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:OnceASpy reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: 1 week)

Page: Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OnceASpy (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]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

• In addition to the diff above, other attempts have been made to try to discuss this with them on the talk page and it has degenerated into accusations of "activism" and other deflections. When I suggested going through it line by line to see which bits are good and bad all I got was accusations. I would also point out that several different people have removed the content that OnceASpy is insisting on but this has made little or no impression. They do seem to see themself as "the only boy marching in time with the music". --DanielRigal (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week, clear reverts at 02:45, 01:56, 01:35, 01:06, 22:25, 20:04. Previously warned, previously block on same article. Kuru (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:R.A Huston reported by User:ChiveFungi (Result: Stale)

Page: Liv Hewson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R.A Huston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:01, 9 September 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:10, 3 October 2018 revert ChiveFungi
2. 11:16, 6 October 2018 revert Atlantic306
3. 13:03, 30 October 2018 revert Atlantic306
4. 09:27, 31 October 2018 revert Atlantic306
5. 15:05-07, 31 October 2018 revert Sro23
6. 11:55, 1 November 2018 revert ChiveFungi
7. 12:19, 1 November 2018 revert ChiveFungi
8. 12:24, 1 November 2018 revert ChiveFungi
9. 11:09, 2 November 2018 revert Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:13, 31 October 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Liv Hewson#Liv Hewson is gay

Comments:
The user made one comment on the talk page and continued edit warring without discussing taking into account the feedback they received or further discussing the issue. They edited their own talk page to remove the 3RR warning [9] with an edit summary of "please dont". --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User's edits are to state that Liv Hewson is gay/lesbian, citing sources such as Instagram and/or Twitter. The editors who the user keeps reverting have objected saying that the article needs reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey if you don't want to engage in an "edit war," maybe stop needlessly removing factual information from a wikipedia page. Straight actors have their personal lives on pages, referencing social media posts, but a gay actor can't? That's a ridiculous double standard, not to mention homophobic.R.A Huston (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course gay actors can have their sexuality mentioned (see the good article John Barrowman to pick one random example), but if other editors disagree if it's appropriate for this article, then a discussion needs to happen at the talk page. Which is now ongoing and the reverting has stopped for the minute, so no admin action required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thats the point, there has been no mention of appropriateness or relevance, just deleting, even though elsewhere on that very article Twitter has been used as a source for personal information. It's a ridiculous double standard. R.A Huston (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: No violation)

Page: Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This user has a long history of POV edit warring concerning the behaviour of the Korean Army in Vietnam. See his talk page at User talk:Mztourist#South Korea in the Vietnam War.

Comments:
I am entitled to revert sock edits. The last edit I made was to revert the sock after they had been blocked. My "long history" is of defending various Vietnam War pages against POV pushing socks, most recently: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. I am frustrated that an Admin has decided to try reporting me for edit-warring while completely disregarding the underlying socking here. Also I had put the page up for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre before the Admin and the sock made their edits to the page, both of which relate to the use of "purportedly" rather than "reportedly" which had been stable since June and which tie into the whole issue of whether or not any massacre took place. Mztourist (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• No violation per WP:EVASION. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: diff their 1st edit, 16:12, 26 October 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 06:26, 29 October 2018
2. diff 08:14, 30 October 2018
3. diff 15:06, 1 November 2018
4. diff 15:08, 2 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, for edit warring on another page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Opened section Talk:Muse_(disambiguation)#Edit

Comments:

This person has some significant behavioral issues, as you can see if you review their talk page and even just the edit notes in their contribs. What is above is a very clear edit warring violation on that article. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding - my initial edit war warning to them diffed above, had been about their editing at Genesis creation narrative, where we have:

• diff 07:33, 29 October 2018
• diff 15:00, 1 November 2018
• diff 16:16, 2 November 2018 (after I posted notice of the case above)

Their response to my edit war notice, was this lovely thing at my TP. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 5 days for long term edit warring. Previous block was for 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Foxboogiebrown reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Bit less bitey, chaps)

Page

Foxy Brown (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866945873 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
2. 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866893881 by John from Idegon (talk)"
3. 22:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866839452 by XLinkBot (talk)"
4. 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Foxy Brown (rapper). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Foxboogiebrown is obviously a Foxy Brown fan trying to improve the article and obviously hasn't had WP:BLPSOURCES explained to them. A bit less templating and a bit more assuming good faith, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Ɱ reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Briarcliff Manor, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ɱ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]

