Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SithLordSparklePants (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 27 July 2018. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{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:24.172.13.66 reported by User:Billhpike (Result: Semi)

    Page
    Forsyth Country Day School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    24.172.13.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "WP:IRRELEVANT WP:IRI"
    2. 16:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Removing unnecessary information about the school from the history section"
    3. 16:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ removing unnecessary content from the history section of the school page"
    4. 15:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "editing history"
    5. 15:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Editing history"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Forsyth Country Day School . (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    School IP — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If the IP user won't respond, it may be best to restore the school block. The IP was blocked for as much as two years in the past. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another IP has made substantially similar edits, so I've also posted at WP:RFPP. I still think that this IP deserves a long term school block. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:99.230.105.217 reported by User:Strikerforce (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Lexus India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    99.230.105.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 18:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "no need to merge"
    3. 02:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not merge"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Lexus India. (TW)"
    2. 13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Warned for removal of maintenance templates, with specific reference to previous warnings for 3RR yesterday
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Discussion is ongoing on the article's talk page with no input thus far from this IP user.


    Comments:

    While the 3RR has not yet been violated with regard to the merge tag, this same IP user removed a (properly placed, in my opinion) redirect tag on the article less than five days ago. StrikerforceTalk 19:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they remove the merge tag again. If you disagree with the merge, you should participate in the discussion at Talk:Lexus India#Proposed merge with Lexus. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – 48 hours, since they continued after the warning. I have no idea whether the merge should be done, but they shouldn't be removing the banner that links to the merge discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lzzy303 reported by User:Jasmir54 (Result: )

    Page: Communion and Liberation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lzzy303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reversed to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communion_and_Liberation&oldid=851672061

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Infobox removed
    2. Intro replaced with text with no proper sources and references
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communion_and_Liberation

    Comments: The new user Lzzy303 keep spamming his reverting without source his changes in the infobox (that he removed without proper explanations, it's not enough what the official association website says, I answered on the talk page. Jasmir54 23:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure Lzzy303 is a sock puppet of GioA90 or not. But i start to not assume good faith on Jasmir54 which falsely claim himself joined wikipedia many year ago but in meta:Special:CentralAuth/Jasmir54 shown it is not, as well as casually throw bare url to Communion and Liberation as citation to support the content. The article seem attacked by ip user to throw under quality accusation material, rather than quality verifiable material. Other user such as Otr500 (Talk:Communion and Liberation#BLP violations) also feel the article need cleanup. Matthew_hk tc 01:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why the user Matthew_hk keep stalking my edits, I always partecipated in the discussions in the Talk Pages and I properly motivated my edits with riliable sources of Italian News Papers like La Repubblica, La Stampa, etc, while the user Lzzy303 didn't. The User Matthew_hk is actually patrolling many Italian Banks pages (like Banco BPM, Banca Carige) and keeps mantaing the 3 decimals standard with point (after we talked in my talk page if it's possible to use more decimals because if you use exactly 3 decimals on the Italian Banks infoboxes, Italian people can actually misunderstand and read a much bigger value), but he stopped answering days ago in that discussion and he is keeping stalkering me instead, by the way it's his problem not mine. Jasmir54 04:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, I used to make few edits wikipedia without registering not long before weeks ago, it's not a violation. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 23:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not using socket puppets, hopefully the administrators can verify this, though I can understand why you have suspects Matthew_hk, as I am siding with Lzzy303 (at least, so far). As for Jasmir54, I made a number of observations on the talk page, you're invited to read them. You can cite a good source, as a newspaper, but if the article states (for example) "the trial on banks was dismissed" (and I looked around and couldn't find any information on a re-opening of the trial) you cannot use it as base for a whole paragraph where you state as a fact that banks are under control. Similarly if a page is old, the trial went on and the verdict was changed, you cannot cite a reliable source reporting the first trial results as definitive and ignore the final trial. Moreover the official bibliography of the founder has at least a certain degree of historical accuracy. Similarly if an article on a newspaper contains an accusation, it's an accusation which may have some grounds, but it's not to be reported as a fact on wikipedia. I am honestly tired of user Jasmir54 saying "Your sources are not reliable" (all of them?) without any proper explanation or attempt to answer my questions (it's the only message he wrote, something like 10 times I believe), while I sometimes used the same articles as Jasmir54 only reading them (as for the banks case), other times citing official documents (for instance "The fraternity is recognized by the church" and cite a letter from the Pope, I cannot see a better citation for this). I could go on, but I believe a look at the talk page of the Communion and Liberation page would be better.GioA90 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    A small extra: I invite the administrators to read the "services" in the info box. As I stated in the talk page, such accusations should be extremely well documented, but they're stated as fact and without citation...GioA90 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Please proper source your edits. Have a nice day. Jasmir54 06:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see that's the only statement he's throwing around, without arguments and completely ignoring any argumentation about how currently the citations are not properly used.GioA90 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasmir54: this is English wikipedia not Italian-language wikipedia, and even Italian had billion (miliardo), i don't understand the logic to replace billion with 1,000 million, given the first appearance of the word billion in the infobox was already link to short billion. Also, English use comma as separator not dot (i.e. in Italian it is 1.000,00 but in English it is 1,000.00) . Template:infobox company already suggested that not throwing too much significant figure. Lastly, it is you casually throw citation into the article that still not yet able to fully verify the accusation, but you chose to remove the maintenance template. (Special:Diff/850511692) Matthew_hk tc 11:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    and @Lzzy303: i don't get the logic to remove the infobox from the article either. Special:Diff/851621751. Matthew_hk tc 12:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: As GioA90 said, though I can see why it would seem like I'm their sock puppet, I'm not. I visited the Communion and Liberation page last week only to find that throughout the course of the past month, any information regarding the organization's history, mission, structure, and publications had been stripped from the page by Jasmir54 and had been replaced with questionable criticism of the organization. I repeat, everything had been deleted from the article except for questionable information defaming the organization. As mentioned by GioA90, some of the criticism was presented as fact when the sources cited were speculative. Other criticism (for example, the 100 million budget) did not even have sources. Though there is definitely room to cover the criticism an organization has received, it's not right that the entirety of an organization's Wikipedia page be solely comprised of questionable criticism. That is clearly a biased move. Seeing I know a lot about this organization, I made a Wiki account to do some editing. At first, I added a section on the history of the organization, another on its structure and mission, and I deleted information that I thought was questionable or that didn't have any citations. Jasmir54 was quick to undo all of my edits over the weekend saying that my citations were not correct. I had cited Vatican documents, the organization's official website, the founder's official biography, and other publications concerning Communion and Liberation. Yesterday, I went back to reinsert the history section, the mission section, and more on the structure. I also created a "controversies" section where the criticism Jasmir54 so badly wants to display could go. My edits were marked as vandalism. The infobox was my bad; as I was trying to edit the wrong info it contained, I accidentally deleted it. However, I was reported before I even had the chance to figure out how to reinsert it. Bottom line is, Communion and Liberation is controversial in Italy. However, Wikipedia should be a platform where readers can have access to objective information. It's hardly fair to taint this organization's image in the English-speaking world because users like Jasmir54 are allowed to vandalize pages, stripping them of objective information and distorting the image of the object in question. Again, controversies and criticism should have their place in the article, but they should not comprise the entirety of the page, stripping readers of the possibility to find out more about the organization's background, history, mission, etc., and conditioning them to negative prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lzzy303 (talk • contribs) 2018-07-24T13:43:01 (UTC)

