Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive363

User:Jessicakhani reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Darrick E. Antell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jessicakhani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff; their first de-tagging edit 19:19, 15 March 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 19:30, 15 March 2018
2. diff 20:23, 15 March 2018
3. diff 20:39, 15 March 2018
4. diff 20:48, 15 March 2018
5. diff 20:51, 15 March 2018
6. diff 21:00, 15 March 2018
7. diff 21:15, 15 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Darrick_E._Antell#COI_tag and please see also User_talk:Jessicakhani

Comments:

Obvious paid or conflicted editor who is just edit warring to try to remove tags, without addressing the issues. Has avoided disclosing and learning how COI is managed. Edit warring against two editors. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MAXXII12 reported by User:NZ Footballs Conscience (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Angels (Robbie Williams song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MAXXII12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 00:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 22:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 22:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"
2. 22:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"
3. 00:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Angels (Robbie Williams song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not giving an explanation of the edit does not give justification for one person to repeatedly remove someone else's edits. It seems nobody is allowed to touch this page which completely goes against the whole point of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The same parts have been edited many times by other users but one person seems to think they have full control of the page and nobody else can touch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User is ignoring this clear message. Page has been a target for this type of disruptive behaviour before to take this message out. Stop! DO NOT remove the following sourced information without first contributing to the discussion on the article's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Angels_(Robbie_Williams_song) User is right you can remove stuff without justification normally, however they are ignoring the above message and WP:BRD. NZFC^(talk) 02:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

While this does nothing to defend the actions of MAXXII12, it is worth noting that NZ Footballs Conscience also reverted the article four times in a space of about 2.5 hours.

Diffs of the NZ Footballs Conscience's reverts

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert

They are both just as guilty as each other. This isn't a case of one editor removing blatant vandalism or a major BLP issue. It's just two editors who both reverted 4 times within 24 hours.

Also

On the Jake Zyrus article, NZ Footballs Conscience has just made his 4th revert within 25 hours and 36 minutes, which seems like gaming the system and when combined with the above reverts pretty unacceptable.

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert

Based on comments, I will be happy to move this to another 3RR report, or keep it here. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Spacecowboy. In the Robbie Williams article, the user is not even trying to take part in WP:BRD. In this other one, I hadn't realised I had reverted four times but I will take the fact that I have reverted too many times in that one. What I will point out, is neither IP or Spacecowboy gained consensus before enforcing their point of view, so that discussion has been taken to Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard. If I get banned for the reverts, I understand that. But other parties haven't engaged in proper discussion either. NZFC^(talk) 07:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, content disputes do not allow people to edit war. The fact that you made this report shows that you are fully aware of the rules regarding edit warring and willing to file reports for other editors who violate that rule, it seems only fair that you follow the same rules and face the same sanctions. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Saying if you want to mae an edit discuss it on my talk page then not attempting to engage in any discussion yourself and then reporting other users is pathtic. It seems what you want goes and thats it nobody else can change this page ever. Embarrassing — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that so many people have removed exactly that section before should tell you something but you seem to think you own it and only you can decide what is on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

below copy and paste showing that removing edits purely because the person hasn't explained why they have done so. It seems nobody is allowed to edit anything.

Was there any logic behind you undoing this edit of mine? I removed synthesis as per Wikipedia guidelines.

Did you revert me just because I'm editing with an IP? 124.106.137.248 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, not because you are an IP but because it doesn't fit WP:MOS. NZFC(talk) 17:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC) I removed "(before his transition)" which part of MOS states that removing that is unacceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.137.248 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Sorry looking at wrong thing, you removed content without an explanation and it explains something that is relevant to the reader. NZFC(talk) 19:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs)