Diff of edit warring: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21], User_talk:Zackmann08#Geobox

Comments:

User has repeatedly indicated that they WP:OWN the article because they have contributed to it extensively. The article is the ONLY one on WikiPedia about a settlement that is using a Geobox (see: Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type which pages are automatically added to). I tried to have a civil conversation on the matter on my talk page (see: User_talk:Zackmann08#Geobox) but user has repeated refused to hear that and insisted that since he maintains the article he gets his way.

• When warned abotu WP:OWN, the user reverted the edit on their talk page (obviously his right) with the comment that they are just maintaining the FA status [22]
• User has repeatedly invoked WP:IAR to ignore policy in order to get their way.
• Template:Geobox#Other_guidelines clearly indicates that the template is deprecated and should not be used.

--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR, the geobox template still works, and works better than the infobox template. I wasn't told there was any deprecation prior to this interaction, nor ever shown the discussion for it. The geobox template is superior because it has many parameters that the infobox template does not yet have, and it also formats better, with smaller text, fewer lines between sections, and other details. There should be no reason why I cannot use that template, even if it's not recommended for use. Is there a policy that I cannot use a deprecated template? There is the policy IAR, that if anything stops Wikipedia from improvements, ignore it. And Zackmann08's edits are literally removing content from that article. Therefore I am reverting him until he can restore all of the content, whether it be by adding parameters to the infobox template, or by finally dropping this silly dispute and letting this template be used on this article. When I added it, there were other settlements using geobox; I guess most of them have now been switched over, and nobody has realized the harm in that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann08 is WP:NOTGETTINGIT and edit warring here just as much as me. I warned him on his talk page as well: diff. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected - this is a pure content dispute on a featured article. If Geobox is deprecated then work together to replace it with infobox. Work together to preserve info in the geobox which can't be displayed in infobox, if that's what needs to happen. Both of you are experienced enough here that you should be able to work together on this. If not, well, you know what happens next. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Skslaw reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Filer warned)

Page

Hollywood Forever Cemetery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) to 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Brent Cassity never had any ownership interest in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, individually or as part of any company."
   2. 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Neither Brent Cassity or his father had anything to do with Hollywood Forever, and there is not support or authority for the allegation that any "ponzi" scheme money was used at Hollywood Forever, which constitutes slander and defamation."
2. 17:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Brent Cassity was never an owner of Hollywood Forever Cemetery and there is no support or authority for such a statement."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC) to 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ All references to Brent Cassity or Forever Enterprises being a part of the ownership or investment in Hollywood Forever Cemetery is incorrect. Further, any allegation that any "ponzi" money was used to fund the acquisition or renovation of the cemetery is without authority or support, but is also defamatory of Tyler Cassity, which violates Wikipedia"
   2. 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Any allegation that the cemetery was acquired or renovated using "ponzi" scheme money is baseless, without authority, and defamatory; and violates Wiki's own policy against biographies of living persons."
4. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ These entries are incorrect and defamatory. Brent Cassity had no ownership interest in Hollywood Forever, Doug Cassity, the father, had no ownership interest in Forever Enterprises nor did the company make any investment in the cemetery, and there was never any finding that any money from a "ponzi" scheme was used to purchase Hollywood Forever."
5. 16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Hollywood Forever Cemetery. (TW)"
2. 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hollywood Forever Cemetery. (TW)"
3. 17:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hollywood Forever Cemetery. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing/changing sourced information, and falsely calls the ponzi scheme section "defamatory" when it's sourced and verified. Refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Declined This edit is a good edit adhering to WP:BLP correctly by taking out contentious information sourced to tabloidesque gossip. Frankly I'm more likely to block Kirbanzo for recklessly restoring BLP violations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Aydinyol reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "I have sources for my claim, you cannot delete it."
2. 17:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 15:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 02:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "a missourced edit was removed"
5. 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Notification */ comment"
2. 19:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Notification */ phrasing correction"
3. 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Azerbaijani language. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Refuses to engage in discussion in the article talk page and continues to edit war to reinstate their prefered text. Multiple editors have tried to engage only to be met with resistance. zchrykng (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't find zchrykng a fair referee. He was completely biased and I don't accept his judgement. Without reading my sources, he deleted my edit and kept the changes of the party which was in war with me. So biased and unfair. I am sure he never even read my sources and my edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinyol (talk • contribs) 20:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
• Aydinyol's behaviour looks like a WP:NOTHERE editor likely with WP:CIR issues. While everyone can make a mistake when it comes to identify reliable sources (me the first), Aydinyol repeatedly adds back his "sources" which have been described as unreliable by several other users, refuses to engage in a constructive discussion on the ground that he claims to be a "linguist" and keeps edit warring against more experienced users than himself to push a nationalistic agenda. Obviously, this user has not been a net positive for the project until now.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

