Hillbillyholiday#Your_mass_deletions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Britney_Spears#Recent_deletions

Comments:

User has shown a repeated pattern of edit warring across multiple celebrity articles. I have listed Britney Spears, but here are others: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Kanye West, Amanda Bynes. Bradley Cooper, etc. While some of his edits are good and appreciated, other users have had trouble getting him to discuss his edits with the community. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletions_and_edit_warring_across_celebrity_articles_by_Hillbillyholiday. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I ask administrators to look at all the other reverts this editor has made in 24 hours. The Britney Spears article is just one example. Even going beyond 24 hours, slow-burn edit wars are also problematic because they solve nothing and keep going, and going, and going, like a certain famous pink bunny. Whether it's a block or a stern warning, Hillbillyholiday needs to stop edit warring when editors object to his or her mass deletions. Hillbillyholiday needs to stop the mass deletions without attempting discussion as well, unless removing BLP violations or other serious problems, but no administrator at WP:ANI has yet weighed in warning Hillbillyholiday to stop doing that and/or to stop edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This account of the saga is highly misleading. Most of these are important edits to BLPs and all the edits are justified, the reverters have rarely given a valid rationale in their edit summaries. They just don't seem to like seeing large cuts. And no-one is having trouble getting me to discuss my edits. I am currently in discussions at Kanye West, Britney Spears, and Megan Fox. I just asked at the WP:BLP/N for assistance with the Amanda Bynes article. Nowhere have I been given a valid reason for being reverted, nor has anyone made a good case for their additions. There are curently several editors tag-teaming to revert my edits, again, they are not giving reasons in their summaries, just blind reverts. Except Flyer, none are engaging on the talkpages.

Flyer's involvement is concerning to say the least. Take a look at talk:Kanye West. Having just blindly reverted my edit, Flyer then says "I'm not too opposed to the recent cuts." Cjhard respomds "Yeah, me neither. That's some nice trimming." Yet they felt the need to revert first! See also Flyer's thoughts on the sourcing for Kanye's mental health issues, or her ideas about sourcing Britney's legacy. Frankly the evidence would suggest they shouldn't be anywhere near these topics. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't revert anything. You have my support for your edits to Kanye West. Yes, your edits are good, but you've gotta understand that when you make massive changes to articles like that, you're going to get some resistance, so you're going to need to do some convincing on talk pages, rather than immediately reverting back when your changes are reverted. Being right is no excuse for edit warring, and insulting Flyer is not helping your case. Cjhard (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Cjhard.

Hillbillyholiday, not misleading in any way. You often either interpret WP:BLP wrongly or far too strictly. You mainly remove content because you do not like it, which is more than evident in the Jennifer Lawrence case. The vast majority of your removals in the case of these articles (the ones I noted at WP:ANI, and even the Bradley Cooper article mentioned above) are not WP:BLP violations. It's just content you do not like because you consider it trivial, garbage or whatever else. Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." And "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." And yet you revert, revert and revert. And you are still edit warring. We get it: You think you are right. You have no doubts about what you are removing. But a number of experienced editors disagree with you. As for discussion, you are only willing to discuss when your version of the article is the current state of the article and/or when you intend to revert again anyway. You are not truly taking the time to listen. You are doing what you want to do and think that you won't get reprimanded for it, which is why you didn't bother to comment at WP:ANI. Now that you have been reported here and there's the sense that you will be reprimanded in this forum, you have decided to comment.

As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated, "two editors agreeing with your cuts doesn't mean that you should automatically revert again." And "I missed your earlier statement of 'You're 'not too opposed to the recent cuts' but you reverted anyway?' I reverted per reasons stated on your talk page. Drastic cuts like this should often be discussed first, precisely because they are big and some content should perhaps be retained and because some editors might disagree with the cuts. Being WP:Bold is one thing. But when you are reverted on such big cuts, you should then discuss the matter on the talk page instead of automatically reverting." So if you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story. The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter. As for the Britney Spears article, any one with a lick of sense can see that I am right about that matter. I was not the one questioning the existence of a Legacy section for someone who has had as much impact on the music industry as Britney Spears. I was not the one questioning the reliability of solid sources in contrast to what WP:BIASED states. That was you, as was your belittling of the subject. Quite frankly, your behavior and rationales have convinced me that you should not be editing these articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have spent plenty of time discussing things with you Flyer, enough to know that there are some serious competence issues. Your mischaracterization of me is one thing (I am certainly not belittling Britney Spears), but your strange views about what constitutes a good source for a BLP is another entirely. I'm not the sort to go reporting people else I would have already, but if I see one more edit by you that restores problematic BLP-related material, I will break the habit of a lifetime.

