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

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: [1], [2], [3]. RolandR (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 5 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: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]

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: No violation)

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)

No violation – Nobody broke 3RR, there have been no reverts since 4 November and there is nothing about this issue on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Yahboo reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: Warned)

Page: Isagenix International (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yahboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14][15][16]

Comments:
User has persistently been trying to remove sourced content from the article in an apparent attempt at whitewashing. The behavior has been called out by 2 different editors and yet is escalating (and becoming quite belligerent), culminating in this latest episode of edit warring. No attempt was made by the user to address the latest issues on the talk page despite a thread having been started previously[17] regarding a different discussion pertaining to the source. There is no legitimacy to the edits -- the source clearly backs up the version prior to this user's edits, as was explained in the edit summaries and on my Talk page. Seems like a likely WP:COI issue as well. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

False and absurd assertions: Firstly, I am clearly not a SPA editor as any check of my editing history shows. Secondly, I do not have any COI whatsoever regarding this article as I have absolutely no connection either with this company or any of its products. I only looked at the article because someone I know at my church recently mentioned her own use of the products. Thirdly, I have not been "whitewashing" the article in any way at all. I merely edited the article to reflect what I believed (and said in my edit summaries) was more neutral and factual according to what the provided reference actually says. I strongly believe that articles should not misuse references to say things that aren't clearly stated in them. I believe the reference has been misused and distorted. If anything it is the reporting editor who needs to examine his or her own editing behaviour. I could, for instance, assert that this editor has a POV pushing agenda and an ownership attitude towards the article. Anyway, I'm not interested in having any further "discussion" or involvement regarding this article if this is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that is going to keep on being made. I have much better things to do. with my time and energy. Yahboo (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I would also ask that some administrators take a look at the disputed reference on Isagenix International (THE REFERENCE IS DIRECTLY LINKED HERE) to discern whether or not it conforms with Wikipedia's reliability and neutrality policies - and also whether it supports the point of contention in the WP article that "many of the claims made about the products are false". That is not how I read the reference. In my view it makes a number of different criticisms of Isagenix but only one which clearly refers to a specific claim as being "false". It seems to me that the disputing editors appear to be using the reference to say something greater than what it actually says. Thank you. Yahboo (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Yahboo is warned they may be blocked if they edit the article again without getting a prior consensus for their change on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Hayman30‎ reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: Both warned)

Page: IPhone XS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hayman30‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] Update FWIW: [24]

Comments:

User knowingly edit warring, experienced editor by own words, told repeatedly to use talk page and reverts instead:

• Lol it's never helpful to send template messages to experienced users. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. is response to being warned.
• Take it to article talk page, this isn't a personal issue and then proceeds to revert again.

I'm asking for action even though no 3RR due to belligerence and willful ignorance of familiar rules and procedures. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Summary from an uninvolved editor

H = Hayman30, D = DIYeditor, "article" refers to the article about the iPhone XS

1. User:344917661X removes price tags from article (dif)
2. D restores them (dif)
3. H removes all prices other than USD (dif)
4. D reverts H, adding other prices back (dif)
5. D removes price in Rupees from article, since it is "not at all clear that India is a major market for these in sales" (dif)
6. H reverts D's last 2 edits, restoring their version with only USD (dif)
7. D reverts H, restores non-USD prices (excluding Rupees) (dif)
8. D creates a new section at H's talk page, telling H to "stop" since H is "just plain wrong" (dif)
9. H reverts D, restoring to only USD (dif)
10. H removes the section D created from their talk page, saying "Take it to article talk page, this isn't a personal issue" (dif)
11. D templates H using Twinkle, accusing H of edit warring (dif)
12. H reverts D's edit-warring template, saying "Lol it's never helpful to send template messages to experienced users. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines." (dif)
13. D files this complaint (dif)
14. D informes H of this complaint on H's talk page (dif)

Please note that not once did either editor bring this subject up in the talk page.

