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:GalahadFLT reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: Warned)

Page: Starquake (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GalahadFLT (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] - added by editor on 19/11

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: November 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Misc entries

Comments:

In his response on the article talk page he says "And don't warn me about vitriol or warring, what are you going to do? Send me to bed with no cookies and milk?"

I also brought this up on his talk page, and got the response here of "Then stop being obtuse."

I originally added this report here, but removed it here after the editor began to discuss his proposed changes.

However, during that discussion the editor has not shown any willingness to learn process or how Wikipedia operates, and despite discussion and explanation from two different editors has once again reinserted their preferred information without reliable sourcing. If anything, the source they use is even worse than the previous ones.

Excuse me?

1). I'm NOT in an edit war with anyone. The information I posted differs entirely from what I posted before

2). I waited a couple of days before adding the information

3). You're going to have to explain how HOL (Hall of Light) which is extensively referenced throughout Wikipedia is somehow a "worse source".

Do you assert that the information in HOL that was referenced with a link to the site and page in question isn't valid?

There are other sites that also list the same information, do I need to link ALL of them before you can be reasonable?

Please enlighten me as to how what i've posted isn't reliably sourced, because if you're being serious, then YOU need to go through the entirety of Wikipedia and remove any and all links to HOL.

At this point I don't think you can be reasonable about this, and I think you need to distance yourself from interacting with me, because that information was posted on Friday, and appears to have irked no-one else but yourself TODAY.

You're entirely dishonest to suggest its a "edit war" when the information I posted is different, and you're entirely dishonest to link this as an ongoing situation with regards the graphics for the Atari ST version.

Please explain yourself, because at this point, its obvious to me that no matter what link I post that proves my source, you're going to have a problem with it.

GalahadFLT (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• You are edit warring - albeit possibly unintentionally. "Wait[ing] a couple of days before adding information" is specifically covered in the Edit Warring article: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring". Whilst you may not have reverted four (now five) times, you have added and re-added contentious information that at the very least is being discussed.
• Existence of a thing does not equate to notability of a thing. Hall of light may show that it exists, but many things exist - as my previous comment of Starquake T-shirts on eBay & Amazon. We don't talk about them in the article either.
• I don't think we link or reference non-commercial or official versions in the infobox, nor a mention in the lede.

Most of your points are laid out in all the policies and links that have been provided to you - if you read these, you'd understand them and I wouldn't need to repeat myself here. I am not the only editor who has commented upon your contributions. Radnyr has also been involved. Perhaps not as vocal, but another editor nonetheless. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but your argument makes no sense.

1). I'm not editing the same information. Have I edited or reverted back to who was responsible for the graphics in the game?

Answer = NO. I can only be engaging in an "edit war" if i've insistently tried to revert the same information... I haven't, i've put in something entirely different.

2). Your "notablity" example is completely and utterly erroneous. No-one is putting in details about T-Shirts, but on the page HEADLINED Starquake >>>>>>>>>>>VIDEO GAME<<<<<<<<<<<<, information has been added about another version of that >>>>>>>>VIDEO GAME<<<<<<<<<, it is entirely appropriate, it is entirely reasonable that another version of this game would be written about and that others might find that interesting.

I draw you back to the comment I made before. On the Where Time Stood Still page, another video game, it had added that the Amiga version was released some time after the other versions, and its been there since 2013.

I also listed other links to other games that had been converted since long after other versions were developed, but you casually ignored that, under the pretence of "I don't want to repeat myself".

Well perhaps you should hand over to someone else, because its clear to me, that when I point out the inconsistencies of the policy you advocate (i.e. you say X isn't notable, but then I bring up 4 examples of the same thing being on Wikipedia).

Why are they "notable" but you're trying to insist that Starquake on Amiga isn't? It is an officially sanctioned version by the original author, and you somehow think people would not find that at all interesting????????

And for your information it was had a run of 100 copies sold on a COMMERCIAL basis. You are literally looking for reasons to dismiss this information and you are acting contrary to the goals of Wikipedia.

Your point about T-shirts simply doesn't work. I am commenting on a Starquake video game on the Starquake Video game page, its entirely disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

And please don't bring Radnyr or anyone else into this discussion. This is of YOUR making, you're the one that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies.

Your whole attitude here is so demoralising for anyone posting here officially, that i'm amazed theres anything that gets through the edit process unscathed.

And if you could explain how the information is "contentious" that would be a great help. So to recap for the TL:DR crowd:

1). I didn't "edit war", I didn't revert to an old version, I added new information I hadn't put in before, entirely unconnected with why you got involved in the first place.

2). HOL (Hall of Light) has been accepted for lots of different Wikipedia references and credits

3). This game has been commercially released

4). I've listed over 4 different pages on Wikipedia where new versions of old games have been recently released and all are on Wikipedia, and STILL are on Wikipedia

5). You keep saying that adding new information about the Starquake video game on the Starquake video game page isn't notable because...... t-shirts.

I agree... if someone did mention that a Starquake T-shirt exists somewhere, and chose to put it on the Starquake video game page, I would probably think..... "meh, why do I need to know that?".... but someone adding information about a Starquake video game on the Starquake video game page..... that kinda seems the point of Wikipedia to me.

So what now? It meets all the criteria for being on Wikipedia, but you're determined it shouldn't. We're at an impasse, time to get someone else involved, you've demonstrated you can't be reasoned with.