Apols Cjhard. Poor wording on my part, didn't mean to imply you were one of those reverting. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I -- the one who is following the rules correctly and is not deleting material left and right because I don't like it -- have the competence issues? Yeah...sure. You have been behaving recklessly this way for years. Remember that good time in 2013, when you were removing sources because you viewed using People magazine and similar sources as WP:BLP violations? Yeah, the community didn't agree with you then either. Go ahead and revisit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?. As seen from reading the RfC, consensus was that the source is reliable for BLP articles. It was not considered a tabloid journalism source by the vast majority of editors. The closer also clarified for anyone who might misinterpret the "contentious" aspect of the close. And, here in 2017, look at this silly edit you made at the Bradley Cooper article; like FrB.TG told you there, "Stop removing well-sourced content without prior discussion; they are not speculations he has a child with the last of her for crying out loud." So, yeah, I don't think anyone needs a WP:BLP lesson from you. And your denial that you belittled Spears doesn't give me any assurance as to your competence either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and do feel free to report me. It won't work. At all. But I won't begrudge you for trying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice strawman. I had issues with various tabloids but I wasn't focused on People. I questioned its usage once I do remember, the fact there was an RfC about it shows there was valid reason to be a little concerned. That was four years ago. That Bradley Cooper edit looks fine to me, except I may have inadvertenty cut some less-than important info along with the rest of the absolute twaddle. Anyway, the correct venue for this tedious back-and-forth is that still-open AN/I report of yours. Disengaging now. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a strawman; just a little background information on your line of thinking. And I could pull out diffs as well since I'm sure I remember what you stated back then more than you do. As this note shows, the People RfC was started because of disruptive deletions that were tied to the source. In that case, I was mainly focused on a different editor, whose deletions and rationales were emboldening others (including you). The WP:ANI case is one venue, but there is also the matter of your continued edit warring...which is why you were reported at this venue as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

More reverting here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Hillbillyholiday broke WP:3RR by making four reverts on August 19. I decided to check the source at mtv.com. In the light of what is written there, I don't see that calling Spears' behavior 'a very public meltdown' is a violation of BLP, certainly not for the purposes intended by the BLP exception to 3RR. The 3RR BLP exception is intended for things like unsourced defamation where the offending material is so flagrant it needs to be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion. In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute and the only question is how to give it the most apt description, which is a matter of WP:UNDUE. This needs editor consensus to resolve. In my opinion User:Hillbillyholiday should be blocked unless they will make a concession that ensures this problem won't continue. For example, by agreeing to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, keep in mind that this editor is still edit warring across a number of articles. It's not just the Britney Spears article. Hillbillyholiday's edit warring may stop at the Britney Spears article, but it will likely continue at the other articles, like Shia LaBeouf. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok Ed. I'm done. Gonna log off for a few days. I must say I disagree with your opinion about using "meltdown", however. You may need to warn FlightTime for edit-warring at Britney's page as well. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I can count. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Hillbillyholiday, I am still waiting for an assurance from you regarding the Britney Spears article. Otherwise we can assume the edit war will resume as soon as you come back. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I have asked about it at the BLP/N board, I think it needs more eyes and further discussion. I won't touch the article until there is some definite consensus. --Hillbilly Holiday (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Stale. Hillbillyholiday has decided to take a wikibreak; the conversation continues on WP:BLPN. FlightTime, you went right up to the line of 3RR and are lucky not to receive sanctions too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: Nice try, sorry to disappoint, as I said above, I can count. I see you condone Hillbillyholiday's "Wikipedia's voice" by reverting to his version. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  As the edit warring policy says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." and I take a dim view of people who say "I've only done three reverts, so I'm not edit-warring!" (If anybody thinks I am WP:INVOLVED by reverting to what I personally think is better for the article after closing this thread, feel free to revert). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: What you "personally think" has nothing to do with BLP's. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333, given your feelings on matters such as these (the hatchet jobs and types of sourcing) and that you do appear to be okay with Hillbillyholiday's behavior, I think that you should let EdJohnston, who started the handling of this case, close it. Hillbillyholiday's edit warring across multiple articles is not stale, and slow-burn edit wars are just as problematic as up-to-speed edit warring. His break is nothing but an "I'm biding my time, and will continue the disruption afterward" ruse. That stated, it appears as though EdJohnston was going to close the matter similarly anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur with letting this report be closed without a block. My understanding is that User:Hillbillyholiday 'won't touch the article until there is some definite consensus', where the reference is to their future editing of the Britney Spears article. If it turns out that Hillbilyholiday engages in edit warring on other articles such as Shia LaBeouf, then someone could file a new AN3 report specifying that article. Massive content removal from BLP articles on the grounds of general article quality isn't supported by WP:3RRNO as an exception to our edit warring rules. Such removals need editor consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:84.217.194.139 reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Warned)