    @Jasmir54:, it seem the report was not properly filled with exact revert and sign of warning given. And it definitely looks likes there is some meatsock in this edit warring, namely Lotuspwr33. Matthew_hk tc 17:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew hk: Thanks :) Jasmir54 23:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasmir54: And it seem you need to be reported to ANI instead. It is just cause for other user to remove poorly sourced material which removing unsourced "defamation" material. And such action did not require external source, but adding those controversy material even as accusation, should properly sourced. I don't see you properly replied to GioA90 in the article talk page, but GioA90 had posted a lengthy discussion of the content. Matthew_hk tc 01:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This case was also discussed in Wikipedia:Teahouse#Communion_and_Liberation_page. Matthew_hk tc 01:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Matthew hk: Thanks :), I replied him to proper source his replacement behaviour, and surely I'll try to add new sources to the Communion and Liberation page. I'll talk on the page you suggested me. Thanks again. Jasmir54 06:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can see @Lzzy303: is using proper citations, as he/she cited only official documents and the official bibliography. Please, @Jasmir54:, try to read the comments I made in the talk page and think about them! It is not only a problem of adding sources, the problem is also reading and understanding them, discriminating between "facts" and "accusations" (as much as possible). You can find the best source on earth, but if you paste it randomly without properly assessing what's inside it there's still a problem: if the reliable article states "trial dismissed. Might be reopened" and you can't find an article about the trial being re-opened (I couldn't, at least), then you can't cite the accusations as true. Similarly, a reliable source reporting an old sentence which has changed later is a good source but you should cite the final statement of the trial (even if you don't like or think is wrong). Similarly, unless the trial is finished, you should paste information as "accusations" not facts. Similarly a source that does not agree with you POV is not automatically bad...GioA90 (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Btw I am really getting tired of rewriting again and again the same things. It really feels like you don't really care what I write @Lzzy303:...GioA90 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi GioA90, I invited you to the Teahouse. Please don't replace contents from articles with content without reliable and independent references and citations. Welcome to Wikipedia. Jasmir54 22:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jasmir54: Well, it looks likes bot reply. Matthew_hk tc 23:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Matthew hk: There is nothing more to say (ihmo). But I respect your opinions. Jasmir54 23:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasmir54: I was already in the Teahouse asking for help before the first of you bot-style invites (as you can see in the talk page). Moreover it is useless for me to write here, in the teahouse or in the talk page of the page in question, as long as you don't try to read and understand the points I made. I am sure some of them are extremely compelling.GioA90 (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasmir54: Since you said "there is nothing more to say imo",I'll tell you: ok. I am stupid, dumb and I don't understand. Could you please argument you claims of those citations not being reliable? And I would be even happier if you could argument against all the points I made in the talk page, since otherwise we're going nowhere. Thanks!GioA90 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This case was also discussed in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lzzy303. Matthew_hk tc 23:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This case was also discussed in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Communion and Liberation. Matthew_hk tc 00:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks :) Jasmir54 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jasmir54 reported by User:GioA90 (Result: )

    Moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

    Page: Communion and Liberation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jasmir54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [851445699]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [851509920]

    Comments:


    I tried to both leave messages on the users' page and talk page. He's just erasing everything saying "sources are not reliable" (without giving proper explanations) and not addressing any of the points I make. He's also removing the flags about the page POV and content reliablity without changing and/or saying anything on the talk page. GioA90 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi GioA90, I invited you to the Teahouse, Welcome on Wikipedia and please proper source your edits with independent sources. Jasmir54 22:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to proper place. Matthew_hk tc 00:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    merge two closely related section. Matthew_hk tc 00:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) Jasmir54 03:21, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:72.33.2.25 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

    Page
    Caroline Ingalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    72.33.2.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) to 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
      1. 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "/* In the media */ completely unsourced"
      2. 20:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "/* In the media */ revised juvenile wording"
    2. 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851775621 by ClueBot NG (talk) rv false positive"
    3. 14:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC) "/* In the media */ rm unsourced cruft"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Not at 3RR, but disruptive and aggressive edit warring behavior by likely IP sock of an experienced user.

    IP links to a school, due to wording used in edit summaries here and familiarity with warnings and policy (see what was left on my talk page here and what was said here as well as at the same AfD here), user is obviously not a newbie and probably has an account but is choosing not to use it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:koavf reported by User:TheSnowyMountains (Result: Warned)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [3]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. [7]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] [10]

    Comments: This editor has maintained a stance that every single movie article on wikipedia is formatted incorrectly and has tried to push his agenda by edit warring on these two pages for months: Thoroughbreds (2017 film) and Mother! This is despite the fact he has been unable to find one editor to agree with his edits on the talk page and despite the fact that movie articles that he claims are formatted incorrectly have been listed as featured articles, which are considered the best articles wikipedia has to offer. When asked why he doesn't edit other movie articles to reflect how he feels all movie articles should be formatted, his response is that he doesn't have the time to do so even though he's had the time to engage in edit wars on these two pages for months. His repeated reversions are in violation of the page's consensus and there is no precedent for his repeated edits on any other movie article. TheSnowyMountains (talk) 01:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I side with Koav here. The wrestling articles about events like Summerslam and Wrestlemania include spoilers. Besides, the lead it is important to summarize the article even if it gives 'too much away' (which is not a clear line). You pointed out articles, I can point to a lot of articles where the lead gives the spoilers away. Please respect Koavf's edits and know they are within policy. JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not arguing that the format of the articles are better one way than the other. That's not the issue here. What I'm arguing is that this user is violating multiple wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding edit warring, the three-revert rule, disruptive editing, and adhering to the talk page's consensus. If he wants to argue that every wikipedia film article is wrong, there are places he needs to discuss that and obtain consensus rather than engaging in edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSnowyMountains (talk • contribs) 03:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but the nature of the edit warring is relevant to the discussion. I will step out of this debate now . JC7V7DC5768 (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TheSnowyMountains, do you want to check the "diff of 3RR warning" link again? And are you sure you want to post this since you're the IP editor as well and your account is exclusively used to edit war and remove notices from your talk? I'll post an RfC for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Since you've just made multiple false accusations about me I am sure I want to leave this as it is and let the admins deal with your clear edit warring and three-revert rule violations.TheSnowyMountains (talk) 05:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    See here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Request_for_comment_on_spoilers_and_lead_sections. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned user. The report is stale, but I am not impressed with Koavf abusing rollback and have warned him of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.114.222.190 reported by User:Sro23 (Result: 60 hours)

    Page
    Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    70.114.222.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851876722 by Crboyer (talk)"
    2. 04:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851876619 by Crboyer (talk)"
    3. 04:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851876546 by Donner60 (talk)"
    4. 04:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851876476 by Sro23 (talk)"
    5. 04:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851876303 by Sro23 (talk)"
    6. 04:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 851876277 by Crboyer (talk)"
    7. 04:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Removing entire section due to proof of relevance. A single person throwing a tantrum on twitter and tabloid trash running with it to "generate" a click bait headline isn't a controversy."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Dbcnmlanl reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked indefinitely.)