GalahadFLT (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

To provide extra context: I'm the editor who originally reverted his contribution, made anonymously at the time and flagged by Wikipedia's filter as "May have problems" and/or "May be bad faith", if I recall correctly. The contribution needed work, and alluded to some controversy, but cited no sources backing any of the claims as any statement likely to be challenged should. In my research couldn't uncover any obvious connections between both designers mentioned in the contributions and the subject of the article, more information on the alleged controversy, nor evidence that the added information was notable enough to be relevant to the subject of the article.

Given that the contribution was made anonymously, I reverted it while making sure to state the reason (unverifiable information) in both the edit summary and on the article Talk page, requesting more sources. I made a point of mentioning my unfamiliarity with the subject of the article, what apparently aggravated GalahadFLT, as he repeatedly quoted it in the ensuing discussion. Given that I only sporadically contribute to Wikipedia, by the time I revisited the article, the undone contribution had been resubmitted a couple of times, paired with hostile commentary by the anonymous contributor, who then logged in/created a new account to engage with the others editors as seen above.

After seeing the proportions the situation was taking, I decided to step back and return to the article only once I had more time to do a thorougher research and to format his contribution (in case any reliable sources were located) to meet Wikipedia's standards. — Radnyr ^(talk) 01:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

My main response is that I'm not sure this is the best place for the discussion to be held given the depth it has now reached. It should really be on the article talk page. I suggest that it it moved.

As my diffs point out above, you were, and are editwarring. Your first four edits reinstated challenged material, which you reinstated while the validity was being discussed, and mixed in with these edits you kept adding in the Amiga release version. You have now revealed that not only are you the author, but that this is a commercial release, ergo there is a conflict of interest, and you shouldn't be editing.

You are intentionally misinterpreting my comments. You make claims about T-shirts, both agreeing and disagreeing with the points I raised.

I agree we're at an impasse, therefore while a resolution is sought we go back to the original version of the article prior to the contentious edits. You do not get to keep your version while we discuss the merits of the additions, be they regarding Amiga versions, or the artist on the game.

Finally - WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please, please, please, also read up on the links provided in your talk page so that you know what we mean when we talk about notability. If you cannot agree to the rules & processes laid out in them, then Wikipedia is maybe not the place for you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You literally are making this up as you go along!

1. You state that as its not commercial then it doesn't belong.

2. I point out that actually, it had a limited 100 run boxed release, and then you then try and turn that into another negative.

3. I am not misinterpreting your comments at all. Your example of T-shirts is only valid if that was remotely a viable comparison to an entry to a video game page....with more information about a video game.

I agreed that a T-shirt or whatever isnt noteworthy simply by having a vague association with the video game. You cannot however be taken seriously by dismissing another version of that video game being mentioned, its asinine and churlish for you to hold this position.

4. Nothing I recently posted is "contentious". Hall of Light is a respected website that is linked to numerous times on Wikipedia, and quite clearly shows the Amiga version exists. You havent explained how its contentious other than to say its contentious

5. I no longer wish to deal with you a moment longer, you cannot be objective, I will push for arbitration if you don't let someone else take over.

At this point you are content to vandalise Wikipedia, and YOU are now guilty of the 3RR rule and must CEASE.

I find it utterly beyond belief that you harp on about notability when you are applying it illogically.

Please remove yourself from this discussion, I won't deal or discuss with you further.

GalahadFLT (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

1. No, my point is that as it's commercial and you are the author you will have a vested interest and stand to make commercial gain by promoting the product within Wikipedia. This is called Conflict of interest.
2. This is the same as above, and doesn't need making twice.
3. The T-shirt example was (as you seem to realise) that just because something exists, that does not make it notable. T-shirts for Starquake exist, but we do not mention them in the article, because they are not notable. Just because your game exists, this is not necessarily notable. Once you have reliable sources highlighting its existence, reviewing and commenting on it, then your game will be lifted from the mire of non-notability and may meet the requirements for inclusion
4. In this context "contentious" means challenged. Your edits have been challenged, and as the contributing editor it is up to you to justify them. When an editor with 9 years experience and 26,000 edits asks you to read up on policies so you can apply them to your own contribution, perhaps you should do that, rather than hashing over the same arguments that don't meet requirements. As per WP:OTHER just because something exists on page "A", does not mean it has to exist on article "B". If your game is as notable as you claim, you should have no problems showing coverage by other (reliable) websites or magazines - I gave you an example of Retro Gamer , which is a highly respected and reliable source. By "reliable" - I mean those that meet WP:RELIABLE.
5. Fine, take it to WP:DRN - there's the link. One of the requirements for DRN is that discussion has been extensively carried out on talk pages, but I guess this counts.

Also, learn to use discussion pages please - you're not indenting properly, which makes it awkward to read. Have a look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages.

Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:GalahadFLT is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to add David McLachlan's name to the article unless they have got a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said before Chaheel Riens, I have no interest discussing this with you further, you are obtuse and unreasonable.

You and me are done. Don't engage with me again

GalahadFLT (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DKG156 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Blocked)

Page

Amity University, Noida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DKG156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Just go though the edit-history of the page. Twinkle ain't auto-filling stuff for obvious reasons and I cannot be bothered to gather the diffs for an one-article-SPA.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See this set of personalized messages by me and Elmidae, which is quite fine-enough and links the relevant policies including of edit-warring.

He deleted those messages.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See Talk:Amity_University,_Noida#Removal_of_content which has been launched by me, a month back. He did not participate, any.

Comments:

Engaging in promo-spamming by slow-edit-warring and a cautiousness to not breach any bright line.