Page: Genesis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.217.194.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

Slow burning edit war; IP keeps trying to add Ray Wilson to the lead despite nobody agreeing Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• Warned Not technically a 3RR and the user has not reverted since being warned. John (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:VenomousConcept reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page

Emily Beecham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
2. 23:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
3. 23:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
4. 17:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
5. 22:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
6. 18:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
7. 16:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
2. 13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
3. 13:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
4. 02:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

User has been edit warring and keeps inserting an image on the Emily Beecham article, I had the article protected in an attempt to force them to go to the talkpage - It worked however now the protection's up they've ignored the talkpage and have again inserted the image again, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 17:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Although the edit warring hasn't been constant they've still ignored the talkpage nonetheless (except when I got the article protected), I don't believe I was edit warring as I did go to the talkpage nearly a month ago, I did state this morning an editor or myself could start an RFC which unfortunately seems to have gone ignored, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm having a look through OTRS now trying to see if the relevant permission for the new image has been supplied. Although I personally think the earlier image is better, if it keeps Ms Beecham happy and complies with our image licensing policies, then I'd rather go with that just to keep the peace. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ritchie, I'm not trying to argue or cause any crap but shouldn't we keep an image we/editors are happy with not Ms Beecham herself ?, FWIW I'm sick of this as the next person but for me I'm trying (atleast in my eyes) to do what's best for the project, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just a case of doing whatever is the least disruption. I found an OTRS ticket about the new image, but it's been rejected and the ticket closed, so it should probably be deleted. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah okay well thanks for kindly dealing with it, Would it be best if this gets indef-protected or atleast Pending Changes applied as me thinks this is not gonna stop anytime soon, Thanks again for dealing with this, –Davey2010^Talk 18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the other image under F3 (it was previously deleted under F7 but I think a rejected claim of fair use is closer to this one), so it's up to VenomousConcept to come up with a genuinely free image that clears OTRS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it. Here we go again... I don't think that I'm guilty of edit warring any more than Davey2010. I discussed it on the talkpage, but received no response. I understand that Davey2010 is just trying to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, and I respect that. My respect lessens somewhat when he comes up with imaginary rules like 'Wikipedia pages need to feature pictures of someone at an event'. Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Images states that 'A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people.' that's all. I fully appreciate that Wikipedia does not exist to please the subjects of articles, however I don't think replacing one free image with another should be a problem. Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects encourages people to do just that. Above Davey2010 states that we should use 'an image we/editors are happy with' and seems to just be referring to himself and ignoring the wishes of myself and the multiple other editors who have tried to change it. If Wikipedia is supposed to be about consensus, then I don't think it's fair that one editor should be allowed to block the attempts of multiple other editors to improve a page. I see that my image has been deleted, I don't know why as I thought it had the right licence and was assured by other Wikipedians that it did. If someone could explain that to me I would appreciate it. Finally, as according to Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Images - 'Lead images are not required', I would suggest that the best way to resolve the dispute would be to remove the image until an image that everyone is happy with can be found.VenomousConcept (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"I wrote a whole paragraph responding to this and then the website lost it" - Well with all respect you could've readded it, Many newbies here upload what I would consider promotional shots (exactly like the one you were proposing) - Images here should be natural that's the best way I can describe it,

Nope - A few editors on the talkpage and Ritchie above has expressed disapproval with the image so no I'm not going against anyones wishes - if the majority of people (inc Ritchie) said "Yes the other image is fine" then I would've left it at that however the only people so far that actually support this are more or less newbies who have come here, Added the image, and then buggered off,

You cannot upload images and claim they're yours - Doesn't work like that,

No need to change the image - Everyone is happy with the one that's there (except Emily) - We don't remove images just because the subject doesn't like them - If an image is free and is suitable for an encyclopedic article then we use it, If it's not then we don't.