Notes:

--DannyS712 (talk) 08:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation of 3RR. Nominator was doing nothing different other than sending me template messages and an unhelpful rant telling me to "stop" and calling my justification "plain wrong" without citing any policy or guideline. An editor cannot edit war with themselves, we were both edit warring, nominator made it sound like they were uninvolved in the back and forth reverting. They brought up WP:BRD when reverting me, which didn't make sense because they were the one who's being reverted first, they should be attempting to discuss. Editor failed to get their way on the article so they decided to make a report here to put me in bad light, hoping that actions can be taken on me so that they can restore their changes without any trouble. Hayman30 (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: I'm not trying to take a position on who is right, but rather organize this (I was kind of bored) into an easy-to-follow history given the multiple pages involved. Do you and DIYeditor agree that the history I provided above is accurate? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hayman30: I explained exactly what you were wrong about, There is no need to show prices in 4 different countries. iPhones are designed in the US and Wikipedia is founded in the US, just the USD price is fine. This is plainly against writing from a global perspective. So you are outright contradicting the {{globalize}} template and related projects, WP:GLOBAL, WP:DUE, etc. But that is not the point here. The point is that you reverted multiple times when you knew it should've been taken to the talk page per WP:BRD and your own words. User:344917661X made a BOLD edit, I reverted it, then it should have gone to discussion. But instead, you twice over chose to revert rather than discuss. Your last revert is my particular concern, but your first revert as well. Maybe I should never have engaged you, but when someone fails to follow BRD (you with your initial revert) and then responds to a request to stop the revert warring with another revert, that is too much. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Doesn't matter if you gave any explanation or not, edit summaries are not designed to accommodate back and forth arguments, that's what the talk page is for. After I reverted your edit, you should be taking it straight to talk page. The burden to start a discussion is ultimately on you. You have clearly misrepresented BRD. I found it ridiculous for you to call my actions "belligerence and willful ignorance of familiar rules and procedures" when you were doing nothing different. Hayman30 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Please note that not once did either editor bring this subject up in the talk page. It would have been to my mind out of order to start a talk page discussion when someone was edit warring. The pressing need was to arrest the edit warring (or failure to follow BRD) so I took the discussion to the particular user who was being a problem on his talk page - my next step was to go to the article talk page, but rather than be open to it the editor chose to revert again, proving that the real issue here is the reversions, not the article content or foolishly nonsensical justification that a US bias is ok on the article. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: You just said that my next step was to go to the article talk page, and yet you didn't. But, again, I take no side in this issue, I was just bored. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you asking me to explain again why I didn't take that step at the time? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Nope. I'm just bored. Sorry, I don't mean to antagonize anyone. If you want to explain, or don't, that's up to you. Sorry if I came across as accusative. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Hayman30‎ and User:DIYeditor are warned for edit warring. If this continues, admins may do whatever is necessary, either blocks or protection. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mickeydee15 reported by User:Klock101 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mickeydee15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28] After seven weeks of adding writer and director before the episodes air, now you're questioning me?????? I haven't been wrong yet. Greg David - TV Eh

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NB: I assumed good faith and used the unreferenced material warning (Template:uw-unsourced), as this didn't seem like an edit war at the time. So the messages I left on the talk page are those. [29] [30] [31] However, this user has been warned three times in the past for edit warring on other articles, most recently just last month [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

Although this user has not broken the 3RR and isn't directly using the "undo" button to revert edits, this is clearly edit warring. Instead of clicking undo, they're just re-adding the info back to the page.

User has ignored all messages that I've on their talk page, including a request for discussion [34] User has been blocked in the past due to disruptive editing [35] and a quick glance at their talk page shows a history of warnings for disruptive editing, all of which have been ignored. User seems to be involved in another edit war at [36] and has ignored all messages relating to that dispute too, including two requests for comment [37] [38].

I realise this may be more appropriate for a the disruptive editing noticeboard, but there's a lot of overlap so I've posted it here. Will migrate it there if necessary. Klock101 (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Update - user has reverted the content yet again [39] Why not wait until 11 1/2 hours from now and then see if I'm wrong. You make me laugh with your antics. Klock101 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a slow-burn edit war with six edits in the past three days. While Mickeydee15 has been right for the previous six weeks, the logic of stating that we should wait to determine if the editor is or is not right is not the issue here. I believe the issue is lack of source (WP:V) and engaging in an edit war rather than waiting the four hours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Update 2 - user has yet again reverted the content [40] Wait four hours and you'll see I'm right. Especially since you don't want to look it up with the source i gave you.