Has been reverted twice by me and twice/thrice by Elmidae, in the last month including the last one after my t/p post came.

Now, he's adding back the deleted content, in small amounts i.e without any flat reversion of my removals and without any discussion.

Seeking an indef on a SPA.

Bonus:-Upon notification of this thread, he has chosen to delete the entire thread (before being reverted by me).

∯WBG^converse 18:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely – Besides blanking this 3RR report, they also removed others' comments from the article talk page, with the summary 'Removed useless talk'. It is hard to see any desire to help the encyclopedia here. A notion of promoting an organization, perhaps. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that the editor will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dahrez reported by User:Ifnord (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ken Wilber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC) "not a formal academic philosopher, but his standing is not dissimilar to alan watts or robert pirsig, whose wikis describes them as philosophers. Moreover, he is a creator of an original philosophical system, which further supports this."
2. 23:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "changed thinker for philosopher, undid previous revisions."
3. 23:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "[Completely disagree. Merits discussion. He is known as a thinker and theorist.] Undid revision 869879722 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)"
4. 23:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "[Additional qualifiers of his work are supported by multiple sources. He is known mostly as a thinker and not simply a writer.] Undid revision 869638183 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ken Wilber. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring continues, please see [7] and [8]. Ifnord (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:EJS524 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Steven Universe episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EJS524 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10] (Undid revision 869885176 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) It's simple math dude, you must follow the format of THIS page and know that a one-hour special (as cited in the source given) is the equivalent of FOUR regular Steven Universe episodes. You started the edit-warring for incorrectly editing the page.)
2. [11] (Undid revision 869883117 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) On this list, one episode is eleven minutes, half-hour specials are 2 episodes, and one hour specials are 4 episodes. This list is the correct one.)
3. [12] (Undid revision 869882170 by AlexTheWhovian (talk) It says one hour, not four. Each episode is 11 minutes.)
4. [13] (Geek Girl Authority, which receives press releases from Cartoon Network, confirms that Steven Universe: Battle of Heart and Mind is a one-hour special.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes#Steven Universe: Battle of Heart and Mind

Comments:

Reliable sources list the episode solely as a singular episode and thus it must be listed solely as a singular episode. The editor does not seem comprehend that they need a source explicitly stating that it's four episodes, and is instead executing textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, based on their own observations on the length of the episode and what it "must therefore be". That is behaviour that is not allowed on Wikipedia by strict policy.

I have attempted to discuss with the reported editor by starting a discussion on the talk page (as linked) to prevent an edit-war, but they insist on only reverting and refusing to discuss, despite the fact that I have pinged them in the discussion twice.[15][16] I'm ceasing any further editing of the page or contact with the editor until the situation is resolved, through either means of this report or if they actually decide to discuss it, because I can estimate that if I edit the page any further, I will be face with only reverts and no contribution to the discussion that I started in good faith. -- Alex^TW 00:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:JONNY is Gaming reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Not blocked)

Page

User:JONNY is Gaming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JONNY is Gaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 01:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 01:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 01:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"
2. 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"
2. 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"

Comments:

User has removed CSD from user page without conversation. User is clearly here to advertise for their own Snapchat, Instagram and Youtube pages. I am not going to readd the CSD as this will be the third strike to the edit warring. Mr Xaero ^☎️ 02:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Note 3RR doesn't matter on a user's own pages, Mr Xaero. However, I've deleted the userpage as promotional. I suggest we leave it at that. If they're only here to promote their youtube channel, they'll end up blocked soon enough. Thank you for reporting. Bishonen | talk 20:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Bilby reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

Page: David Wolfe (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bilby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: initial removal 02:25, 20 November 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 11:13, 20 November 2018
2. diff 00:08, 21 November 2018
3. diff 04:26, 21 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned earlier this month. diff over an earlier spate of edit warring on the same article (initial, 1st, 2nd. Also gave DS notice.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:David_Wolfe_(entrepreneur)#Senapathy_source

Comments:
Not past 3 but the edit warring is quite clear.

The "concern" about BLPSPS in the current edit war is contradicted by Bilby's !vote here where he accepted use of a different article by the same author and same publisher. I agree that the content shouldn't be there as this is trivia and the content should be attributed if we were going to use it, but the rationale being offered up is not OK, nor is the lack of discussion, nor is the edit warring.

See also this bizarre posting at RSN following the edit war last month: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_251#Circular_sources. I don't understand what has gone wrong with Bilby here. This is going to end up at AE if Bilby keeps at this; a preventative block would be helpful. It is absurd that it has come to this. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As Jytdog is aware, according to WP:BLPSPS the use of self published sources to source material about living people is a violation of BLP, and "removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy" is one of the few exemptions to 3R. Forbes.com contributors are listed under WP:RSP as self published sources. - Bilby (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your rationale that this is some clear-cut case is gutted by your own !vote linked above. This thread is about your persistent, long-term edit warring on a topic with two sets of DS. I am hopeful that you will be blocked so that you begin to see your own behavior and we can avoid AE. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, please stop this. You know my stance on self-published sources in BLPs - I'm ok with using them to source the opinion of the author, but it is a BLP violation to use them to make statements about any living person other than the author. The example that I supported and you are linking to is the former, and that is ok. What I (and User:Tornado chaser) reverted was using an SPS to make a statement about a living person who was not the author of the SPS, and both policy and the community is clear that this is a BLP violation. You know this, because you recently ran two RFCs to get WP:BLPSPS changed, and the community view was clear. You withdrew them yourself. As to the other example you give:

• [17]: I tagged two references as possibly unreliable. Not a revert.
• [18] You reverted.
• [19] Trying to find a solution, I replaced one of the sources I was concerned about with what I thought was an acceptable alternative. Also not a revert.
• [20] You reverted.
• [21] I tried a compromise and kept the old source while adding the new. A partial revert.
• [22] You reverted.