As for me edit warring - I disagree I've told various editors to go to the talkpage and each time I've hit a brick wall with every single one,

Anyway back on topic the image should stay until she can be photographed in a natural way and one that is suitable for this project. –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

For your information, the image was taken by a friend of Emily's. I don't see how it can be considered 'promotional' in any way. It wasn't taken by a professional photographer or a PR company. I don't consider myself a "newbie". I have been on this website for some time. You seem to be implying that your opinions carry more weight than "newbies", which I find quite pretentious. I haven't found any evidence in Wikipedia guidelines to back up your assertion that images have to be 'natural' or 'at an event'. If you could provide some I'll read it. As far as I can see the image I tried to use was just as valid as yours. Emily sent the licence. I don't see what's wrong with uploading something on someone else's behalf if it has the right licence. I've already stated that I understand that Wikipedia isn't about pleasing the subjects of articles. I think having a better picture would improve the page regardless. I thought the image I used had the right licence and met Wikipedia guidelines. I will try to find another image that meets Wikipedia guidelines and the approval of the community (which in this case seems to just be you). However I don't think it's right that one editor should be allowed to dictate what happens on a page any more than the subject does. That is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Pages should be allowed to evolve and improve.VenomousConcept (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to fully reply as this has dragged on long enough so I'll just say this - If you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then I would strongly recommend you start an WP:RFC on the talkpage, If you add any image to that article even once I'll come straight back here and it would be very likely you would be blocked,

I understand you may not agree with me and that's fine but instead of everyone adding images and edit warring we need to all come to some sort of agreement or atleast compromise on the talkpage - As we realistically haven't come to any agreement getting outside opinions and making editors choose which image would be better IMHO so as I said if you upload an image (and it passes OTRS) then start an RFC, Thanks & Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 15:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

At this rate, I might as well ask Ms Beecham to pop down to the studio and I'll take a photo of her (and since a part of my RL job involves somebody running acting classes for beginners, it's not as far-fetched crazy as you might imagine). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

As Davey2010 didn't provide any evidence of his 'Pages have to feature images of someone at an event rule', I thought I'd provide some that directly contradict that. Here's one that presumably Davey2010 would find 'promotional', yet it is allowed - Mark Harmon. Here are several of people not at events - Michael Weatherly, Sean Murray, Lauren Holly, Brian Dietzen. This one is no different to the one I tried to use - Muse Watson. VenomousConcept (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. SInce the image in question has been deleted this particular edit war seems to be over. If User:VenomousConcept makes any further image changes that don't have consensus they are risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:76.11.94.233 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

Page: History of ancient Israel and Judah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.11.94.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff series ending 15:57, 20 August 2017 First edit. No sources at all, edit notes are along the lines of very short paragraph regarding references in Egyptian sources notably Amarna letters to rivals taking control of the region, prohibition against entering egypt, noting written Torah is a much later document., copyedit to note that fact of Canaanite city state collapse is objectively known from archaeology not just documents, etc. . all this "noting" is unsourced OR

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff ending 16:49, 20 August 2017 edit notes POV - an article titled "history of" must make some reference to written sources like Amarna letters, Torah, etc., intellectual & religious history, and of neighbouring regions & peoples in the Mediterranean - the title isn't "archaeology of" and removing grotesquely POV "see Israel arising peacefully" which is in direct contradiction of what the Egyptians *and* the Hebrews say
2. diff ending 18:02, 20 August 2017 part of original edit. edit notes imply correcting the incorrect citation inserted by POV revert, the source claims the community formed "peacefully" not that "Israel" did, that's a clearly POV claim and re LBA adding two short paragraphs listing all the non "peaceful" and non "internal" factors there are already vast articles about: elite conflict
3. diff at 18:15, 20 August 2017 continuing with some of the changes and adding a POV tag. edite note contesting false claim that it's unreliable or unsourced, literally all those events are well documented - restoring POV tag & actual quote from source, which were deliberately removed by POV editor
4. diff 19:19, 20 August 2017, part of original edit, edit note: reverting to non-objectionable simple correction of POV paraphrase of existing source, this is not an edit war, it's POV warrior games by advocates of "peaceful Israel" theory