My source is a work by Nizami Xudiev one of the most prominent linguists, Neither you nor other referees can read Azerbaijani and still try to edit this page although you are not linguists! Scientifically immoral!. So, you are not entitled to discredit my source. ( This part is a private message to Wikiviviani: you and I best know that you are trying to say that south and north Azerbaijani are different to misguide world about the reality of oppressed Azerbaijani people in Iran. It is 2018, you cannot hide the reality of the Azerbaijani nation. Keep making your compatriots more fierce enemy of you and Iran! Soon you will need to get a visa to travel to Tabriz!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinyol (talk • contribs) 23:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You're not helping your case with that kind of comments. Wikipedia is not the place to expose your dreams about "visa for Tabriz" (only your dream for now and very likely forever). Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, i opened a case about this user yesterday, just to let you know about it in order to prevent duplicate sanctions for Aydinyol. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I left a note at ANI since there should be no need for two actions on the same report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dizagaox reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)

Page

Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866852506 by Geraldo Perez (talk) NO. If you can't accept a professional critic calling it a music in laymen terms, you shouldn't be involved with this page."
2. 23:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866792183 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
3. 15:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866789762 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Watch the movie. There are songs sung throughout the film. Debating this is like debating whether it's animated."
4. 12:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865095824 by Geraldo Perez (talk) It is a musical, fool."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

diff

Comments:

Warning at User talk:Dizagaox#November 2018. Discussion on the matter has been started at Talk:Teen Titans Go! To the Movies#Not a musical, but editor refuses to discuss. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support block – ignored Talk page discussion, ignored warnings at user Talk page. Trying to take a term used in passing at a single source to try to force through a change that is against consensus (and is pretty much WP:OR). Definitely merits a block to prevent further disruption. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:KellyHillMinister reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Kelly Hill, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KellyHillMinister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Comments:
User apparently lives in the community and according to their username is the Minister? Ever edit they have made has broken the page in some way. While the information may be correct, they are breaking the page left and right. When I tried to discuss the issue with then on their talk page I was met with the following responses:

• Excuse me but would you please stop deleting my edits you are not from our community our town or even for our state so mind your own damn business
• you are not from our community you have no idea about our community you don't have any information and history about our community nor our town or our state you don't live here you don't have no right to undo my edits about my community so mind your own damn business before I file a complaint against you
• I put everything that I know that is 100% accurate and true on hear about our community in which I live in and I'd appreciate it if you would leave it alone and not change it I have been here 43 years and my family's been here for at least 80 years I know pretty much what I'm talking about how many people live up here and who's been here for years originally and who hasn't been I know dates so I'd appreciate it if you would leave what I did alone thank you

The user is clearly inexperienced and I would have been happy to help them make edits, but their responses demonstrate they have no interest in making positive contributions. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note after once again having to remove page breaking edits by this user, I have now added the information for them. Hopefully this will put the issue to rest... That being said I think some sort of action is warranted? Not sure what the best course is. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

So a different user (LakesideMiners) reverted another edit by KellyHillMinister and they immediately reverted it with the comment Zacmann08 you better stop and you better leave well enough alone right now or I'm going to file a formal complaint against you stop changing my stuff you don't live here you don't know this place you don't know nothing about this area. And I mean it nowI am going to take further action first thing Monday morning I'm going to contact both of those offices and we'll see if this is on the website when I'm finished. It wasn't even me who reverted the edit. User clearly doesn't get it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Also see threatening comments left on the talk page [28]. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