Who was on 3R there? Then yes, I took it to RSN, as you suggested. [23]. The "bizarre posting" was at your request. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilby's !votes are not inconsistent or hypocritical, in the !vote that Jytdog mentions Bilby was ok with the use of an SPS as a source for the authors opinion about another person. However here Bilby is removing a statment of fact about a living person sourced to an SPS. BLP policy requires the removal of BLP violating statements, and using a non-staff Forbes contributor as the source for a statment of fact about a living person is a clear cut BLP vio(see WP:BLPSPS and here, where Forbes contributors are stated to be self published for wikipedia's purposes) so it can be removed without regard for 3rr.

Also, the evidenceTalk:David_Wolfe_(entrepreneur)#Senapathy_source that Jytdog presents of attempting to resolve the dispute on the talk page is actually me agreeing with Bilby and trying to get other users to stop restoring BLP vios, on the talk page nobody attempted to justify restoring this BLP vio without attribution Tornado chaser (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog says I agree that the content shouldn't be there as this is trivia and the content should be attributed if we were going to use it, but the rationale being offered up is not OK, nor is the lack of discussion, nor is the edit warring. How is it "not ok" to use the fact that something is a clear BLP vio as rational for removal? The edit warring is justified for removing BLP vios, and regarding lack of discussion, neither Jytdog nor any of the editors that reverted Bilby have attempted to start any discussion either. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Tornado chaser I did not revert Bilby in the series of diffs that are the subject of this case (well, II did, and then immediately self-reverted. So I did not revert him. You have misrepresented what I did at an admin board. Please strike it. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I never said you reverted Bilby. I did say neither Jytdog nor any of the editors that reverted Bilby. If this is the statment you are referring to I am talking about both you and the editors who reverted Bilby, not saying that you reverted Bilby. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: fix ing my ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• As expected a huge amount of chaff is being thrown up. Bottom lines here are

a) Bilby is not working on this page in an admin capacity. confirmed by them after repeated queries here)

b) Going back to last year, Bilby has been continually edit warring giving flat edit summaries like "BLPSPS" and similar flat statements on talk.

c) their particular run of that here, has zero validity, again based on their own !vote earlier this year - diff from above.

d) There are other ways to solve the "concern" such as "must be attributed" and them simply adding the attribution in the content, or discussing that on Talk. Instead we have the aggressive edit warring and lack of communication. People fall into obsessive, bad behavior holes like this (I have done so myself at times).

But the edit warring must stop. Again I encourage a short block to underline this. Bilby has provided enough diffs by now to form a reasonable case for a TBAN from this page at minimum under the PSCI DS at AE, but this is a far more appropriate first step. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Both Bilby and the editors who reverted them should have used the talk page, absolutely. But this diff is not contradictory with Bilby's recent actions, as it was attributed, unlike the content Bilby was just removing. Yes Bilby should have either added attribution or stated why attribution would not solve his concerns, (I personally think it would have been odd wording "according to Senapathy, Wolfe deleted reviews" ect.) but bad faith shouldn't be assumed based on poor communication. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. One more try:

• I reverted BLP violations. In spite of Jytdog's ongoing misrepresentation of my position, which is frustrating given how many times I've had to explain it to them, policy is very clear: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". A recent RFC run by Jytdog further confirmed this position. The edits in question used a self-published article as a source of material about a living person other than the author.
• Under BLP, we must "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ... relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP".
• Removing BLP violations is one of the few exemptions under 3RR.
• I explained the reverts to editors concerned: [24] [25]
• I did not enter into discussion on the talk page at the time, because a) Tornado chaser had pointed out that it was a BLP violation [26], and thus there was nothing to add; and b) the only other comment was Jytdog stating that the content was trivial, and that they would not be discussing the issue [27]

This is hanging on a false claim - that somehow because I supported the use of this source in a different context, I must therefore support the use of this source in all contexts. The previous use was not a BLP violation. This one was. - Bilby (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You keep making absolute claims that are false. You originally said about the other source by her in Forbes, at the Wolfe article, diff, That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.. And you made that flat, uncollaborative, BATTLEGROUND statement several times before then. You then !voted to use that source here. When I called you out on this at WT:BLP, you wrote: Yes, as I should have said "we cannot use the Forbes piece the way it is being used". You are doing the same thing now that you did before, so your stepping back there, was entirely fake. You are wasting so much of everybody else's time with this absolutist, battleground behavior.

Your edit warring behavior on this page is long term and clear. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

From reading the links, the previous use of the 2016 Forbes contributor piece was to justify a RSOPINION statement about Jones' stance; that's a bit iffy and Bilby's caution about that sources seems appropriate, but as they suggested phrasing its inclusion (with clear attribution), not so much of a BLPSPS issue. But the specific case brought up in the diffs is a completely different article dated 2018, even if by the same contributor, attached to "factual" claims related to whether or not posts were deleted as reaction to skeptism thrown at him. No way that type of claim could fall under an RSOPINION claim, so the question is whether this Forbes contributor piece can be used to back that "factual" claim up. The community has readily decided that Forbes Contributors are not RS for facts, and certainly would not be RS for claims related to BLPs. As Tornado Chaser points out, Bilby's removals in the diffs that lead this complaint all seem to be in line with the allowed exceptions to 3RR. Yes, talk page discussion would be helpful to avoid it, but I can't see this as a violation. --Masem (t) 01:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Masem says exactly what I was trying to say better than I said it myself. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes I made it clear that it was a different piece by the same author in the same publication.