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#August_20_edits and below (most of that is one long somewhat incoherent series of edits by the IP

Comments:

Very passionate editor. Unclear what they want exactly, but they are not bringing reliable sources or engaging currently used sources, or engaging in dialogue. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. They are doing this at several articles. It will take hours to respond to them in any detail. And for a reason I don't understand they insist sinebot must sign their articles. I admit I hadn't realised sinebot wasn't working so well when I warned them about deliberately not signing as Shen I looked it hadn't been done. Doug Weller talk 20:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the editor believes that sinebot signed the various edits following WT:FRINGE#Recent_edits_by_76.11.94.233, but I must have spent about ten minutes to carefully sign each edit there, then also have left a note on the editor's talk page about it. @76.11.94.233: please make sure to sign future messages. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Edit warring at History of ancient Israel and Judah. The user appears to be on some kind of crusade but it's hard to tell of what nature. Uses the term 'POV' a lot; may not be new to Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:EEng reported by User:Sometimes the sky is blue (Result: Storm in a teacup)

Page: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EEng (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. 22:47, 20 August 2017‎
2. 19:38, 20 August 2017
3. 20:50, 20 August 2017
4. 22:40, 20 August 2017

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

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

Comments:
Although technically not a revert, in my opinion, the original insertion should count too, as it is a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

• The OP is actually reporting his/her own repeated removal of another editor's post to a talk page discussion, which he/she personally judged unhelpful. See the comment of another participant [13], with which I rest my case. Oh wait... lest there be any misunderstanding: [14]. EEng 23:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• I have not looked at this incident but a personal request to EEng: please don't derail ANI discussions with humor, collegial or otherwise. It is hard enough to get decent outcomes without the effect of people piling on with chatter. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but from the frequent Thanks I get for such posts it appears many disagree. See also User:EEng#get the joke and User:EEng#thread. EEng 23:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Was there an ANI discussion that this comment was also cross-posted to, or is Johnuniq being completely off-topic? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably saw the notification on my talk page. It's where the elite meet to eat. EEng 23:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh wait! Now I get it! EEng 04:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: In case you are not aware, this EW report concerns EEng posting a joke at an article talk page, then edit warring to keep it. The same thing happens at ANI where the habit has real consequences. There is no risk of anyone's comments derailing a discussion at WP:EW because this page follows well-trodden paths and reports are handled, usually swiftly.

@EEng: The reason you receive thanks is that a lot of people regard ANI as entertainment. However, it is very frustrating for those who need the reported issue examined because banter makes others skip looking at the problem. I agree that many reports at ANI concern silliness or are misguided and humor may be less of a problem for them. See if you can fill your quota on a diet with those. WP:EW is on my watchlist but EEng's talk is not. Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Declined I think taking any admin action on this would cause more harm than good. Since EEng has not written anything abusive, just leave it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

User:5.170.194.101 reported by User:Contaldo80 (Result: Both blocked )

Page: Herbert Ganado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5.170.194.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments This editor has engaged on Herbert Ganado. Walter Kasper, and Benvenuto Cellini. They are not a registered user and are removing categories without constructive engagement on the talk page. Possible link to editor Claíomh Solais. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC):

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both editors have gone over WP:3RR, the category in dispute is contentious but not obviously vandalism and supported by this source; however whether that is sufficient to say that Ganado was actually bisexual and put him in a category marking as such is very much a judgement call. The article does need fixing up, and other editors are looking at it, so protection is not a possible option here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Adamclemance13 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Blocked)

Page: More Mess (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamclemance13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

They ignored all warnings, and have been doing the same thing over at Real Deal (song) with IPs. Hayman30 (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Sahilchemist.abbas reported by User:Saqib (Result: )

Page

Irshad Hussain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sahilchemist.abbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796584749 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 21:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Saqib there is already a small amount of data about Pakistani personalities, I humbly request dont delet. the data is quite original and it should be there on wiki. Undid 796580263 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irshad Hussain. (TW)"
2. 21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Irshad Hussain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie user apparently in the mood of edit warring.. the user suspected of socking is keep adding the unsourced and promotional material to a page currently nominated for deletion.. Saqib (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I wouldn't take action on this report, for two reasons:

1. The reported has not breached 3RR as such.
2. The two editors should really discuss the information that they differ on.