@Walter Görlitz: Agreed. I have no doubt that the information Mickeydee15 is adding is in fact correct, and that they're editing in good faith, as they have provided reliable references for past edits on this subject (e.g. [41]). However, as you say, they are now refusing to follow WP:V and warring on the article instead of discussing the issue. I really don't like reporting someone who's trying to help out, but their editing is disruptive and their failure to communicate (along with the flippant revert messages) suggests to me that they're just going to continue. They've been blocked several times in the past for similar behaviour (block log: [42]). Klock101 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The surface issue has resolved itself as the episode has aired, however the underlying issue (WP:V) has not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 72 hours for long term warring. User's talk page contains about 18 warnings, and they have continued to revert the article while this report was open. The problem of WP:V has to be addressed sooner or later. Any admin may lift this block if the user will agree to follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:70.53.57.220 reported by User:Agricolae (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

Page: Roy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.53.57.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
IP is probably the same human who edit warred in June to try to make similar changes under a different IP - some level of semi-protection may be in order. Agricolae (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment from User: Information has been cited correctly, with it falling in-line with other surname articles. Agricolae has not provided any further sourced information regarding this surname and has undid/reverted previous versions. I have not edit warred, as previous reverts by Agricolae can be seen without source to prove information otherwise.70.53.57.220 (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

IP has now reverted again (added above). That makes five in less than 10 hours, and this time I had gone back to their source and summarized what it says, and they reverted it anyhow to remove the added sourced content to return to a version in which the infobox not only contradicts the source, it also contradicts the body of the article. Agricolae (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The IP admitted they were involved in an edit war and still broke 3RR. A block is clearly warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Géographe96 reported by User:Moxy (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

Page

New Caledonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Géographe96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867449092 by BrendonTheWizard (talk)"
2. 19:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867448593 by BrendonTheWizard (talk)"
3. 19:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867446045 by BrendonTheWizard (talk)"
4. 18:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC) "The flag of FLNKS, an extreme left-wing party, is not the flag of New Caledonia: it is not official (no legal text mentions it)."
5. 20:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "It is not the flag of New Caledonia, but the flag of FLNKS, a far-left party."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User talk:Géographe96#November 2018

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Flag */"

Comments:

Let's get him back to the talk page after a small holiday. Moxy (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I strongly regret not reporting this incident sooner, because I too have crossed the line of WP:3RR. I should not have reverted each time, and I instead should have requested intervention rather than unproductively continuing to revert. I am bringing this editing conflict to the noticeboard's attention because I'd like this to be solved in the order of BRD to end the cycle of BRBRBRBRBRBR. The page already has some level of protection, and furthering it does not appear to be the best course of action here. I sincerely apologize for allowing the edit war to go on as long as it did and I understand if my involvement warrants action against myself as well. Thank you. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Follow-up comment: At the time I started typing this, there was no discussion regarding this user. It was not intentional that I opened a second discussion about the same user. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I combined the duplicate threads to consolidate the discussion into one place. Yes, I reduced some of the diffs BrendonTheWizard provided, but I kept his comments intact. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest no action on past edits, but monitor situation and sanction if behaviour continues. Since both parties crossed the line, I'd rather see if we can organically move things to the talk page without the need for some sanction. Obviously, if Géographe96 were to revert again, then some action—either blocking the user or protecting the page—would be needed. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for responding as quickly as you did. That sounds like the best course of action: to monitor the situation and only take action if it continues. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The flag of FLNKS, an extreme left-wing party, which is not the Kanak flag at all, is by no means the flag of New Caledonia : its raising is not provided for by any text with legal value. To present it in this way alongside the French flag is therefore a violation of the principle of neutrality. I therefore call for the removal of this flag, the only one that is official in New Caledonia being that of the Republic. It is not acceptable for the flag of party which has committed armed attacks to represent New Caledonia on Wikipedia.--Géographe96 (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Géographe96 came here replied and then reverted again and blanked talk....simply not the type of editor we need here.--Moxy (talk) 05:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours If any admin feels the block needs extended because of this removal of another user's talk-page comment, they are welcome to do so without consultation. —C.Fred (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Shortly after this block expired, their contributions show that they have continued. I have also opened an investigation into potential misuse of alternative accounts. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 20:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:UW Dawgs reported by User:JohnnyHillboy (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Columbia Lions football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UW Dawgs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Lions_football&oldid=867485026