    Page
    KIVA (software) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Dbcnmlanl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 06:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "added FEARCE"
    2. 06:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "fixed"
    3. 06:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "ADDED FEARCE - HAS laur status"
    4. 03:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "adding the new FEARCE code description - LAURs have been issued"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 04:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Notice: Copying from public domain sources without attribution. (TW)"
    2. 06:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on KIVA (software). (TW)"
    3. 06:33, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:
    • Blocked indefinitely The edit-warring was not the only problem: there was also copyright problem, promotional editing, editing with a conflict of interest, and failure to take any notice whatever of messages expressing concerns. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Briancua (Result: Warned)

    Page: Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: Political activity of the Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [12]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [13]
    2. [14]
    3. [15]
    4. [16]
    5. [17]
    6. [18]
    7. [19]
    8. [20]
    9. [21]


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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Knights_of_Columbus#Scare_quotes
    2. Talk:Political_activity_of_the_Knights_of_Columbus#Culture_of_Life
    3. Talk:Knights_of_Columbus#Culture_of_Life

    Comments: This is an issue that has gone on for several months. I thought it was resolved, but then it flared back up again. Contaldo80 has placed scare quotes around the phrase "culture of life" because he says it "is not a real thing" on both the article about the Knights of Columbus and the daughter article about their political activity. When this first happened, I opposed it, as did Lionel. After the issue resurfaced and discussing it on talk was unsucessful, I requested a third opinion.

    Two other editors weighed in, both of them arguing that the scare quotes should be removed. On the basis of this, I removed them in both articles. Contaldo subsequently reinsterted them in both articles. He was reverted by Work Permit on the main article, and by me on the political article. He placed them back into the political article. Rather than continue to edit war, I am submitting the matter here. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Qexigator reported by User:The Vintage Feminist (Result: Stale)

    Page: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Qexigator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [23]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. New sub-section added (with bare url links as refs) "Connected legislation" (diff A)
    2. Sub-heading made into a main heading (diff B)
    3. Expanded sub-heading "Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" (diff C)
    4. Additional paragraph added to sub-section "Post-act events" (diff D)
    5. Diff 1 of the user's reverts
    6. Diff 2 of the user's reverts
    7. Diff 3 of the user's reverts
    8. Diff of user merrily carrying on regardless (diff E)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:
    Diffs A, B, C and D are a series of edits by Qexigator which I think adds undue weight to two additional pieces of legislation. Diffs A, B and C are essentially two stubs about two other pieces of legislation. Diff D includes a wikilink for the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill and a wikilink for the Trade Bill both link to the section created in diffs A, B and C.

    In my revert I left the additional paragraph added in diff D but removed the sub-section "Connected legislation: world and cross-border trade" as it was overkill. After his first revert (Diff 1 of the user's reverts) I reverted saying that - including the additional legislation was not a problem but the paragraph was enough of a mention and New bill = new separate article. Create the articles in their respective links diff. Since then he keeps reverting saying that I must desist missiing the point of this revision and that TVF can create articles per own advice.

    Qexigator has also added this diff to the article's talk page stating Why not cool off, TVF, pause awhile, reflect, and avoid intervening disruptively as if there is a problem, where there is none. He goes on to say, ...the edsum explains sufficiently what will be self-evident to a visiting reader concerned with this topic: ... unlike TVF's incomplete and unhelpfullly repeated: ... he then goes on to quote me – except it is not me! The quote is which he mentions is nothing to do with me, it is his own work (diff D).

    He also removed the 3RR warning template which I added and replaced it with the same Why not cool off, TVF... post diff. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stale No reverts for 24 hours, and discussion is being thrashed out on talk. To be honest, I don’t think protection or blocks are going to be useful here. If you can’t come to an agreement, try the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. (As someone with a strong view on Brexit and related topics, I’m probably not best placed to try and adjudicate the content). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (Personal attack removed)

    (Personal attack removed)

    User:Constance1929 reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Jonathan Twingley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Constance1929 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 19:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
      1. 19:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "incorrect information, not cited"
      2. 19:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC) ""
      3. 19:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC) ""
      4. 19:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "removed: this is a resume, self promotional"
    2. 19:46, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "speedy deletion: self promotional, not notable"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 19:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
      1. 19:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "removed: no source information on this"
      2. 19:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "source link expired - no source"
      3. 19:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC) ""
      4. 19:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "removed, no source"
      5. 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Recent work */ no source, out of date information"
    4. 19:29, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Speedy deletion nomination of JonathanTwingley */"
    5. 19:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with '{{subst:db-notability-notice|JonathanTwingley|header=1}}'"
    6. 19:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "{{subst:db-notability-notice|JonathanTwingley|header=1}}"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    User:Wikibossmaninit reported by User:Smartin Mellner (Result: No violation)