To be quite honest, there is no real signs of disruption with the article, and the reportee should have handled this matter better. If there is a sock puppet investigation going on, the reportee could highlight this, but there is no real issues here for a block, unless the reported causes more problems. If anything, the page should not be touched until after the deletion discussion on it is completed. GUtt01 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

User:GUtt01, there is no need to wait till the AfD finishes. This chemist is obviously notable and the AfD is likely to confirm that. The article was created by User:Sahilchemist.abbas who has been reported here. The idea of creating this article is fine, but his mistake is to keep reverting against the experienced people who are trying to bring the article up to standards. For example, Sahilchemist.abbas made this change to call someone 'Professor' which succeeded only in breaking the intended link to our existing article on Atta-ur-Rahman. He also violated copyright in the original article creation and another admin has fixed this up. Here, he removed a routine notice that is added to advertise AfDs to various projects. To avoid a block, I recommend that Sahilchemist.abbas agree not to edit the article any more for at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for improving the content and quality of the article. I tried my best to mention only reliable and authentic data, and definitely supported my arguments with citations including the National websites of Pakistan.

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:MrX (Result: sanctioned)

Page

Kim Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 796610912 by Joefromrandb (talk): LOL, I'll bet. (TW)"
2. 00:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 796609907 by Joefromrandb: Yes, and 5 months later, the pope replaced him upon his retirement, which has no relation whatsoever to Davis; nice try, though . (TW)"
3. 00:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "Zero relation to Davis"
4. 23:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Meeting with Pope Francis */ zero relation to Davis"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC) "/* No relation to Kim Davis, or entirely 100% related to Kim Davis */ r"

Comments:

Robust history of edit warring and blatant disregard for building consensus on this article. See recent edit history. - MrX 01:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I can only assume Mr. X is referring to himself. It's an incredible stretch to call those edits a 3RR violation, and it takes unmitigated nerve.for Mr. X to come here crying foul, when he is my counterpart in this "edit war". Note that this user has "reported" me for "edit-warring" on this article before; the result was "no violation", and the reviewing admin admonished Mr.X for filing a frivolous report. This user has a long history of edit-warring at this article, reinserting blatant lies and demonstrable falsehoods, egregious violations of WP:BLP, which this user, for some bizarre reason, seems to think doesn't apply to this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that my "4th revert", assuming it qualifies as such, was to a bizarre edit Mr.X made out of nowhere. It was a clear attempt to game the system, and if I'm guilty of a 3RR violation, he obviously is too. I'll also note that there was no "attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page"; Mr.X made no response to the explanation I gave there; his talk-page rant was clearly a call-to-arms to like-minded editors, hoping they would take up the torch for him. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: Does this mean you're going to self-revert? Usually we frown upon people immediately reverting someone adding a tag indicating a concern. --slakr^\ talk / 04:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. How about "frowning" on the editor who added the tag out of nowhere, in a clear attempt to game the system? Have you looked at the last "report" this editor filed against me, where the reviewing admin caught him red-handed trying to edit-war a blatant lie into the article, and censured him for filing a frivolous report? Joefromrandb (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If it truly makes you "frown" that much, go ahead and restore it. I won't revert you if that's the case. The idea of self-reverting to accommodate an editor who is clearly playing games is preposterous. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• 1RR for 1 month — @Joefromrandb: I guess that's a "no." While I do see the prior report being declined (though I'm not sure how it's relevant here, as no clear BLP violation has occurred and the edit set is different), and while it's entirely possible gaming was involved (but can only be speculated on), I solidly gave you the opportunity to self-revert here to "ungame" it, and you went with incivility instead. This is particularly problematic in well, areas that have shown that this type of behavior is particularly problematic. --slakr^\ talk / 05:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I fully and completely reject that decision. If you want BLP violations to remain in Wikipedia articles, which you apparently do, then go ahead and block me for a month, because I promise you, I will continue to remove any and all BLP violations with extreme prejudice. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3 reported by User:adam4math (Result: )

Page: Doklam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2017 China–India border standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Gipmochi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796318312&oldid=796307961