The issue here is the edit warring - the clear sign of uncollaborative, BATTLEGROUND behavior. First saying flatly, absolutely That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.' And then agreeing to use the source when it is used with attribution. I will note that at WT:BLP Bilby said that SPS can be used on a BLP with attribution. In his odd way of saying it distinction between using an SPS as a source of material about a subject, and using an SPS as a source of material about the author's opinion on the subject.. The reversion based solely on "we can't use that source because of BLPSPS" is invalid, even by Bilby's own standards.

The edit warring here is clear. as is the uncollaborative, battleground behavior. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that whether or not Wolf deleted reviews is a statment of indisputable fact, not Senapathy's opinion, so this doesn't really fall under "using an SPS as a source of material about the author's opinion on the subject". Tornado chaser (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, as far as uncollaborative behavior is concerned, The editors who were reverting Bilby were not making any attempt to use the talk page either and were using bad edit summaries:

[28] Patently false claim that this is somehow not an SPS

[29] Drive-by revert, how is using an SPS for a statment of fact about a BLP "well sourced"?

[30] no justification whatsoever provided for this revert

Tornado chaser (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did inform two users of the issues with their edits on their talk pages: [31][32] - I didn't revert and not discuss, but opened up discussion directly with the users concerned. Second, I have clarified why, almost a year ago, I made the statement that we could not use Senapathy at all, and that I was wrong. I have apologized to Jytdog, and explained it multiple times. Fundamentally, I do accept that there are situations where an SPS might be used. However, the edits in question here were not one of them. - Bilby (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Your own diff above says we can't use articles by Forbes contributors to source material about living people. and is missing the key words "without attribution" or in your idiosyncratic way of saying it: "But it can be used to source the person's opinion about the living person." You did apologize to me back in July; your "multiple explanations" however were misrepresentations -- just as you did then, you have done since then, and did in the present case -- reverting multiple times and flatly saying "cannot be used", leaving no way forward. The same battleground, uncollaborative behavior Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just want to note, this is becoming clutter. I won't be responding further, and look for admins to close or block. I look for the latter, as I have made clear. Bilby is not going to change their behavior without it, in my view. This will end up some place more dire. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
• Page protected for three days. I came across this independently, and protected it without realizing this ANEW was open. It's a multi-day edit war amongst admins and other established and respected users. Before protecting, I reviewed it, and I don't consider stuff about Facebook reviews to be a gross BLP violation (and I'm not sure its one at all, but I take no position on that as a whole), so the edit warring over this was not justified. Talk about it on the talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Nukleon reported by User:A.S. Brown (Result: Blocked)

Page: Farouk of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nukleon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33] 10:41 21 November 2018.

Diffs of the user's reverts: 10: 41 21 November 2018.

1. diff 12:50, 19 November 2018
2. diff 22:01, 20 November 2018
3. diff 12:10, 21 November 2018
4. [34] 16: 07 22 November 2018.
5. [35] 19: 28 22 November 2018.

Comments:
I'm not certain if I filed this report right as I have never done this before, so please accept my apologies in advance if I have done something wrong. Nukleon keeps removing every single thing that I have written on the Farouk page under the grounds that it is "vandalism". Besides for the fact that this charge is very insulting, it is also wrong. I started a discussion on the Farouk talk page where I explained in some detail why I feel that Nukleon is guilty of edit warring and disruptive editing. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown 23:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC) 

• You have added things that are at worst baseless or at best simply not notable. You have also been editing on an article full of vandalism. That aside, your editing notices have included lines such as "For a fat dude with an abnormally small penis, Farouk had a very active sex life; this is what money buys", making your claim of authority dubious. Nukleon (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, my sense of humor escapes you, through it is interesting that you take exception so strongly to that edit summary. If you actually looked at what I added, instead of the edit summary which excises you so much, what I added was the fact that Farouk, who was very obese and is described by all of his mistresses as having an abnormally small penis, was seeing at least three beautiful women at the same time, which was I meant by "what money buys". I have never claimed any authority over the article and all I would like is for you to stop deleting everything I add to that article, which I have been working hard since October under the spurious charges of "vandalism". Through it is interesting again that you making this into a matter of "authority". For three times in the last 24 hours, you reverted everything I have added to that article under the grounds that it is either "vandalism" or because of "erroneous" information about his death, which is a matter which I have not written about at all. Two of your reverts occurred after I posted a message to your talk page informing you that I had appealed to arbitration here, which strongly suggests that you do not take my concerns about edit warring seriously.