MAXXII12 You ignore hidden text put there by someone else saying to discuss it on the talk page first and removed content. There is a whole section in the article that talks about the writers dispute and a lead is supposed to summarise an article. This is what you keep removing. Someone else reverted you last time and I see again that you have removed source content. NZFC^(talk) 08:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi MAXXII12, I'm the other editor who has recently reverted you on the Angels page (please also note, I'm holding off on reverting your latest identical disruptive edit to the page until this edit warring discussion is resolved). I wasn't going to weigh in on this initially, but I want to clarify in particular that the hidden text you are removing does not ask you to discuss the writers dispute on any individual editor's talk page, but on the Angels article's talk page itself. Please make sure to read the text you are deleting more carefully next time. Additionally, your use of the pejoratives pathetic (rather amusingly misspelled pathtic) and Embarassing above comprises a blatant violation of Wikipedia's policy regarding Personal Attacks. --Jonie148 (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I read the text! I ignored it. I don't need to explain my edits to anyone. People who want to say discuss it on my yalk oage but are unwilling to open discusison themselves then report people are PATHETIC. If they are so keen it is discussed feel free to start the discussion by ststing why you are so against it being removed. Nobody should have the right to decide they own the page and its content especially when so many other people have clearly removed the same thing. Hilarious double standards in the last message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAXXII12 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is absolutely a collaborative project, and I'm sorry if you feel your edits are being unfairly reverted by me and/or others. I propose that we start a productive discussion here then, as you still seem to be confused about which talk page we're suggesting the discussion should take place on. Subsequently, I'll start by telling you where I stand on the issue. If you watch the following video (goo.gl/gkGcPS) from the linked timestamp for just under twelve minutes, you can hear a recent interview with Robbie Williams, where he discusses the history of the song, and mentions Heffernan's claim to authorship explicitly numerous times (if you select settings > speed > 2 on the Youtube video settings, the relevant portion of the video will take less than 6 minutes to watch). This interview portion, being the recent testimony of the artist himself, is currently the most valid source available on the contested issue of the song's writers. What Williams says in the interview is summarized in the 'Writers' section of the article, meaning that the lead (which as NZ Footballs Conscience mentions in above discussion, is meant to summarize the greater content of the article concisely) only hints that the song's authorship is contested without going into further detail. My intention is not for the page to claim that Heffernan is a co-writer of the song, as such has not been proven, and probably never legally will be (the parties settled out of court), but to summarize and provide details of the debate around his involvement in the songwriting process itself. I therefore feel the lead should hint at the information provided later on in the article regarding writers, but I'm interested to hear your perspective on this, as your edits suggest you strongly disagree. Perhaps a more middle-ground alternative would be to make no reference to the song's writers whatsoever in the article's lead. --Jonie148 (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Frankly, anyone who says "screw you" to concerns about edit warring is asking for a block. I have also warned NZ Footballs Conscience to not edit war. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:FactChecked1 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Identitarian movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FactChecked1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Please see my post on the talk page, Describing them as 'ethno-nationalists' recommended by Doug would appear to be a more accurate terminology as even Hope Not Hate describes them a such."
2. 01:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830619635 by Grayfell (talk)"
3. 23:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830613860 by Grayfell (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC) to 21:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830270127 by Grayfell (talk)"
   2. 21:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Identitarian movement. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Major Concerns About This Article */ c"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:John ecklu reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: John ecklu warned)

Page: Fucah Technologies Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John ecklu (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

• This doesn't need to be reported here. It isn't edit warring. The user is going through the regular warning series. He's now at level 2 for removing speedy deletion tags. If the article they've posted is deleted again and they then recreate it, I'll add creation of inappropriate pages to the warning mix. Largoplazo (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Warned John ecklu warned not to move draft into article space until it meets WP:CORP NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Codebook44 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Codebook44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "added more color to the subtopic of reverse racism in admissions. This is as a result of one biased editor continually deleting objective factual data. So I sourced every sentence with one or multiple sources from such authorities as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Harvard Law Review, etc."
2. 05:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830657496 by EvergreenFir (talk) Sorry your view that an U of Michigan economist publishing under a public policy institute's banner is not a reliable source is simply wrongheaded. I would agree if you if the professor was making a normative argument. Rather, here is presenting objective data about admissions rates. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. To delete factual data about the discriminatory effect of affirmative action policies itself raises the question of bias. Let the facts remain in the article. There are two sides to the issue and you can't selectively edit out the side you disagree with."
3. 04:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830654147 by EvergreenFir (talk) It is not proper to delete a source because you believe the author may have an opinion or bias. Per WP:IRS: " However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In any event, if the source was presenting a normative argument (like many of the sources already cited in this particular article), that would be one thing. But here the source is simply providing data in the form of a chart. If you want me to create a lengthy subsection on reverse discrimination against Asian Americans in higher education I will do so, as this is topic of considerable news coverage and available data as set forth in several ongoing lawsuits. I can put the cited material into this context."
4. 04:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830650264 by ArtifexMayhem (talk) AEI is a nonpartisan public policy research institute. In any event, it is inappropriate to delete a source simply providing objective, factual data about higher education admissions. The quoted text simply describes the available data."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Reverse racism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* AEI blog */ new section"

Comments:

Final edit included text from original edits, so constitutes a revert EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

NOTE: in fact the above editor reverted my additions to the article several times. I never deleted anything from the article. I only added new information sourced from verifiable sources such as the New York Times. But this editor deleted wholesale claiming that it is withing their purview to ascribe impermissible POV to me as an editor, rather than to the text or source material which is the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Codebook44 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