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795903679&oldid=795901534

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796573789&oldid=796573668

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796429011&oldid=796425725
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796425725&oldid=796405783
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795815437&oldid=795814112
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795790828&oldid=795753596
6. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795735751&oldid=795735269
7. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=795724364&oldid=795724095
8. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796444471&oldid=796443221
9. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=796375690&oldid=796318312
10. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795906080&oldid=795904731
11. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff&diff=795896729&oldid=795892307
12. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gipmochi&diff=795971706&oldid=795970985
13. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795729151&oldid=795720810
14. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93India_relations&diff=795963719&oldid=795889123

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

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

Yes, I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the following talk pages for topics on Doklam, Gypmochi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Comments:

Dear wiki Administrators:

Kautilya3 has been engaging in edit war on the following articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doklam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_China%E2%80%93India_border_standoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gipmochi

Kautilya3 has constantly removed and/or changed my edits to distort the truth contained in these three articles.

Some other times I could not figure out exactly what he did to my edits. But after he skillfully modified my work, links to some references magically disappeared or changed so that the reader is either not able to find the link, or get mis-directed, or taking many clicks to find the correct link.

For instance, in the article on Doklam, for the Revision as of 16:20, 20 August 2017 for the following

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796403989&oldid=796349186

reference [6] linking to the important text at the end of the article directed correctly to the official TV link at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSr0w6hD2Bg

However, after Kautilya3 made some magic changes, the link does not work any more at

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doklam&diff=796431066&oldid=796429011

Also, he changed the short and crystal clear statement here into an vague one to lead the reader into confusion about the dispute at Doklam: from "China asserts that this is Chinese territory based on the 1890 Convention of Calcutta and that border inhabitants of Bhutan needed to pay tax to the Chinese side in order to herd in the area before 1960 with tax receipts still in its Tibet Archives" to "it is also claimed by China".

I am a US citizen interested in truth, but I only told Kautilya3 that I am a third party other than India and China and can see the picture better than him who is a party in the disput with China on Doklam. I have tried to talk with him and educate him on how to be truthful on these topics. But he constantly harrass me with weird statements, and misuses wikipedia policies to bully me. I noticed that Kautilya3 behaves the same way in other wiki articles, such as those on Kashmir. Kautilya3 needs to be blocked permanently for his behaviors.

Other editors in India also destroyed my effort to tell the truth. Form the histories on these articles, it is very easy to tell that these articles are overwhelmed by editors on in India. As a result, they have hijacked these articles and do not allow complete story be told.

I did try to resolve the issue with Kautilya3.

Please see my communications with him on the his talk page and mine on Doklam, Gypmochi below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adam4math

But he removed some of my warnings on his edit war. They can be recovered from the histories of these pages.

Knowing that I will be a lamb among wolves by bringing any issue unfavorable to India to the talk pages on these articles, and pretending to be following Wikipedia's policy, Kautilya3 constantly urged (pestered) me to take my issue to the article talk page. But it will only waste my time under the current wikipedia policy, because it is overwhelmed/populated by editors in India which is a party in the dispute, with more than one billion people inundated by the media so most are biased on the dispute on Doklam. I will not be their match discussing the issue on that page to get a consensus. Since I have work, family etc to take care, I do not have that kind of time, having already sacrificed several full days working on the related articles. The current Wikipedia policy on hotly disputed topics needs to change. If it were a non-controversial issue, I would be glad to bring this (and all the articles related to the current dispute on Doklam) to the talk page.

I took more than two days to figure out how to report edit warring to wiki Administrators, and several days for me to do my edits on these articles, because as I'm not good at computer skills and my vision is poor. Kautilya3 destroyed my hard work, and Wikipedia readers all over the world are being mislead in his one sided stories on the dispute.

With more than three times more population than the rest of the English speaking population, India's hijacking these wiki articles in order to portrays its narratives as truth and not allowing complete story be told must be stopped.

People all over the world have used Wikipedia as a trusted source. I understand that ARBIPA sanctions policy is in place. However Wikipedia should be able to better this. In order to preserve its integrity and continue to develop it as a trusted source, in order to avoid constant unnecessary edit wars and disruptions related to these three articles on the current standoff between China and India, I suggest Wikipedia adapt a Court Like Policy similar to the following.