    Page: Draft:Luke Nash-Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Wikibossmaninit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [24]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [25]
    2. [26]
    3. [27]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

    Comments:
    Possible sockpuppet of User:Jonadabsmith. Ad hominem attacks and edit warring, attempts to promote obscure political activist Luke Nash-Jones. Smartin Mellner (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The name Smartin Mellner is a reference to Martin Sellner, who leads a white supremacist outfit Generation Identity that failed to launch in the UK and is known for aggression towards Nash-Jones. Clearly, "Smartin Mellner" has taken offence to this accurate sentence, and seeks to censor the truth:

    "However, he is despised by the actual far-right, for his objection to their calls for an 'ethnostate' white homeland." [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibossmaninit (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. The draft has been declined as it does not have appropriate sources. I can’t offer any views on the content as I am not neutral; I despise Trump and can’t stand his annoying whine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Knson1 reported by User:DrKay (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: George II of Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Knson1 (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. [30]
    2. [31]
    3. [32]
    4. [33]
    5. [34]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:George II of Great Britain#Johann Ludwig von Wallmoden

    Comments:
    There are five reverts if we include the logged out edit, four if we don't. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:97.122.171.91 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Vox (website) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    97.122.171.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 23:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Stop."
    4. 23:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "/* YouTube */Added truth"
    5. 23:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Come on, if it can say at top of National Review it’s conservative, how is this any different?"
    6. 23:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Added important info"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vox (website). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    There's now another revert, done after having been notified of this 3RR report. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RagaBhakta reported by User:Kishfan (Result: )

    Page: Indian classical music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: RagaBhakta (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. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]
    4. [39]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

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

    Comments:
    This user is doing persistent edit war on so many pages including Mohammed Rafi, Christianity in Kerala etc.-Kishfan (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Учхљёная reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Page protected)

    Page
    Long Live our State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Учхљёная (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 852108683 by Учхљёная (talk): Still acting as a state symbol; RV per dishonest and inconsistent summaries. (TW)"
    2. 17:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852107870 by ScrapIronIV (talk) RV per dishonest and inconsistent edit summary; no evidence of copyriğt provided, work falls under protection of article 1259 of Book IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation No. 230-FZ of December 18, 2006."
    3. 17:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 851992991 by Учхљёная (talk). (TW)"
    4. 22:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 851846887 by Учхљёная (talk). (TW)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Long Live our State. (TW)"
    2. 17:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Long Live our State. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Comments:

    Edit warring to include copyrighted lyrics to the article. As this was not a state anthem, but a proposed (and rejected) anthem, the Berne conventions rules apply, and is copyrighted until 50 years after the author's death. My reversions are exempt per WP:3RRNO #5. Scr★pIronIV 18:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    • Page protected for a period of 24 hours. I'm annoyed. You see that section marked "diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" that has nothing in it? That's where you could have explained why Учхљёная's edits were unquestionable and unambiguous copyvios (and remember that WP:3RRNO says you shouldn't rely on this exemption to give you a licence to edit-war). As I see it, the text was in there for two years (that doesn't make it okay, but at least makes it a grey area), and another editor previously wrote "Seriously, this song is NOT copyrighted. It's from a DEAD country. 1943. Really? It's open source because it's under the copyright act of the Russian Federation." So I've protected, which forces you to go to the talk page and discuss. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.102.250.54 reported by User:Ktrimi991 (Result: )

    Page
    The Book of Daniel (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    75.102.250.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 19:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852118861 by 64.124.20.194 (talk) reverted vandalism WP:NPOV"
    2. 19:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "fixed writing style"
    3. 18:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852110176 by Ktrimi991 (talk)"
    4. 17:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    5. 14:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852080148 by Flyer22 Reborn (talk)"
    6. 13:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "removed original research, unsourced content, and WP:NPOV"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 12:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC) to 13:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
      1. 12:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852034394 by 2605:A601:54A8:39:8E3:63D3:C78E:7F91 (talk)"
      2. 13:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "removed original research, primary sourcing, and WP:NPOV"
    8. 23:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852000701 by 2605:A601:54A8:39:D59B:6A54:8139:3927 (talk) advice from one artist to another: instead of watching your wikipedia pages, work on ya craft. and be honest with people."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:01, 26 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    I asked them on their talk page to give their rationale on the article's talk page, and wait for comments by other editors. They placed a comment, but did not wait for consensus and rv again twice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I also warned the 64.124.20.194 IP because it is warring against the reported IP on The Book of Daniel (album), Danny! and Where Is Danny?. The 75.102.250.54 IP stopped editing after this report, and another IP of the same IP range started to continue reverting [41]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The 64.124.20.194 IP is continuing warring even after my warning. Maybe both need to be blocked. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: Your response here was deleted. Danny! and Where Is Danny? need semi-protection as well. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have semiprotected the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.159.197.137 reported by User:Money emoji (Result: )