I'm not certain by what you mean by "erroneous" information about the death of Farouk, but if you know that something is wrong, why have you not corrected it? The information you keep deleting has nothing to do with his death. At present, your editing to that article has been purely negative, and you have not added anything, despite the fact you claim to know that what the article says about the death of Farouk to be "erroneous". I have already discussed this on the Farouk talk page (to which you have not responded to), but the decision to go to war with Israel in 1948 is by any definition of the term notable, and which you keep deleting under the grounds that it is "vandalism". Likewise, a cholera outbreak that killed 80, 000 Egyptians in 1947 and the public criticism of the ineffectual response of the Egyptian government to the cholera outbreak is notable, and which you have deleted 5 times since Monday under the grounds that it is "vandalism". I can keep citing examples like this, but for the sake of brevity, I will not. My edits to this article are not vandalism, and will you please stop making that allegation, which is highly uncivil and rude. I have started a discussion on the talk page about this matter, to try to see if we can find a mutually acceptable solution. Since the Farouk article seems to be the only article at present that interests you, would you please post your concerns to the talk page first before reverting. Thank you for your time.--A.S. Brown 23:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)    

• I found Nukleon's reverts to be arbitrary and mindless. A.S.Brown is adding sourced info and his work is hardly vandalism. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. The user repeatedly makes large removals from the article while never participating on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:TaivoLinguist reported by User:IE linguist (Result: )

Page: Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TaivoLinguist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36] 10:41 21 November 2018.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 22:54, 21 November 2018
2. diff 03:10, 22 November 2018
3. diff 18:26, 22 November 2018
4. diff 18:32, 22 November 2018
5. diff 18:41, 22 November

2018 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:36, 22 Novemeber diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
Edits constitute edit-warring, violation of the three revert rule and a violation of WP:NPOV. The editor delusively believes he has obtained consensus on the talk page, and pushes his views. He wants to push to the article a violation of NPOV, based on a blatant falsification of eight sources. For more information check the long discussion: [38] IE linguist (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:3RR here. There are two separate and independent issues being discussed at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia that User:IE linguist is falsely conflating in order to push a false notice of violation here. The first issue, that is reflected in the first two reverts refers to the section on "Notable persons". It is a discussion that is being conducted at this Talk page location with User:StanProg. It appears to be a fairly polite and productive discussion. Only the final three reverts are in response to the POV pushing of User:IE linguist who has violated WP:BRD (and doesn't seem to understand it). User:IE linguist has linked to the wrong place on the Talk Page for the discussion of attempting to resolve the issue. The actual link is here. I have provided abundant evidence of the WP:CONSENSUS on the matter, but he has made little attempt to reach a new consensus. This discussion with User:IE linguist is independent of and in a different section (and on a completely different topic) from the discussion with User:StanProg. There is therefore no violation of WP:3RR since this accusation is a conflation of two separate discussions on the page. --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Obvious 3RR violation by User:TaivoLinguist. Particularly worrying is the edit summary "LOL. You don't understand 3RR.", on the fifth revert to the page within 24 hours. Taivo has been reverting both User:IE linguist and User:StanProg. @TaivoLinguist:, 3RR appertains to reverts on the same page, NOT reverts of the same content. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Taivo's comment is like acknowledging the following saying: "I edit-warred with even two users" and that's why he thinks there is no violation of the three revert rule? Whatever material you revert counts, except copyvio and vandalism. IE linguist (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

So, User:Bellezzasolo, if two different editors are editing in violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD on the same page, but with unrelated content, what is the strategy to prevent their tag-teaming different content in order to push their individual POVs without building a new consensus on the Talk Page? --Taivo (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Did you just accused me in "tag-teaming" with another editor against you? --StanProg (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@StanProg: In the beginning you were not. We were having a good discussion. But that last revert that you made certainly looks like tag-teaming where you reinserted the content that User:IE linguist was pushing, knowing that I was on the edge of WP:3RR (at least by my own interpretation of it). But my question to User:Bellezzasolo was in the abstract, not specifically related to the matter here at hand. --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: You could always leave a neutrally worded note on an admin's talk page, or any editor in good standing. As it is, I've had a look at the consensus issue and it's not clear-cut. What is indicative is that there's two editors who disagree with you. And stop citing the essay WP:BRD, which quite clearly states "BRD is not mandatory." The issue here is you crossing 3RR. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

But until the last revert by User:StanProg, there were not, technically, two editors who disagreed with me. There was Issue A where User:IE linguist disagreed with me and Issue B where User:StanProg disagreed with me. But the two issues were independent of each other. It was two discussions about two different topics, not one discussion about one topic. --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

It was the independence of the topics that led to my incorrectly interpreting WP:3RR to apply separately to the different topics. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)e

I was also party to the discussion. Bellezzasolo, the other two editors have been pushing through their POV and much of the content does not relate to issues of language in Greek Macedonia, but about the codification of the Macedonian language in the Republic of Macedonia and issues of disputes with Bulgarian. Apart from it being POV, its also wp:synthesis and does not belong to that article. TaivoLinguist was acting to prevent disruption to a article that has long had a history of POV pushing with some wanting to "prove" that Macedonians don't exist or they are some other ethnicity etc. @TaivoLinguist has served the Wikipedia well and from observations of pages on my watchlist is not one to get into trivial edit wars. This case ought to be dismissed.Resnjari (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

After reverting five times today, Taivo makes a thanksgiving to a user, whom he canvassed(in 19:51) after getting reported. Taivo is not considering a different approach even after all this and thanked another user for edit-warring on his side. The priority of such users is to edit-war by whatever means. It is ridiculous that Taivo accused User:StanProg as tag-teaming with me, because I had never canvassed and written anything to this user. IE linguist (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Its very disappointing that you have gone down that route knowing full well that i have been participating in the talkpage for sometime. However you know that this article is covered by WP:MOSMAC. Your first edit was to try a place a large section of text into the article. It was reverted [39] and you then rammed it two more times [40], [41] as you had no consensus for your edit. At least half of what you included in your edit does not relate to the topic but goes into other things about other topics. Heck what are we going to produce here wp:forks all over the place?Resnjari (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Both Taivo and Resnjari have a history of edit-warring blocks. Actually they have only blocks for edit-warring. The first one was blocked 3 times for that, the 2nd one 2 times and from what we see here they support each other in that endeavor. --StanProg (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