(1) Block all editors with computer ip addresses in both India and China, though I do not see obvious disruptions on these articles from China since Wikipedia is blocked therein according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websites_blocked_in_mainland_China

(2) Create a page that allow the disputed parties to submit their supporting documents, clearly labelled and organized.

(3) Editors from the rest of the world will serve as a Court Judges and work together to produce these articles, not limiting their resources from those submitted by China and India in (2) above.

When two parties have a dispute in a court, it is obvious that the parties themselves cannot be judges on their case. Wikipedia's current policy in dealing with disputed issues are exactly letting disputed parties to be judges, and in the case of articles on Doklam, letting India alone to be the judge since it has hijacked these articles.

Wikipedia may consider to adapt similar policies for other disputed topics, but the current standoff at Doklam should take priority to at the least have an ad hoc policy similar to the above, as the conflict could very likely lead to a devastatting second round of India's China War, as Neville Maxwell predicted.

I hope Wikipedia will change its policy so that all wiki editors will have enjoyable experience in editing its articles in a friendly collaborative environment, rather than an adversarial or even chaotic one.

I look forward to receiving your decision on permanently blocking Kautilya3 and your respond on my proposal to adapt a Court Like Policy on the articles related to current standoff between China and India.

Adam4math (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment: I look at what is said above about changing policies, but this all sounds like politics to me, and I don't think such a change would yield anything useful. It's far better to get disputes sorted out between Wikipedians who are involved in them, rather than a vast 3rd party, since it feels unlikely that would solve the issue. GUtt01 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Response: Indeed, I believe it is a content dispute rather than a conduct issue. The editor reportee was recently blocked for edit-warring, and when he retuned he started giving me WP:POINTy edit-warring notices [25] [26], [27] for every edit. Few of them are "reverts". Whatever reverts I might have done are policy-based and carefully considered and never crossed 3RR. RegentsPark is continuing to give guidance to the editor reportee. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Why are you talking about yourself in the third person? If you are referring to the reportee, surely that should be in your response? GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment:Kautilya3 shouldn't be coming close to edit warring already. K3 came close to breaking 3RR already. This is clearly a disruptive user. Evenif not breaking the letter, it is breaking the spirit of wikipedia collaboration. [28] # [29] # [30] # [diff] He has been warned previously: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&direction=next&oldid=741455773#User:Kautilya3_reported_by_User:SheriffIsInTown_.28Result:_Warned.29 ] 223.225.141.7 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Who's sock are you? —MBlaze Lightning ^T 15:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User to Admin Suggestion: I will not be taking sides, but I do think that there is evidence here that the reportee is not acting in a civil manner at all, and seems to be directing a personal attack against the reported because of disagreements over certain information that the pair are in dispute upon. To actually ask for them to be indef blocked and request policy changes to block people of another nationality from making edits or being able to sort out disputes in a civilized manner is totally unacceptable. This encyclopedia is worked on by many users; yes, we have problems by some who are disruptive purely and not constructive, but those who get into disputes who realise their behaviour is wrong and are willing to settle manners calmly and rationally, with a good discussion, should not be stopped from doing so because of their nationality, their race, and their beliefs (political, religious, etc.). Only for being disruptive, uncivilised, and having no interest whatsoever to constructing articles, amending them and so forth, like other respectable editors.

As for the other user, the reported, I think a simple warning should suffice, as they clearly do not intend to really edit war; they've been struggling with a user who is just being disruptive against them. GUtt01 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

User:14.187.117.137 reported by User:Marchjuly (Result: )

Page: Malaysia national under-23 football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 14.187.117.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:
IP editor inappropriately re-adding File:Football Association of Malaysia crest.svg to Malaysia national under-23 football team without providing the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. The same IP has also been adding/re-adding other similar images to various national team articles without providing the necessary rnon-free use rationales, including at least one case where the re-added image was previously removed as the result of a FFD discussion. The IP may also be editing as IP 14.187.210.94.

Edit sums such as this were left explaining why the file was removed and user talk page warnings about non-free image use and 3RR were also left. The editor, however, has continued on as before without making any attempt to explain how the particular use of the file satisfies WP:NFCCP. I realize non-free content can be tricky and that the IP has only been editing for a day, but simply re-adding such files after they have been removed for policy reasons is starting to get a bit disruptive and being new is not really a reason to edit war. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)