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Lions_football&oldid=867494559

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Lions_football&oldid=867487187
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Lions_football&oldid=867492096
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Lions_football&oldid=867494879
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UW_Dawgs&oldid=867494916

Comments:
1) It is 2 reverts.[51] and [52]

2) JohnnyHillboy is the apparent fourth sock Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hellishscrubber of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hellishscrubber (pending). UW Dawgs (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filer has been blocked indef as a sock by a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Display name 99 (Result:Protected)

Page: Mike Braun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned in edit summary here

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

Comments: I added a sentence sourced to PolitiFact which stated that tax revenues increased slightly following the passage of the 2017 Republican tax bill. Snooganssnoogans reverted it without a substantive edit summary but left a message on the article talk page. I left a message in response challenging the explanation. After receiving no response, despite the fact that the editor had edited other pages since then, I re-added the material, thinking that maybe Snooganssnoogans' silence meant that they had decided to let the issue go. It was quickly reverted with an edit summary stating that there was nothing to respond to and which simply repeated earlier accusations. I challenged them once again but in a different way on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans' response did not even attempt to defend the position. I reverted for a third time because the editor had refused to participate in talk page discussion, warning Snooganssnoogans against reverting for a fourth time in violation of WP:3rr. I was ignored. Basically, as I said in one of the edit summaries, Snooganssnoogans has refused to participate in any kind of substantive talk page discussion after the initial revert. He has not responded to my queries or answered my objections, basically contending that their opinion is all that matters and should simply be accepted without any effort on their part to back it up. The number of reverts by this party has now reached four and I believe that some action is warranted. As for myself, I have only reverted three times, one short of violating the policy, and have lately been the only one trying to resolve the issue on the talk page. One of those reverts also came after I thought, based on the lack of a response on the talk page, that the other editor had conceded. Display name 99 (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: You don't get a BLP exemption for this because that wasn't contentious material about a living person.

@Display name 99: You were edit warring as well, and Snooganssnoogans was correct that your edit was a synth-y misrepresentation of the source.

I suspect you both know better. I've protected the article in lieu of doling out blocks. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:MONGO (Result: No action)

Page: Don Bacon (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments: This is a addendum to the edit warring Snooganssnoogans was doing in the previous 3RR report above posted by Display name 99. While not a full 3RR violation (and I had 2 reverts myself) Snooganssnoogans is now calling the source he used on Don Bacon (politican), namely PolitiFact, a reliable source, yet above in the report by Display name 99 he says it is not a reliable source. He calls it reliable when the parts and pieces he prefers are used but not when it is summarized. He was edit warring against myself and User:Cjfvanm. When reminding him of 3RR he accuses myself of having competency issues and User:Cjfvanm of being a sockpuppet of User:Winkelvi here. He also accuses me of stalking but I have had the Bacon article watchlisted for several years now (Bacon is my US rep so until I saw the contentious edits by Snooganssnoogans I had stayed away from editing the article. Repeat edit warring against multiple persons across multiple pages, inability to AGF of others and accusing people of being sockpuppets without proof indicate this editor has a battleground mentality unsuited for collaborative work.--MONGO (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I was about to report Snoog for the same reasons. First, s/he repeatedly exhibited edit-warring/battleground spirit in the delicate American Politics area; second, POV-pushing a PolitiFact assessment in one article while trying to suppress the same source in another one, is a particularly obvious display of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Seeking admin action to prevent further disruption. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@MONGO: Could you please provide diffs supporting these assertions that you made above:

1. that Snooganssnoogans accused User:Cjfvanm of being a sockpuppet of User:Winkelvi
2. that Snooganssnoogans said that Politifact is not a reliable source