User seems to not understand Wikipedia policy (WP:3RR, WP:NOR, WP:RS to be specific). They clearly made 5 undos. But since they have self-reverted, closing with no-action would be acceptable to me. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Codebook44 has undone their last change to the article. They state this is an 'undo per policy to go to talk page'. This concession might allow their 3RR violation to be overlooked. Even so, keep in mind that 'reverse racism' should be attributed to people only when sources use that term. Otherwise it's original research. We have a separate article on reverse discrimination which could be a better place for Codebook44 to consider adding their material. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Codebook44, I'm giving you a warning this time. Per the self-revert, I don't think there is a danger that the edit war will continue. If it does, we can block then. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LittleDipper reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Let's stop this bullshit and talk"
2. 20:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "Do you even know what is going on? "Make a sacrifice" is clearly part of my sig. Also, please see my talk page. basedon your edit summaries, it is clear you have antisemitic views; if you continue this obnixious behavior again-ignoring scholarly edits based on your autistic feels-I will report you."
3. 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "I am not "focusing only on the Hebrew Bible". If you wish, we can talk about its position on the talk page, but please do not remove it from the lead."
4. 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "All of Western ethics (all the way from "make a wish foundation gifts" for people dying of cancer to not letting disable people die in the forest) were first practiced by the people of Ancient Israel. Also, it is patently not true that Western culture was born in Europe, the Greeks took their mathematics and science and even symbolism (gold, silver, bronze, iron) from the civilizations of the Ancient Near East, Sumer, Egypt, Babylonia. "Alpha" came from the Middle Eastern letter "Aleph", "Beta" from "Beth", and so on."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC) "/* March 2018 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) "/* POV-pushing in the lede */ new section"

Comments:

Brightline 3rr vio, diff 1 is a revert of this [6], diffs 2-4 are a revert of this [7]. Edit summaries are troubling, especially this [8] and this [9], gives impression of being a WP:POVWARRIOR here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Broke 3rr after I warned him. Khirurg (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Especially disturbing are you ignoring what scholars say and pushing your POV, and you thinking it is okay to revert edits even without discussing them on the talk page first. YOU are the one violating WP:NOTHERE (what my edit summaries contain I just took from scholars) by accusing me of POV-pushing just because I added an image representative of Israel (see my argument on my talk page discussion with LuigiPotaro69, another antisemite who is also alt-right; Luigi himself is, like Khirurg, violating WP:NOTHERE, accusing me of Jewish propaganda without any evidence other than my edit being something he hates) on the lead, indicating that you are expressing your anti-Israel sentiment here. i should be the one accusing YOU of edit warring for forcing your way that your new edits should remain in place even though they are the one that should be reverted until consensus says otherwise per WP:ONUS. Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 08:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkpage edits like [10] aren't too pretty either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I just felt I was being bullied by Khirurg's dishonesty and ironic accusations.Anu-Dingir (Please offer a sacrifice!!!!) 13:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

LittleDipper: Cool. An apology for a personal attack, followed immediately by an excuse and another personal attack. That's really not how it works, guy. --Calton | Talk 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely The edit warring is blockable, the repeated personal attacks (even here!) makes it an indef. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Mujdeda reported by User:Impru20 (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Forza Italia

1. 20:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 17:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 01:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
5. 20:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
6. 16:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
7. 23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
8. 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
9. 17:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
10. 00:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
11. 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
12. 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Forza Italia (2013)

1. 15:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
2. 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 00:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 13:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
5. 23:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
6. 17.59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
7. 00:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
8. 03:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
9. 15:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC) and 09:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See both Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Anthem and Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Flag in infobox

Comments:
User keeps edit warring on both Forza Italia articles despite warnings from other users and a personal attempt to tell him on his behaviour constituting violations of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. User fails to engage in any attempt of real discussion; he only tries to impose his view unilaterally (despite having been warned repeteadly and having been told there was no consensus for his edits), even resorting to unpolite and, sometimes, uncivil comments (as seen here or here). Impru20 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, actually they are started edit war without any reflection of the discussion at Talk:Forza Italia (2013), where were actual consensus of users to have flag there, as it is normalised by the wikipedia habits, only not to include anthem. --Mujdeda (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for blatant edit warring — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

User:NatGertler reported by User:Mhym (Result: no violation)

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

Removal of a well sourced and referenced negative material of a politician Daniel Biss already reached consensus on talk page. The editor made no attempt to dicsuss on a talk page, opting for a blank removal. Mhym (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

1st: [11] 2nd: [12] 3rd: [13]

• Well, let's count the falsehoods here.

1. Not "well sourced" material, but rather material sourced to a self-published blog and a site of user-edited content, and thus in violation of our BLP sourcing standards.
2. Talk page discussion had not covered the BLP problems with the sources (not that local consensus can override BLP standards anyway)
3. Claim of "no attempt to discuss on talk page" is ignoring, well, this section I started on the talk page about this very matter

Yup, that seems to cover everything. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Decline to act this time as there do seem to be concerns over the reliability of the sourcing and 3RR has not been exceeded. But both editors would be strongly advised to defer to the consensus at RSN and not to persist in this edit war. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There is also a discussion of the material at WP:BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Libertas et Veritas reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: warned)