I updated and I fixed Kelly Hill West Virginia to draw in more family and friends from our area and I updated it and yes I put Kelly Hill Community Kanawha County Clendenin West Virginia and I put the ZIP code and the four digit area number and how many people live in our community and the area codes for our state and I shared this with Facebook we have at least 500 people that are from this community from 1900 to present if they type stuff in they will be able to find this and see and keep returning to this site and then I'll spread the word thank you and have a blessed day sincerely yours Reverend Matthew Jr Myers KellyHillMinister (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: KellyHillMinister is currently under NLT indef block. I have moved his comments from the talk page to here. and also removed his incomplete Editwarring report filed possibly in retaliation.--DBigXrayᗙ 20:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @DBigXray: much appreciated. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Already blocked – by User:Edgar181 for making legal threats, perhaps due to this edit. See User talk:KellyHillMinister#November 2018 4. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:73.98.45.163 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Semi)

Page

Candace Gingrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867040815 by Jim1138 (talk)"
2. 06:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867026684 by Jim1138 (talk)"
3. 03:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867016944 by NatGertler (talk)"
4. 00:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866889443 by NatGertler (talk)"
5. 05:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866571661 by NatGertler (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Candace Gingrich. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP's only edits are to change page to avoid subject's preferred pronouns. No involvement in existing talk page discussion of pronoun use, which has continued during these edits. Talk:Candace Gingrich#Pronouns (Twinkle isn't letting me enter this in the Resolution Initiatives, for some reason.) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:102:8201:1D8B:98B3:ECE0:C934:33D2 reported by User:Maguirej03 (Result: )

Page

Fred Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:102:8201:1D8B:98B3:ECE0:C934:33D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at parade */"
2. 01:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at Parade */Political activist removing key details, painting racist picture by ommitting key details."
3. 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at Memorial day parade */Correction"
4. 00:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at Memorial Day Parade */Important context ommitted"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Fred Trump. (TW)"
2. 01:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Fred Trump. (TW)"
3. 01:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference. (TW)"
4. 01:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users on Fred Trump. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Language edits to 1927 march section */ new section"

Comments:

Ignoring AGF requests to use the Talk page before changing the language of the article, personal defamation of myself through the edit summaries. Don't want to enter into an edit war, please intervene! RPP also requested at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Fred_Trump John Maguire (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Oona9099 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page

24 (number) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Oona9099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "/* In other fields */"
2. 22:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "/* In other fields */"
3. 22:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "/* In other fields */"
4. 21:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "/* In other fields */Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly warned by other editors: [29], [30], [31]. RolandR (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mkenny6 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: )

Page

Iz One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mkenny6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "“A girl group formed through Mnet” is enough!"
2. 04:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "What’s the fact? From the expression of the news? I want to ask you. Who made PD48? Which is the nation originality of IZ ONE? Why are you cling to the expression of “South Korean and Japanese”? Because it was used in many news typing? This term is disputable like we’re discussing here. That’s why I suggest to change it just “a girl group”. This expression is optimal and smooth to the general people! Why are you emphasizing the country name?"
3. 04:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "It is not necessarily said as “South Korean and Japanese”. Writing “a girl group” is good enough. And I don’t know how to join talks."
4. 04:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Iz one is a girl group formed through Mnet reality show “Produce 48” from South Korea. <—- This is the exact wording."
5. 04:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Do you agree that this group is based on South Korean K-pop system? If yes, why should it be expressed as “South Korean and Japanese”? As I said, it could give people misunderstand like “Co-production”. However, PD48 was not co-production but just “Collaboration” with the Japanese party. Your expression is wrong and you don’t need to emphasize “South Korean and Japanese”. It’d be best to say like “a girl group” and just explain each member. That’s the best. Please do not change anymore."
6. 02:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "The references are just to write down as "South Korean-Japanese" in order to make people easy-understanding. That is just wording what the press conveniently use. The fact is that the show "PD48" was made by only South Korean and their goal was to debut the new girl group with mixing Korean and Japanese. That's why Mnet asked AKB48 to send them and AKB company just did it. That's it. Why did you emphasize co-production and give people wrong information!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* IZ*ONE */ discuss on talk, please"
2. 04:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "User:Lullabying: Edit warring at Iz One"
3. 04:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "User:Lullabying: Second warning at Iz One"
4. 04:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "User:Jim1138: Talk pages"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. on User talk:Mkenny6
2. on talk:Iz One