I couldn't see evidence of these in the diffs you provided. ~Awilley (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Snoogansnoogans states as shown in diff provided by Display name 99: here, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: (1) is unsourced or poorly sourced; (2) is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research)". It's already been explained to you that the content is not only blatant WP:SYNTH, but a horrid misrepresentation of the source". So Snooganssnoogans is claiming there the source, PolitiFact, is either not reliable or is being misinterpreted...when this is not the case..its merely a question of what portions of that source are being used. When he used that source on the Bacon article he called it fully reliable and again, it was over the words used from that source, where he had his version and myself and the other editor disagreed with him. I called it opinion piece but that was a error in my edit summary...it was just a wording discrepancy. Here insinuates that User:Cjfvanm is a sock of User:Winkelvi..."Also, do you want to explain how you ended up on the Don Bacon page? It looks to me as if you just stalked me there in order to intervene on behalf of whomever I was having a content dispute with (the same bizarre behavior that Winkelvi, an editor whom you've vociferously defended in the last couple of days, engaged in). You had no edits on the page before the edit five minutes after mine." If that isn't an insinuation the other editor is a sock of Winkelvi, forgive my egregious misunderstanding of their bad faith assumptions. Furthermore, I never have to explain to anyone why I showed up at an article...this kind of demand sounds like an ownership issue to me. But for the record, bacon article has been on my watchlist for years...and when Cjfvanm and I edited we only took out part of Snooganssnoogans addition, not a full revert of it.--MONGO (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My reading of the second diff is that they were comparing your behavior to Winkelvi's, and in the first diff it's pretty clear that they're arguing that the source is being misrepresented, not that it's an unreliable source. ~Awilley (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Awilley, you may be correct about the PolitiFact case, but it is remarkably clear to me, as I think it would also be to just about all neutral observers, that Snooganssnoogans made a non-AGF insinuation that Mongo was a Winkelvi sockpuppet. There's no other reason for drawing up negative assumptions about why a particular editor appeared on a page without any prior history in a similar manner as another editor whom that person had defended other than to imply that the one editor is a sock of the other. Suddenly showing up on a page without any prior history has nothing to do with whether one editor's behavior is like another. It is just meant to create suspicion about their conduct, which, combined with everything else, implies sockpuppetry. If you can't see that, I question either your competence or your objectivity. Display name 99 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the suggestion was that MONGO, who has spent the last days vociferously defending Winkelvi, might have been lashing out on me (a frequent target of Winkelvi's harassment) when the latter was blocked. The notion that MONGO is a sockpuppet of Winkelvi's is just ridiculous, as their style of editing is drastically different (obviously so to anyone who has edited Am Politics). If I believed that there was reason to question whether A was B's sockpuppet, I would just ask so bluntly (as I've done in the past when I have suspected sockpuppetry). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I thought that Snooganssnoogans was implicating Cjfvanm as a sock of Winkelvi, but since its hard to tell with the accusations of stalking, or whether I have competency issues (I mean, hell, I have only started 1200 plus articles none of which were ever deleted due to issues found and 13 FAs). Why would Snooganssnoogans think I was stalking him? I rarely even edit political articles. Nevermind if the outcome is to do nothing...in a day or two someone else (of bad faith of course, of course) will report him as evidenced by the plethora of other complaints all over his talkpage. The bullshit that this is a retaliatory thing by this Snoogansnoogans editor is just more lack of AGF. I cannot recollect we have really interacted.--MONGO (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(1) I at no point accused anyone of being a sockpuppet of Winkelvi. That's just a straight-up falsehood.

(2) I never said PolitiFact wasn't a RS. I clearly said in the dispute above that it was WP:SYNTH and misrepresentation of the source. That's just a straight-up falsehood.

(3) I said (on my talk page in response to your unfounded BLP claims, not the article talk page) that your assertions that PolitiFact was "opinion" (as opposed to RS) raised "serious competence concerns"[53].

(4) I didn't just accuse you of stalking for no reason. First, I simply asked you how you came to edit the Don Bacon page five minutes after I did (I checked the 'Editor Interaction Analyser' and it was your first edit), and I explained why I thought it wasn't just a coincidence.[54] You didn't answer my question (a simple "this is my house rep" would have done), so I assumed that it was just stalking.[55]