Page

Cheddar Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Libertas et Veritas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830956399 by Thomas.W (talk) none of your re-verts are valid, and do not correspond with the information in the studies; no explanation for removal of additional study I posted"
2. 22:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830954547 by Thomas.W (talk)yes it does, which is why it is included in this article; Cheddar Man has to do with ancestry of indigenous Anglo-Celtic Britons"
3. 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Genetic change since the Mesolithic */ "indigenous" is not contestable at all; that is who the studies are referring to - those descended from the populations who arrived thousands of years ago and have been largely isolated since, not those of recent foreign origins and migration in the past two centuries"
4. 20:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830929591 by Thomas.W (talk) No they aren't ,and certainly not in the section about the source of other genes in modern indigenous Britons; Haak study also discussed the Mesolithic WHG percentages in modern British and other Europeans"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Cheddar Man."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring to get irrelevant material into the article, in spite of having been reverted by multiple other editors, both as this user and as an IP. Because this account is with all probability (per WP:DUCK) the same person as Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3:A11B:66BB:891C:781F, who made multiple reverts on the same article, since the user account was created just minutes after the IP made their last edits, and continued the IP's edits, adding the same material, so they're at well over four reverts... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Libertas et Veritas: can you comment here please? You are on the verge of being blocked on your very first day of editing Wikipedia. Have you stopped edit warring now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware this rule applied to this page because each edit had to be reviewed before being applied as a permanent change to the article. Furthermore, the user above who reported me has himself violated the rule, as has one other user. I have not added "irrelevant" material whatsoever to the article. The fact he is claiming this is ridiculous. I have made edits to the article supported by authors of the studies mentioned in the article with regards to Cheddar Man. I have also added peer-reviewed, highly accurate and respected scholarly studies to the article's section on the genetic contributions to modern indigenous Britons from prehistoric migratory waves after the Mesolithic period. How can "Thomas" above seriously question me adding scholarly material to a section specifically titled "Genetic change since the Mesolithic" (i.e. Genetic changes after the Mesolithic)? The latest study I included specifically deals with the genetic impact of Bronze Age and Neolithic migrations, and the genetic continuity (and very little change) in modern indigenous Celtic Britons since the Bronze Age.Libertas et Veritas (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The range contributions from Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1C5F:ECA3::/64 have many similarities to the work of User:Libertas et Veritas. If Libertas et Veritas is the same person as a prior IP, as suggested above by User:Thomas.W he is continuing the same edit war under two different identities at Cheddar Man. EdJohnston (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is my current IP. I created an account. Again, I did not think my edits violated 3RR for Cheddar Man because the article has all edits in a pending review process. It was my mistake. Future edits at the article will be preceded by discussion and mediation on the talk page.Libertas et Veritas (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please note that 3RR applies no matter how "correct / appropriate" you feel your edits are. I see you have now posted on the talk page. Please do not make the contested edits again until/unless supported by others. I am closing this report now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:122.106.100.42 reported by User:EdChem (Result:Blocked 31 hours )

Page: User talk:Bidgee (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.106.100.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking at the history of user talk:Bidgee, you can see that Bidgee has asked the IP to stay away in direct terms and at least three times and reverted additions from the IP on 20 occasions in the last hour. The IP has also reverted posts from Bidgee on the IP's talk page. I suspect Bidgee would appreciate some relief. EdChem (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Doug Weller talk 13:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Gekaap reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page

Katy Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

1. 01:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ‎

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Sexists and rape culture enablers need not comment."
2. 17:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Okay. Here's your source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault It is absolute idiocy to deny that this is sexual assault. Your sexist attitudes do not change the facts."
3. 17:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "The contestant does not deny she kissed him against his will. To the contrary, the contestant said he would not have given permission if asked. Just because a 19 year old doesn't know what sexual assault is, does not mean it ceases to be sexual assault."
4. 12:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "This is no mischaracterization. A twitter feed does not define sexual assault."
5. 21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830807381 by General Ization (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Katy Perry. (TW)"
2. 17:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Katy Perry. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor refuses to discuss on the article's Talk page and repeatedly inserts improperly sourced claim reflecting their personal POV. General Ization ^Talk 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Gee, how do I report your for edit warring? You are continually deleting well sourced information, for no reason other than trying to enforce a personal POV, which is FACTUALLY UNTRUE!!!! I've sourced the Washington Post, and have even directly copied statements from other wikipedia entries (along with sourcing). If the info is poorly sourced when I include it on one page, you should be going to delete it from other pages. But that's not what you care about. You only care about enforcing a particular POV in once specific instance, despite the fact that it plainly false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekaap (talk • contribs) 18:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Edit warring + BLP issues + attacks on other editors NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F reported by User:Fcrary (Result: blocked)

Page: Skylab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:A03F:4A20:1A00:4C63:1CBD:1688:954F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm afraid I'm new at this and can't get the links to previous versions and difference pages to work. This is over Skylab being the "first" versus "only" US space station, as described in the first sentence of the lede.