Comments:

Mkenny6 states that nationality should not need to be mentioned as it's controversial despite that discussions are taking place on the talk page and a consensus has been reached with other editors. The user refuses to list sources supporting personal statements and also states on the basis of their knowledge as them being Korean. The user has been ignoring protocol and WP:CONSENSUS even after warning and linking Wikipedia policies to read. Comments were also dropped at User_talk:Heolkpop#Iz_one. I have tried warning the user several times but they continue to revert edits and refuse to cooperate with the other editors. lullabying (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:CBG17 reported by User:188.174.31.233 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Sylt Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CBG17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]

Comments:
The dispute is over an airline route which the airline officially confirmed on Facebook is cancelled and is also no longer shown on the official booking site. However, the user ignores any comment on the edit summaries or his talk page - or briefly stating the airline confirmes the resumption which it clearly didn't without providing another source - regarding this and engages in edit warring as he has done before with other users.

• (Non-administrator comment) Does not look like a WP:3RR violation to me since @CBG17: has only done 2 reverts in 24 hours. That said, CBG17 should join the discussion on the talk page for WP:CONSENSUS, as discussion is not optional. Edit summaries are not counted as discussion. Continued reverts without engaging in discussion will be considered as disruptive editing. User:188.174.31.233, I see you have tried to initiate a discussion on the user talk page that is unanswered so far. Generally the talk page Talk:Sylt Airport is the best place for such discussion on the article topic so that other editors can also join in, After starting the discussion you can place {{talkback}} on the user page to invite them to discussion. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The route does operate, its bookable on the airline website and is shown on the airline timetable, this users evidence to show it's not operating is a dated facebook post that hasn't even been provided as a reference on any of the pages. the flight operates from 25 April-25 October 2019. CBG17 (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:CBG17 and User:188.174.31.233 are both warned. The next person to revert the article may be blocked unless they get a prior consensus on the article talk page. Condor's web site offered to book me from Düsseldorf to Sylt on a date in April 2019 so, on the whole, it seems likely that a seasonal flight is available. See also this offer of 'Günstige one-way flüge nach Westerland/Sylt'. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Hurrygane reported by User:RafaelS1979 (Result: )

Page

2018–19 Serie A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867223934 by RafaelS1979 (talk) for no reason? i click the hyperlink that's behind the cited reference, and it gives him four assists, not five"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC) to 12:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 12:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867217319 by RafaelS1979 (talk)"
   2. 12:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867217194 by RafaelS1979 (talk) more reliable source — the given reference — has four assists to his name"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC) to 11:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 11:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Season statistics */"
   2. 11:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2018–19 Serie A. (TW)"

Comments:

Keeps on reverting the assists section saying that Cristian Ronaldo has 4 assists when he has 5 as it can be proven here: http://www.espn.com/soccer/stats/_/league/ITA.1/view/scoring RafaelS1979 (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

http://www.legaseriea.it/en/serie-a/statistics Hurrygane (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This is probably my bad. I just believe that the source provided by the Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A is more reliable than the one that ESPN.com frequently updates. As of now, Lega Serie A is yet to add those "fifth assists" which probably belong to Cristiano Ronaldo and José Callejón, respectively. Hurrygane (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The page that is used for the assists is: http://www.espn.com/soccer/league/_/name/ita.1. It has always been like that because the way they count on Lega Serie A is complicated and not really understandable. RafaelS1979 (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Understood, but this should be clarified in the article via hidden text or something (why is it complicated, and why it is not really understandable). Otherwise it makes no sense to use ESPN when we also have the 'official' statistics at our disposal. Moreover (and a tad off topic), I'd like to emphasize that "it has always been like that" is not a valid argument. Hurrygane (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've added a link to http://www.espn.com/soccer/stats/_/league/ITA.1/view/scoring so there's no confusion to which website should preferably be used to update the goals and assists sections. Maybe "it's always been like that" is not an argument, but as I said, it's the reality. RafaelS1979 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)