(5) As for context on "edit warring against multiple persons across multiple pages", we're on the eve of the 2018 mid-term elections and I happen to watchlist the pages of politicians in nearly every competitive race. As is tradition, there are a massive number of bad edits (falsehoods, poorly sourced text, mundane trivia, whitewashing) made to these pages (both to add or remove negative info and positive info) to make sure they look in a certain way on election day, which need to be reverted. As a result, there is a lot of reverting that needs to be done. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of editors who watchlist and patrol pages of House reps and non-incumbent candidates, so the burden often falls on me. For example, I've repeatedly removed this mundane item, which seeks to depict a Republican congressmember in a ridiculously negative light[56] and I've removed a Wiki voice description of another Republican congressmember as a white nationalist from his lede[57]. I see that the white nationalist item has now been reinserted to the lede[58]. Should I revert the user again or would that just be another example of "edit warring against multiple persons across multiple pages"? Should Steve King be described as a white nationalist in Wiki voice on the day when the most eyeballs will be on his page in probably the entire history of the page? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

from the bleachers Yes he should. (ducks.) But seriously, this whole complaint seems retaliatory and like WP:SOURGRAPES that the complaint above didn't go as the filers had hoped. Furthermore this sort of broad behavioural complaint is inappropriate for this noticeboard. Suggest closing.Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I already closed the report above, and my biggest concern in this report has been resolved, so I'll let another admin handle this as they see fo fit. ~Awilley (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There isn't a technical violation of 3RR. See also the above comments by User:Awilley and User:Simonm223. In my view, whether to include the Politifact information is only a matter of editor consensus. There is no defamation involved in including it. Still, the volume of technical details offered by Politifact are a bit much for a section of this bio (headed 'Taxes') that previously was only a single line of text. It could be more logical to add this kind of information in the main article on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not a technical one but what, the comments by Simonm223 such as "But seriously, this whole complaint seems retaliatory and like WP:SOURGRAPES that the complaint above didn't go as the filers had hoped" is suppose to be our reference point. Ok...surely will see Snooganssnoogans here again soon looking at his userpage and archives of complaints...or are all these folks wrong? I expect unless he threatens to kill someone on site the powers that be will continue to coddle him.--MONGO (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:EPROM and User:Alcyon007 reported by User:Banedon (Result: )

Page: Talk:Omnipotence paradox (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EPROM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Second user being reported: Alcyon007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

Comments:
The edit war's on the talk page. I'm not sure if this is the right venue to bring the dispute to - perhaps ANI is better. I've left many of the sections unfilled since they're irrelevant or not really necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banedon (talk • contribs)

This is the right venue. You have notified User:EPROM and User:Alcyon007. Let's allow some time for them to respond before deciding what to do. EdJohnston (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the place I'm supposed to respond or not? What I can tell you is that the only reason this "edit war" exists is because Alcyon007 ( and others) don't want my stoneparadox.org link to be added to Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page based on their "ideology." Alcyon007 doesn't even want me to be able to discuss it on the talk page! In any other circumstance, my link submission would have been deemed appropriate, but because the information found in my link is contrary to the ideology of certain individuals, they feel compelled to delete my contributions. They delete my content not based on merit, but rather on a perceived threat to their own particular ideology. This should never be the case on Wikipedia.

You wouldn't allow a small group of Christians to delete other people's contributions to Wikipedia's Christopher Hitchens page, yet a few ideologically-driven individuals deleting my content that has an Omnipotent Being surviving the Stone Paradox seems perfectly acceptable. This represents a double-standard.

This whole issue surrounds a link (stoneparadox.org) that I tried to contribute to Wikipedia's Omnipotence Paradox page. Nothing else, just a simple link which is absolutely relevant, informative and echoes the page topic. I'd appreciate it if an Administrator would step in and stop the deletion of this content, because this censorship campaign is clearly ideologically driven.--EPROM (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that http://stoneparadox.org does not constitute a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. I would close this with a warning to User:EPROM not to continue posting his link to any Wikipedia articles, and with a warning about WP:COI, since they are the creator of the web site at stoneparadox.org. I would also warn them they can be blocked if they continue to talk about stoneparadox.org at Talk:Omnipotence paradox. If they are unhappy with this, they could request approval of their external link at WP:External links/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Your "warning" is moot because my link was censored a long time ago (after remaining present for over a year). I gave up on Wikipedia ever accepting this content, but that doesn't mean it's justified. Your "warning" over something that is no longer an issue simply serves as further proof that an agenda is clearly present.