This editor in question has changed this back six times today and a couple of times yesterday. The description of an early revert of his changes requested moving this to the talk page, but he seems to have ignored that suggestion. Fcrary (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Crook1 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:04, 18 March 2018‎ (UTC)
2. 14:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
3. 14:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
4. 14:39, 18 March 2018‎‎ (UTC)
5. 16:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC) - after a request to stop war-editing was posted on user's Talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
2. User_talk:Olonia#3RR policy

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. User_talk:Olonia#Stop adding your personal website as a reference
2. User_talk:Olonia#3RR policy

Comments:
User:Olonia as well as User:Regia Marina is the same person, not sure if this is legal here but my guess it's not or definitely should not be. I suspect the Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 is him too judging from the stylistics of the message left on my Talk page. User contributes nothing new, just editing slightly paragraphs and removing perfectly fine references and trying to promote his own personal website instead. As far as I know he is not a renowned historian so not only this unacceptable practice but simply immodest. From his last message he left om my Talk page it is clear he is only here to pick up fights and not to contribute anything productive. After I left a message on his page asking him to stop, he immediately edited the article again. And then again.

Admits he copies and edits out of spite. In response to My message he admits spite. Crook1 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Both editors Olonio and Crook1 have been blocked 24 hours for edit warring. No violation by RegiaMarina although if you can present any evidence (when your block expires) that they are the same person as Olonio (preferably at WP:SPI then the situation will be assessed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LICA98 reported by User:RafaelS1979 (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:2017–18 Serie A table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:LICA98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 9:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC) ‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:42, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
2. 14:23, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
3. 14:05, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎
4. 9:51, 18 March 2018 UTC) ‎

Comments:

LICA98 has added unsourced material on Template:2017–18 Serie A table. I asked him on his talkpage here to source what he adds to the template but he hasn't replied. He has reverted four times in less than 24 hours and the current revision on the page is his as of 14:42 UTC 18 March 2018, located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2017%E2%80%9318_Serie_A_table&oldid=831095432. I can't revert to the old version because I have already reverted three times; an administrator or another wikipedian must revert to the old version. The informations that LICA98 added are assumptions and are unsourced per WP:SOURCE and should be deleted or sources must be added. RafaelS1979 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. LICA98 was warned a week ago about edit warring and the 3RR rule, so no excuses there. You were correct to stop reverting and wait for assistance from others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Prasath94 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: no violation)

Page

Tamannaah filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Prasath94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) to 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 09:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 09:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
   3. 09:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"
   4. 09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Films */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He continuously adds announced films to the table, when there should only be those films that are in production, thereby violating WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL in the process. This is all happening despite him already being warned once. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no violation as many of the diffs presented above are consecutive. However if the problematic edits persist, then a block may be required. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Sredina reported by User:Number 57 (Result: warned)

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

Sredina has repeatedly reinserted patently incorrect and error-strewn text into this article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Amends text so that the section now starts with an incorrect assertion ("The 88 members of the National Assembly are elected by two methods" – there are 90 members, and 88 of them are elected by one of the two methods) and contains numerous spelling and grammatical errors
2. Reinserts problematic text with claim that "it's correctly written"
3. Reinserts again
4. Reinserts again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Discussion on user's talk page

No 3RR violation, but reverting patently incorrectly information into the article (especially after being told their text is contains numerous errors) needs addressing. Number 57 13:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
There are in fact 90 members of the NA, but the first paragraph is about the elections of 88 MPs who are elected differently, than 2 representatives of national minorities, elections of which are explained in the second paragraph of the section.

The last paragraph is written as it is written in the law, which does not state that there must be 35% of female, but 35% of candidates of each gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sredina (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not able to comment on the merits of Sredina's edits, but they are clearly edit warring. @Number 57: are you asking for a temporary block of Sredina or would a warning suffice at this stage. @Sredina: do you agree to stop edit warring on this (or any) article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Just a warning for future conduct will do. Cheers, Number 57 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Closing. Editor has been formally warned — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Nichts0176 reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Wu Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nichts0176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831138938 by Zanhe (talk)"
2. 16:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831066875 by Kanguole (talk)"
3. 14:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831059101 by Kanguole (talk)"
4. 13:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831025517 by Zanhe (talk)"
5. 06:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 830679433 by Kanguole (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC) "/* "Uesian" */ comment"

Comments:

New single-purpose account edit warring to add poorly sourced WP:NEO to article, despite warnings and explanation of policies by Kanguole and myself. Zanhe (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

A cautiously editted information about an alternative name of the key word of this title has been deliberately deleted again and again. Should it not be me to blame but you? my completion was added according to the original structure of the text and it belongs to a paralell information to the others. It reflects a new knowlege about this entry word and has its source. Zahhe asked for source, and I showed one. I see no reason why he still blame. Kanguole blamed of its neogism, but he should open his eyes to look and understand, that it is a new knowledge, not a new term to be inserted.

they think I am alone and they can bully me!

Nichts0176  —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:PZP-003 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1RR for two weeks )

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

---

Page: Alliance for Securing Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PZP-003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Ok, this has gone long enough. Today:

1. [15] (edit summary displays clear WP:BATTLEGROUND approach)
2. [16] (edit summary contains false [[WP:NPA|personal attacks)
3. [17]
4. [18]

Slightly outside of the 24 hour window: 5. [19] 6. [20] 7. [21]

Edit warring on a related page:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [25] First discretionary sanctions notification
• [26] First warning about edit warring.
• [27] Second discretionary sanction notification
• [28] Discretionary sanctions block
• [29] 3RR warning
• [30] warning about personal attacks

The user was blocked just two days ago. They resumed their disruptive behavior immediately after the previous block expired.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] (though there are other issues)

Comments:
PZP-003 received numerous warnings, advice and suggestions. They did not heed any of these. They continued with edit warring and WP:BATTLEGROUND even after getting blocked for it. They also started making personal attacks and attacking other users: [32], [33], [34] and has continued making these despite being asked several times to stop.