    Page
    The Independent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    81.159.197.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 21:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852136259 by KNHaw (talk) What on earth? Can a moderator please take a look at this? KNHaw? No wonder your page says "semi-retired" I think you need to retire for good."
    2. 21:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852135951 by Money emoji (talk) Why would I bring it up on your talk page? You are not a moderator. You are a community activist (I've looked at your page). I already have spoke with a moderator on the matter and I believe the issue was I didn't reference properly. I find it funny how you're dodging the question I put to you on Peter Hawking's qualifications and trying to lead me down a rabbit hole. NOW STOP THE CAPS"
    3. 21:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852135491 by Money emoji (talk) The fact they "brought it up on Quora" has no relevance. This man, Peter Hawkins, spent 3/4 years of his life studying this at one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Do you refuse to acknowledge that? My other source was actually based on public feedback as well and if you actually take part in the poll most actually define it as more left than "left of centre""
    4. 21:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852135039 by Money emoji (talk) This is absolutely bonkers. I think someone with a degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics from Oxford University is far more qualified to speak on this matter than you'll ever be."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The Independent. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    here, here, here, and here


    Comments:

    He's been repeatedly asked to bring up the changes on the talk page, and claims (is lying) that he talked it out with a "moderator" and everything is ok. For the record, I agree with him, but he's not using reliable sources. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 21:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dael4 reported by User:Power~enwiki (Result: )

    Page: Ohio gubernatorial election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Dael4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 2018-07-27 00:27
    2. 2018-07-26 21:14
    3. 2018-07-26 20:33
    4. 2018-07-26 16:59

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

    Comments:
    A very, very long-running edit war; I've brought it to the attention of WP:NPOV/N. Dael4 has crossed 3RR but other actions may be necessary to solve this dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:34, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    When a bunch of people gang up on one party in undemocratic fashion then the warring stipulation should be put on them. I am one against many Dael4 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "One against many" and "undemocratic" are contradictions in terms here. You are trying to impose your will on a wiki page over the objections of others. You are in fact the one attempting to do an end-run around democracy. Nevermore27 (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Two members of this edit war recently engaged in a similar and recent combative edit war in Illinois gubernatorial election, 2018, specifically User:Nevermore27 [43] [44] (note combative messages) [45] [46] [47] [48] and User:Anticitizen 98. Anticitizen 98 was already warned on their talk page by an administrator for that edit war [49], and again by me for starting to edit war in the Ohio 2018 election article [50]. Although it appears as though Anticitizen 98 decided to continue to engage anyway [51]. Dael4 is probably a case of WP:CIR. The only user who attempted any sort of compromise was the reporter, User:Power~enwiki [52] --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I fail to see how this is relevant to the current discussion. I've been on the receiving end of these edit wars, not the instigating side. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cirflow reported by User:LouisAragon (Result: )

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Rv #1
    2. Rv #2
    3. Rv #3
    4. Rv #4

    Other edit-warring blocks?:

    1. 4 times blocked for edit warring

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]-[55] (he just left a WP:JDL one-liner, going against what Doug, me, and Wikaviani have said to him on many occassions.[[56]] He continued to edit-war, a mere three minutes after.[57])

    Comments:
    "Cirflow" is a long-term WP:TENDENTIOUS editor as he 1) constantly adds unsourced content 2) constantly adds content accompanied by non-RS sources (such as blogspots) 3) is very fond of edit-warring 4) ignores warnings as much as he can, including those given by veteran users/admins. We could literally file ten ANI reports about his disruptive editorial pattern, but this primarily limits itself to the rampage he's causing on the Artsruni dynasty articles, just one of the many articles in question. On this very page, as we speak, he's edit warring against me, Wikaviani and Doug Weller. All three of us have warned him numerous times, and have expressed numerous times that he can't add the content, as the sources are not reliable. To no avail.