You had no consensus for your edits. @TaivoLinguist explained to you the long standing manner in which that part of the article was treated so as to avoid neutrality issues that no ethnicity or citizenship etc is cited there. There has been a history of editors who are mainly focused on Bulgarian or Greek topics that have edited the article with POV edits in the past. As you edit Bulgarian Wikipedia and may not be familiar here with English wikipedia articles on Macedonian topics are covered by WP:MOSMAC to avoid disruption. Its disappointing that you highlight rare cases blocks of editors who have been on Wikipedia for a long time (more then a decade in my case). They have no bearing to this matter whatsoever.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Resnjari: My edit was to add very short description from the leading text of the articles of the "Notable persons" specified there. Here's the edit: [42]. You can check every single article and see that this is exactly what I did. You are accusing me of pushing "my POV" which as you can see is quite far from the truth, just like the accusation of Taivo for "tag-teaming" with someone. --StanProg (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edits to that part of the article are problematic. The article has had to deal with this kind of disruption for years. You know very well that many of the personalities from what is now Greek Macedonia, well in particular their identities are contested. Some in their lifetime switched their identifications as well which makes it all the more complicated. Its why that kind of content is not added to to the article to keep it neutral. If a reader wants to know who that person is, they can check the article themselves.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Damn. You caught me, User:StanProg. I've been blocked three times. The first time was nine years ago and the most recent time was seven years ago. That's hardly "a history of edit-warring blocks". It's an utterly ridiculous claim and misguided attempt to bolster your accusation. I've said what I have to say here. I interpreted WP:3RR to be a topic application and not an article application. That's the only issue that's relevant to this. Whatever admin adjudicates this will make their decision based on that and that alone despite all the false and exaggerated accusations of User:IE linguist and User:StanProg, who initiated and prolonged the edit warring because of their refusal to build a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Just a general comment. I find it galling to edit-war in the middle of a 3RRN report. After MPS1992 reverted due to CANVASSING concerns, Resnjari reverted within 3 minutes, making this Resnjari's second revert in this edit war within 3 hours and while this report was ongoing. That's just unacceptable and makes a mockery out of Resnjari's involvement in this report. I suggest Resnjari self-reverts so that he can gain some credibility regarding his intentions here. Dr. K. 05:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. Dr.K., i have only made 2 edits and have clearly outlined my intentions on the talkpage [43]. As you have not partaken in the talkpage discussion, there is no consensus for edits and the article in question falls under WP:MOSMAC. After placing an edit once [44], @IE linguist rammed in those edits twice [45], [46] after being reverted. The same editor is now also admitting that at least half of the edits included were not needed [47]. Discussion is currently ongoing on that talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• • The continuum of Macedonian and Bulgarian is spoken today...? (not are spoken today?) per WP:PN, I can't say I blame these guys for reverting, but self-reverting until this complaint is sorted out might be good form. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue is being sorted out on the talkpage. The editor in question attempted twice more [48], [49] to add that content after they placed a large piece of text where there was no consensus. Seraphim System, that editor also edit warred sought no consensus. That editor has already conceded that a good chunk on that content might not be need in the article after all [50]. Anyway this whole report is absurd and better use of the article talkpage should have been made. The time an energy that has gone here the article would have been done and dusted into good shape on this issue.Resnjari (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Resnjari: Your reply is disturbing. You have clearly joined an edit-war, and performed two clear reverts while this report is still ongoing. Now you are trying to justify your edit-warring and you show no signs of understanding that you helped inflame this edit-war while at the same time participating in this edit-warring report. This is a very disruptive attitude and I think you know that. I repeat my request that you self-revert as a sign that you understand the disruption you are causing. Dr. K. 06:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Dr.K. Disturbing how? Your claims of me edit warring are erroneous. When there is no consensus for edits its best edits stay out of the article until the issue is resolved in the talkpage. Otherwise its not acting in good faith to begin with. @IE linguist did this twice [51], [52] ramming in much content which at least half was not about the topic itself. The article is covered under WP:MOSMAC due to that kind of behavoir having been prevalent in the past for those articles.Resnjari (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Disturbing how? Your claims of me edit warring are erroneous. When there is no consensus for edits its best edits stay out of the article until the issue is resolved in the talkpage. Nope. WP:3RR states clearly:

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

You have performed two additional and clear reverts in an ongoing edit-war and you have inflamed the edit-war while at the same time participating on this noticeboard trying to justify your edit-warring. Your attempts at justifying your edit-warring are disturbing because they indicate that you have no understanding of what constitutes edit-warring. Dr. K. 06:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for highlighting the rules for me. WP:3RR states clearly:

An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.