This isn't just a edit warring or even a discretionary sanctions problem - it's pretty much WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

notification [35]

• Not sure how to respond to all of this (I am relatively new here, been editing for about 2 months). All I can ask is that any user/admin who may want to block me read through Volunteer Marek's posts/edits and it will become pretty clear what is going on here. He exaggerates and literally just makes things up because I am adding factual NPOV/RS information into articles that he disagrees with politically. Other users have backed me up on this claim (if you need to verify that just read through my talk page and other talk pages I have posted on). PZP-003 (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am done making any more edits for today (besides here or on talk pages) so I will not be reverting any controversial edits (even though all of the edits I have made are RS and NPOV contributions intended to add balance to articles which are heavily slanted in one direction) for at least the next 24 hours. I never thought that other users would be able to bully and censor editors by constantly (and selectively) saying "take it to talk page for consensus" or "obtain consensus first", but apparently in the age of Trump this kind of thing is allowed to flourish on WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZP-003 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved in the content issues. Have tried to counsel the editor on their UTP and mine, and I've seen no actual evidence that my words have had any effect. Without looking any deeper at the situation, the thing that jumps out at me is I do not "lack competence" above, from an editor with 146 edits. Of course they lack competence, they have 146 edits. I have stressed on both UTPs that it takes years to become even halfway competent, so apparently they didn't believe me. I would like to see them say convincingly that they understand that they do in fact lack competence in virtually every Wikipedia area except the basic operation of their editor of choice. Without that understanding, there is little chance of significant improvement in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Propose site ban.

• • This editor has behaved very badly, and it has not responded to a boatload of guidance and advice (see its talk page). It seems to lack the interest or competence to read Policies and Guidelines. This account is an SPA only interested in POV-pushing edits. I suggest it be banned, and if this user reconsiders and wants to come back with a new ID and a fresh start, good luck next time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• • • The same exact things could be said about editor SPECIFICO (esp. in regard to POV-pushing and SPA). Also I have read through the WP guidelines. And I do not "lack competence"...I'm simply frustrated and outraged at the blatant censorship going on here which is being perpetuated on numerous articles by users like yourself, Volunteer Marek, and a few others. PZP-003 (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation here but it's difficult to tell because the diffs are out of order. PZP-003's edits, in order, with timestamps:

1. 14:43, 18 March 2018
2. 20:23, 18 March 2018
3. 00:23, 19 March 2018
4. 01:23, 19 March 2018

The Previous version reverted to has timestamp 00:55, 19 March 2018 and appears to be a revert of PZP-003's 3rd edit. Did you link the right version or was this an addition followed by 3 reverts? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither article is under discretionary sanctions yet so we won't be talking about topic bans here. Trying to decide between a strong warning or block. Volunteer Marek, the earliest diff was part of two edits - one that added info and one that removed accidentally added info. The content that remained seems to be new, yes? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that by "earliest diff" you mean this one. The content is not new. Rather it's a restoration - a revert - of the same material, just slightly changed in wording. The original content was added here by an account called User:POLITICO. The text was removed by User:Calton here. It was restored, in slightly altered form by PZP-033 in the diff provided. The text under dispute is basically the same - it specifically mentions Bill Kristol and Clinton advisors.

Strangely, even though the original text was added by a different account (and then restored by PZP-033), the person being quoted, Matt Taibbi, was brought up on the talk page by PZP-033, not "POLITICO" [36]. Check user maybe needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see a different sources and different content. POLITICO's (sourced to The Intercept and Rolling Stone) is:

• Journalist Glenn Greenwald criticized the ASD, calling it "the ultimate union of mainstream Democratic foreign policy officials, and the world's most militant, militaristic, neocons." Matt Taibbi criticized the organization saying they "represent an unpleasantly unsurprising union of neoconservative Iraq war cheerleaders like Bill Kristol and Beltway Democrats like would-be Clinton CIA chief Michael Morell."

PZP-003's (sourced to The Nation) is:

• Other advisory council members include neoconservative political analyst and commentator William Kristol and Hillary Clinton foreign-policy adviser Jake Sullivan.