The "issue" now is Alcyon007's openly flagrant deletion of my comments made on the Omnipoitence Paradox talk page to which you have totally ignored. You have only focused on "my" actions and none of what Alcyon007 has done. Is there a reason why you have not reprimanded (or warned) Alcyon007 about his actions? Why does he get a free pass on violating Wikipedia talk page editing policy?

Look, what is being contested is Alcyon007 deleting my comments on a talk page when he has been consistently writing similar comments throughout the entire page. Please address what is actually being contested and not launching into a previous situation that is already moot. I already KNOW that people hate the information I have and will go to any lengths to censor it... but they have no right to delete my comments on the talk page.

Please address the actual complaint.--EPROM (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you not blatantly lie ? "Constantly" is a lit when I litteraly posted 3 short messages, more than a month ago. Wikipedia is not a forum and the talk page is pooluated with ERPOM's message. I will not count the number of characters, but most of the talk page is from EPROM, promoting his website and claiming that wikipedia censors him. Again, wikipedia is not a forum and the talk page should be used for editing purpose, the post I was removing isn't about that, so I'd suggest a clean-up of the page.

Alcyon007 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a forum. People often do take matters into their own hands and remove talk page posts if they believe there is no chance those posts will ever find enough support from other editors to change the article itself. It is risky for people to do this because admins could wind up blocking either side, if they lose patience. User:EPROM, I'm going beyond the talk-page-removal issue and letting you know I'll block you personally if you place any more such posts, so you won't need to worry about Alcyon007 any more. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's just leave it at this. Alcyon007 deleted my words on the Omnipotence Paradox "talk page." The Wikipedia's talk page guidelines clearly states as follows: "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request."

Now you are unilaterally declaring that you will "ban" me even though Alcyon007 is the one violating the rules. I have not tried to re-submit the link, but I HAVE made my argument on the talk page (which is what we are REQUIRED to do in situations like this).

Logic states that one cannot make an argument if their words are deleted the moment they are posted, right? Apparently you don't even want me to be able to present an argument!

Look, if this was some type of science-based page, physics-oriented or something that can actually be "analized" in a scientific way I would understand... but it's clearly not in regard to the topic of the page. "Omnipotence" is merely a thought experiment and there is no qualified research to support it or refute it. It's just a paradoxical question, therefore links that would normally not be deemed acceptable might be deemed acceptable in this regard as specified by Wikipedia's rules for external links where it cleaerly states, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." ...My link submission exceeds this requirement based on the subject matter.

My link also in NO WAY violates any of 19 qualifiers that are listed in Wikipedia's "External Links normally to be avoided" section. But now, even though I have Wikipedia "rules" clearly in my favor, you are still threatening to ban me for merely presenting my argument on the "talk page" (which is what we are supposed to do!). ...That speaks volumes!

You have now placed me in a situation where I can't even garner support from others that might not think the way that you and Alcyon007 do, but then again.... that's how censorship works, right?

It least this clear agenda-driven issue has been documented in this area. At least THIS page can't be "censored" and can serve as empirical proof as to how valuable information can be censored or removed by those who fear it on Wikipedia.--EPROM (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:213.202.81.17 reported by User:TarkusAB (Result: Blocked)

Page

Resident Evil 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [67]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Genre edit warring on several pages TarkusAB^talk 00:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – IP blocked one month by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Trenton444 reported by User:Light Millennia (Result: Page protected; two editors warned)

Page: Great power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trenton444 (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. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:

• User:Trenton444 has been warned by an administrator [74] to stop edit warring and to read WP:RS. Light Millennia (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• For reviewing admin; I've fully protected the article. Feel free to change protection as you see fit. The only reason @Light Millennia: wasn't warned is because I was edit conflicting on Trenton's user talk> Tiderolls 15:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have started yet an attempt to resolve this on the article talk page after the article was locked indefinitely. [75] Light Millennia (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We can solve but not with that map and leaving in this way. You registered yourself 6/11 and you seem not new here by your techical acting. Your talk page is clear about it.You aimed only at that article. Adamgerber80 stopped to write 23/10. I suggest to detect LightMillenia.Trenton444 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 3 days by User:Tide rolls. For the moment, the protection will clearly take care of the problem. I'm also warning User:Trenton444 and User:Light Millennia not to continue reverting after protection expires, unless they get a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)