    Some of the warnings given by Doug, me and Wikaviani: [58]-[59]-[60]-[61]-[62]-[63]-[64]-[65]

    Looking at the compelling evidence and the overal editorial pattern, its safe to say that this user is not here to build this encyclopedia. Has been editing on Wiki for 4 years (which he even proudly proclaims[66]), but he absolutely doesn't care about Wiki's policies and guidelines. God knows how many articles have been disrupted by him in these past few months/years. Even after getting blocked on no less than 4 occassions for edit-warring, he still doesn't care. Its unfortunate, but more than enough rope has been given and literally dozens of "final chances". - LouisAragon (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    If you look at the edit history of my edits to Artsruni, You will see in most/all of my reverts I adjust the content to fit consensus- they are not full reverts. I removed the 1544 date as discussed in chat by Dough Weller, but all the other 800 characters of content is cited by Simonian and an Anthropologist yet you still say it is not reliably sourced while simultaneously give no justification as to how that even is! You have no right to remove well cited content and doing so is against wikipedia policy and so my reverts are justified in this case. Additionally, I still never broke Wikipedia:3RR as it was outside of the 24 hour range. User:Doug_Weller needs to come and back me up! Cirflow (talk) 02:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Another revert, as we speak.[67] - LouisAragon (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Still outside of Wikipedia:3RR, and still cited content that is backed by reliable sourcing that you continue to criticize and consider unreliable despite there being no proof of that being the case. If you look at the chat, you will see I am adhering to consensus with Dough Weller, but unfortunately -You- refuse to compromise and continue to accuse me of Vandalism and article disruption!Cirflow (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Again, you're talking about the 3RR as if this allowed you to edit war. I took the time to explain you on your talk page that edit warring does not mean a 3RR breach and i even posted a link pointing to the paragraph about this on your talk page : [68], however, you keep going on with your disruptive edits. Therefore, i would say that LouisAragon is right. You seem to have serious WP:CIR issues ... User:Wikaviani

    If anything you are the Incompetent one-WP:CIR. I have been working with Doug to adjust and find a viewable source but all you and Wikaviani do is delete my C I T E D revisions without legitimate justification. You are disruping the article with your tendentious levels of contempt for my edits.Cirflow (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: You also havent replied in the talk section I made about this little schism you made, proving that YOU are the defiant and obstructive one Louis!Cirflow (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    first, please learn to indent a thread properly. second, this "source" you try to include in the Artsruni dynasty article is just one example among many others that shows you need to read carefully what is considered a reliable source on Wikpedia (WP:RS).
    For your information, when you have "wordpress" in an url this means your "source" is a blog and therefore completely unreliable for us on this community encyclopedia. Doug Weller and Louis Aragon repeatedly explained you that Blogs, Facebook, etc are not considered reliable sources, but you keep going on and you dare qualifying your edits "C I T E D revisions", just incredible for an "experienced user" ...---Wikaviani (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


    The sole purpose of the Wordpress article is to back up the Simonian source, and besides, it is written by an expert and has college written academic material from Wayne State University in its makeup therefore making it reliable. The facebook thing was on a separate page and I removed it as per consensus and recognizing its invalidity. This still does not justify your removal of the Simonian citation, as well as the additonal material it backs up... you should self-revert so that you do not continue to be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing as per the subsections under “Characteristics of Problem Editing”

    “One who wrongly accuses others of vandalism.”

    “One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources”

    “One who reverts the pertinent cited additons of others”

    User:Wikaviani, User:LouisAragon: You are violating all of these, as well as edit warring.

    Cirflow (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In a rush, on iPad. I've got Simonian and it doesn't back your claim, see [69]. This editor doesn't understand RS and misrepresents Sources. Doug Weller talk 04:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, he also has a battleground mentality : [70].---Wikaviani (talk) 05:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You said in talk that the Simonian source stated that it was around the 1520s not 1544 and I did add that, what you are referring to in regards to “not backing my claim” are the prior edits which I personally remediated. I do understand reliable sources, I am a college student so of course I do as well.Cirflow (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I did not say that. I said Simonian's words were that "Hemshin was under Ottoman control in the 1520s" - he doesn't comment on the Artsruni dynasty so you can't use him as a source for its dissolution. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, fine, at this rate ill just give up. Thanks for reverting my perfectly good, 863 character consensus bound edit about the line of Artsruni who ruled Hamamshen! At this rate Ill just go edit somewhere else im done here if even my well cited revision is being contested by everyone I quit.Cirflow (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You claimed the blog was originally published at a university which made it ok. That's too ambiguous to mean its reliably sourced, and in fact it's only a the first paragraph, in a different font, which says at the bottom "Published in Wayne State University". In fact even that's wrong, that paragraph is an abstract from here and the rest of the blog is just that, a blog post which says at the bottom "Accoring to the research by Vahan Ishkhanyan and my research". I'm beginning to think either you are very careless or are just copying sources from elsewhere without reading them yourself, as you did with Simonian. And at WP:RSN#Is Middleeasteye.net a reliable source and does it back this text? everyone who looked at the source and your text agreed that the source did not back your text. Doug Weller talk 07:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    user: 2409:4070:808:50ce:a8ed:6421:55ca:e9ea Reported by User:Balagoovi Result: Reporting user blocked)

    Page : [[71]]


    Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
    User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169369&oldid=842614692 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169430&oldid=852169406 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169477&oldid=852169463 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anand_Neelakantan&diff=852169545&oldid=852169513


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

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

    Comments:


    User:Bonadae and user:Bonadeaphone are disruptive editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagoovi (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2409:4070:808:50CE:A8ED:6421:55CA:E9EA reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: )

    Page
    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2409:4070:808:50CE:A8ED:6421:55CA:E9EA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852172004 by Bradv (talk)"
    2. 03:57, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852171894 by SA 13 Bro (talk)"
    3. 03:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    4. 03:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852171676 by PlyrStar93 (talk)"
    5. 03:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852171602 by PlyrStar93 (talk)"
    6. 03:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852171561 by Bradv (talk)"
    7. 03:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    8. 03:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    9. Consecutive edits made from 03:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC) to 03:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
      1. 03:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852169966 by Balagoovi (talk)"
      2. 03:38, 27 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

    Page
    Mesut Özil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:39, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852121342 by Walter Görlitz (talk) unsourced, contradicts other sources and his own statements (which are sourced). Also, it's blatantly not true, FYI."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 19:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Mesut Özil. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Long-term edit war to censor referenced material. When the content was added, I verified the content, translating it from Turkish to English and verifying that the claims were substantiated. I was not able to verify whether the sources met WP:RS, but that does not seem to be the problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC) Previous diffs: [72] [73] Zine is also busy on Seven Years' War, Dov Hikind and, well, everywhere else they're editing. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Drsopher reported by User:Slightlymad (Result: )

    Page
    Roe v. Wade (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Drsopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 17:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC) to 17:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
      1. 17:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Links to cathy allyn page"
      2. 17:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Production */False information removed."
      3. 17:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Production */Bad information. The film’s UPM didnt quit. The source of the article corrected the facts on twitter."
    2. 14:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Added links"
    3. 13:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "Links"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 14:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
    2. 14:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has been adding link to an article that's being considered for deletion and removing reliably cited information, claiming it's false. I suspect that this editor is also closely associated to the subject (or being paid to edit the article) even though he/she denies this. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:109.144.208.30 reported by User:Spike 'em (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

    Page
    2017–18 Premier League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    109.144.208.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852196579 by Nzd (talk)"
    2. 08:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 08:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852193913 by Nzd (talk)"
    4. 07:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852191678 by Spike 'em (talk)"
    5. 07:29, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 852190591 by Nzd (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 07:01, 27 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Wagner */ new section"
    Comments:

    edit warring on recently unprotected page Spike 'em (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    and now they are edit-warring on this page. Spike 'em (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also semi-protected the article for 1 month. Mz7 (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SithLordSparklePants reported by User:Jytdog (Result: )

    Page: UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: SithLordSparklePants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: diff 21:53, 26 July 2018

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff 01:34, 27 July 2018
    2. diff 02:13, 27 July 2018
    3. diff 11:00, 27 July 2018

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:UNC_Eshelman_School_of_Pharmacy#Jytdog_deletions_of_viable_and_referenced_content

    Comments:

    This person says on their Userpage that they are Always proud #UNCAlumni! and that is clearly more important to them, than following our content and behavioral policies and guidelines. The last diff was reverted by someone reviewing a COI edit request that the person made after I explained how to do that. They added the content anyway after it was rejected. They are not over 3RR but the committment is clear. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jytdog: These edits were reverted by Jytdog as the result of a COI detected by Jytdog. This COI is being resolved on the talk page, please see there. I did not fully understand the undo edit code and undid the undo's to correct this. This issue is being resolved. This conflict with Jytdog was posted on the Noticed board by SithLordSparklePants (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC). This is continued harassment due to an COI that is being managed. Yes, I have made mistakes in my editing, but as one can see this is an newer account and I am learning. I should not be banned by simply learning.[reply]
    Everyone has to learn. Your first comment at the article talk page was an attack. You have not responded on your own talk page. You have been aggressively editing BOOSTER crap into our project. We call that not here to build an encyclopedia -- you obviously came here to promote your alma mater and thus yourself. This is what conflict of interest does to people.Jytdog (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention this. Trying to work with you to get your COI managed is not "harassment". Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarity in your edits is always helpful and does not come in the form of repeatedly pasting tomes of wiki how tos. It is unclear how the external, non-UNC refs were BOOSTER. Please list BOOSTED 'crap' that was not well referenced, because it is unclear. COI disclosures are important, and this one is being managed. Being militant and harassing individuals because of a COI is not warranted. From the history page, it is clear that Spartan1977 was also aggressively edited by you without clarity as to the edits. This is a trend specifically on this page, which makes me concerned as to Jytdog has a COI or at least a bias regarding the entity that needs to disclosure. SithLordSparklePants (talk)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=852223813"