James J. Lambden (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

James J. Lambden is correct. What Volunteer Marek posted about my edit is untrue. The edit I restored throughout today is not the same edit that a different user POLITICO restored yesterday. Volunteer Marek seems to be obfuscating things again. PZP-003 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003, for the purposes of edit warring, the text does not have to be identical. We look for similar content. You understand that, right? For example, "Mary had a little lamb" would be considered the same as "Mary owned a lamb when she was 13.". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand that however the 3 edits I reverted today[37] are not the same as the one from yesterday. The one from yesterday[38] dealt with critcism of ASD and the one from today was simple RS info on current advisory board members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PZP-003 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: You've had a pretty rocky start in this area. You say you're done for today. How are you going to change the way you edit tomorrow so we don't end up here again? Will you agree to a voluntary WP:1RR on articles for two weeks? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If Volunteer Marek, SPECIFICO, and several other users I can name (who are all very aggressive and biased with removing NPOV/RS info properly inserted into articles) also agree to it, then I am OK with it. If that is something you are unable to do what are my other options? PZP-003 (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A warning that any more reverts without gaining consensus on the talk pages may result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying - that if I revert w/o consensus on ANY article I will be automatically blocked? How long will the block last? The warning on discretionary sanction pages states "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article". So are you saying that I can't revert even once? That seems extremely harsh if that is what you mean. PZP-003 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@PZP-003: I'm saying you may be blocked. The admin handling any future reports (and it may be me) will take into account this warning when deciding to block and if so, for how long. There are no options here that will allow you to edit the way you have been doing. If you don't want to accept any solution that will curtail your reverts, there's always the option of a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

How long will the block last? PZP-003 (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You need to understand that your belief that other editors are "very aggressive and biased" has no relevance. If other editors object to your edits, you need to open a talk page discussion and explain why you believe your edit improves the article, and work to reach consensus that it does. If that consensus rejects your proposed edits, you're not entitled to keep reverting them because you disagree with their conclusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

72 hours. That should give you enough time to closely observe how discussion progresses with these types of articles (one of which I've added 1RR to). But really, a voluntary WP:1RR on all articles for two weeks (observing any extra restrictions already present on an article of course) is probably the best option for you here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

OK I will agree to the voluntary 1RR for 2 weeks I guess if you think that is more helpful. PZP-003 (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, the now-blocked (for name reasons) POLITICO restored the same text that PZP-003 added and then edit-warred (and was blocked for) [39] [40] [41]. This was POLITICO's second edit ever, and was done while PZP-003 was blocked. So maybe a checkuser should weigh in if PZP-003 is going to claim its not him. --Calton | Talk 04:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record what Calton is claiming above is incorrect (he/she lies and obfuscates in a similar way that Volunteer Marek and SPECIFICO frequently do). As James J. Lambden clarified, the POLITICO revert text was different than the text I reverted prior to that during an edit war. PZP-003 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Drop the personal attacks. Your reaction makes the need for a checkuser's attention imperative. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

They are not "personal attacks". Calton literally lied/obfuscated...the same way users like you do throughtout WP - you bully and threaten people (like you just did again right above this edit) and you remove any NPOV/RS info you disagree with and that doesn't suit your political agenda (you even admit to this at the top of your own talk page) PZP-003 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks is exactly what they are. Calton didn't lie about anything, and neither did I. Calton pointed out that a similar edit was made by a different account during the time of your block. What exactly is untrue about that? Similarly, I've asked you several times to either stop accusing me of lying or provide diffs which prove it - you haven't done that and continue to persist in your attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Here it is, please don't ask me again: Calton wrote that I: restored the same text, he did not point out a similar edit. He did this to intimidate and try to open a checkuser or get me banned. You all lie in order to censor users you disagree with and further your obvious political agenda, this should be clear to anyone who analyzes your edits. Why admins allow this nonsense and BS to flourish on WP is beyond me. PZP-003 (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

BS. Your failure to absorb, understand, and believe what I've already explained shows you are not AGF. I already explained to you that it is what RS say, not my personal political POV, that drives my editing. If an edit is proper and based on RS, I'll fight to help the editor trying to include it, even if it differs from my personal POV. You don't seem to understand how that works, and I doubt it would do any good to explain it again. You are a classic edit warrior, treating Wikipedia as your battlefield. You won't last long. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PZP-003 agrees to a two-week WP:1RR restriction on all articles. This does not negate any other restrictions (e.g., consensus required) that have been placed on articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

User:Ankurc.17 reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: warned)

Page: 2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ankurc.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Talkpage diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff <This was a revert of another user, AFTER the discussion was started.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link User ignored it and reverted

Comments: Ankurc.17 keeps inserting coloured text for teams progressing/eliminated from the tournament, even though I've pointed out on their talkpage that this is against the consensus at WP:MOSACCESS and WP:COLOR NOT to do this. Their last edit to the article now goes to a personal attack and continues to revert, without any sign of a discussion (my talkpage note was reverted). They seem to believe for it to be removed, that I must do it across all articles with this colouring! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The user who goes by the name of Lugnuts has been bullying people. This is not the first time he has had issues with me and for a simple reason he can't stand anyone who doesn't follow his. Lugnuts is a bully who got what he deserves. He would unnecessarily delete info stating lack of sources but won't ever put reasons for his additions. He has also deleted articles and then added them back under his own name to simply get his article count running.