@IE linguist preformed two reverts prior to any edits of mine:[53], [54], clearly engaging in an edit war. The article is covered under WP:MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Before you continue evading the incontrovertible evidence of your edit-warring, let me ask you a simple question: These two edits by you with the following edit-summaries:

Revision as of 1:50 (UTC), 23 November 2018 Resnjari (Undid revision 870151749 by StanProg (talk) Non concensus. Plus article is about Slavic speakers of Macedonia, not Slavic dialects of Greek Macedonia. There is a lot of content about codification and other things that happened in the Rep of Macedonia and not in Greece. No need for that kind of wp:synthesis)

and, four hours later reverting MPS1992 within 3 minutes of reverting you,

(05:08, 23 November 2018 Resnjari Undid revision 870205164 by MPS1992 (talk) There was no consensus for the edit and i have been partaking in the talkpage discussion long before. Those edits were rammed in repeatably. Article is covered by WP:MOSMAC))

Were or weren't they edit-warring on your part? Dr. K. 13:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment. If you think rules were broken, then report. Otherwise we're done here.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Before this page turns into an edit war itself, let's just back up and everyone take a breath. This report isn't about anything other than the reverts that I performed (3 to User:IE linguist and 2 to User:StanProg) on different topics thinking that WP:3RR applied to different topics separately rather than to the article as a whole. I've already admitted that I was in error on that. That should be the end of this report and everything else is not relevant. There is already a productive discussion being conducted at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia including all the interested parties (User:Resnjari, User:IE linguist, and myself). (User:StanProg wasn't involved in the principal topic.) So let's just finish this report up, take appropriate action for my misunderstanding, and let the discussion on the Talk Page run its course. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

If everybody put the time and energy to discuss the additions after they were first reverted on the mainpage, no one would be here and it would not have gotten trivial or silly. Anyway after some discussion on the talkpage as to what would be most vital and what is not of use at all, a new discussion for the language section (in terms of article additions) is open [55].Resnjari (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@TaivoLinguist: Regarding "false and exaggerated accusations of User:IE linguist and User:StanProg, who initiated and prolonged the edit warring because of their refusal to build a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk Page". Can you please point where I did "false accusation" and which accusation is "exaggerated"? Also, when I did my first revert I pointed out that "Bulgarian politician" for a person that was member of the Bulgarian communist party and Prime Minister of Bulgaria is not "ethnic" identification, but a country politics affiliation. My second revert was returning of 20K well sourced and well written NPOV content added by another editor, with the explanation of possible vandalism. Can you also point out where at the talk page you worked for a consensus, when from the beginning until now you have not moved an inch from your theory, while I clearly rephrased my edit in which you agreed that is OK (according to your views). A "history of edit-warring", is a history and a fact which can be easy checked, regardless if it happened yesterday or 10 years ago. Let the editors that will check this comments consider themselves who is edit-warring, refusing to build a consensus and "tag-teaming". --StanProg (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Not all edits show they were toward consensus. Instead with your you reverted and placed again an edit [56] of 20K by @IE linguist that had already been reverted, an edit that now even that editor is walking back from. Yes true that edit was well sourced, but was a large part of that content relevant to the article? No. Has @IE linguist walked back on at least half that large edit ? Yes [57]. About other editors and use of the talkpage it could have been handled better. On my part i have used the talkpage in the capacity it was meant for and oddly enough editors have agreed [58] with the concerns about that large edit at least. This is unproductive. Everyone instead of consuming time and energy here why don't we all devote to getting a language section into shape to adding to the article? [59]Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) @StanProg: I'm not going to try to defend your honor here. Using a block seven years ago as "evidence" that I "have a history of edit warring" (when I have been a regular editor and made thousands of edits on dozens of pages since then) is exaggerated and disingenuous. You claim to be an admin on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. If that's the kind of "evidence" that admins use over there, then I'm glad I don't speak Bulgarian. I carefully explained on the Talk Page why your original edits were unacceptable on the Talk Page with links to previous discussions. I showed you why a particular type of edit was acceptable to me (although User:Resnjari has made it clear that too much of that makes him uncomfortable). That's all I'm going to say here. I have work to do at the actual Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: No violation)

Page: Talk:HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MPS1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66] (tried to ask to stop via edit summaries)

Comments:
Straight 4RR vio in a matter of minutes. There more reverts of my edit on other pages ad well. His bizarre edit summaries show no interest in engaging or stopping. He continued after being given a 3RR warning. Btw: the content reverted was from an archived page. - wolf 04:52, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I've self-reverted -- I have no idea why "Thewolfchild" was so desperate to make sure that his earlier edits were removed from the record. But now he has what he wanted, so I don't see any edit warring being necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what edits you're referring to. I archive article talk pages all the time, have probably done hundreds of them over the last 5 or 6 years. I made it clear to you that you were reverting archiving content, which a copy of was still on the archive page. You were being disruptive, went on some kind of vengeance revert spree and you made a mess. You only self reverted after I filed this report. Why didnt you just stop edit earring after you were given the 3RR warning? And what about the other pages you deliberately reverted my edits on during this spree? If an admin wants, I'll provide diffs. Or they can easily see it all your contribs. - wolf 05:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• No violation MPS1992 self-reverted, disruption stopped. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Ameertha reported by User:Rhode Island Red (Result: indef)

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

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72][73][74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
This WP:SPA user has repeatedly inserted blatant WP:PROMO content to the article, deleted reliably sourced content (whitewashing of details critiquing the company), added unsourced content, and engaged in continued edit warring (despite multiple warnings from two editors on the user's talk page and on the article talk page) and has made no effort to use the article talk page to resolve whatever issue the may have the article. A good example of the kind of promo content added is this line "Dato' Dr. Lim Siow Jin, whose deep interest and endless effort drove him to utilize the fullest potential of Ganoderma or Lingzhi, for human health and wealth..." Ridiculous! Since this bout of edit warring, a second WP:SPA (Najihah1810 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) entered the fray and made the exact same edit as Ameertha[76] raising the issue of a potential WP:SOCK. Blocks (or bans) for both would seem appropriate in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Spam-only account; silly puffery and edit-warring. Not clear on the other account; maybe a meat-puppet - will watch the page. Kuru (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)