[[42]] - That's just one example of personal attack this so called Lugnuts has done.

Ankurc.17 continued to revert and argue in edit summary rather than in the discussion created on talk page. Seems they have now reverted back to uncontroversial version now. Removing similar report belw, as it is covered by this Spike 'em (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Didn't knew that bullies can gang up so qucikly. Anyways Like Spike said I have reverted my edit and made my point on the talk page

So anyone who disagrees with you is a bully? You took no part in the discussion on the talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As the user has now self-reverted I will close this report with a warning not to edit war in future. Any resumption may be met with a block. I have also warned the user against making personal attacks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologies if I am being rude right now but you might as well block me permanently. I will not stand against anyone bullying and since no action against lugnuts has been taken I do not believe that proper justice can be handed/

User:185.40.134.3 reported by User:HanotLo (Result: blocked)

Page: Business Initiative Directions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 185.40.134.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:
Hello. I have tried resolving this matter on the talk page but I don't think there is anything more I can do as they have continued to revert it. I have never submitted an edit warring report before so please tell me if there is anything I did incorrectly. HanotLo (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I had reverted this first, too. The removed citations might actually not be reliable, though, and the article's talk page finally contains an explanation. The user has seen the warnings on their talk page and followed my request to explain the situation on the article's talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree, please read what they wrote on the talk page, they are being very rude, and are not following WP:RS or WP:V. OCCRP is a reliable source.

1. They are using original research to support removal of reliable sources, "I have gone through all information by award winners, they have never paid for the awards"[52]
2. They are very combative and rude, "Hi. Reasonably sourced? Seriously? Can we use some logic?"[53]
3. They are lying in their revert summaries about the talk page, "The organisation which wrote the article being cited admitted their research did not show 100% factual about their finding. I have stated on the talkpage"[54]. They have never mentioned this on the talk page and the source doesn't mention this either. HanotLo (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

About 8 reverts in total. Blocked 31 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Krimuk2.0 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Note. See above report)

Page: Jessica Chastain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55] by one editor, [56] by another.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57] Revision as of 07:43, 19 March 2018. I reverted to the extant version and wrote: "You can't close in favor of your own RfC! That a major violation of process. Also, we don't count votes, and closes are done after 30 days generally by an admin."
2. [58] Revision as of 16:25, 19 March 2018
3. [59] Revision as of 16:29, 19 March 2018
4. [60] Latest revision as of 16:31, 19 March 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]. I would have done this on his talk page, but he made the fourth revert too quickly.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jessica Chastain#Infobox image

Comments:

An editor cannot unilaterally decide in favor of himself in an RfC he initiates. And the RfC has only gone on for three days. It has not been closed, and his actions subvert the entire reason we have n RfC process. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not unilateral at all. 6 editors disagreed with your choice and agreed on using the original image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been three days. That is in no way, shape or form enough time for the nominator, of all people, to declare consensus. The proper thing would be to have asked an admin to close it. Though I'm sure an admin would have said, "After three days and just this many people? No." --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's been three days and not one person voted in favour of your choice. If this is your way of pushing your individual choice, then it's just not going to work. Sorry. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already said that consensus is not a matter of votes. Do I need to link to that? And after three days and a small number of editors, there is no consensus. Finally, the proper procedure would be to have asked an admin if it were ready to be closed yet. You can't just close an RfC in favor of YOURSELF. Seriously, dude.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not close the RFC. I listened to the majority opinion and acted in good-faith. If you don't want to respect the opinion of others, you are free to do so. But don't edit war. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit-war? You are the one with four reverts. We generally wait for four reverts before filing a 3RR. That's what I did. But you seem to believe the rules don't apply to you. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that's the feeling I get from your refusal to see the point of view of everyone on the talk page who disagreed with you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You can feel whatever you want. But I'm not the one who went four reverts, you edit-warring rule-breaker.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for an excellent insult. However, it is not upto you to slyly favour your preference over the original image. The original one stays until you garner consensus to change it. And not ironically, the consensus on talk page so far is against your choice. So, there you go. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not one but two editors reverted your image, and yet you threw a temper tantrum and said things were going to go your way without asking for an admin close the way we're supposed to, and then edit-warred through four reverts. You make a mockery of the RfC process and rampantly edit-war. Those are not the hallmarks of either a good Wikipedian or a mature adult. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't know me, so please don't assume whether I am a "mature adult" or not. That's bordering on a personal attack, and any "good Wikipedian" will refrain from doing so. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I know your actions and your behavior, and what I see is someone who acts as if they're above the rules, and who threw an edit-warring temper tantrum.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note See above report NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: Closed)

Page

Jessica Chastain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "The RfC isn't closed and you can't just ignore process and say "I'm going to put my favorite picture in, so there." If you do this again, I'm opening an ANI case. Subverting RfC is serious"
2. 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "You can't close in favor of your own RfC! That a major violation of process. Also, we don't count votes, and closes are done after 30 days generally by an admin."
3. 16:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "ou are now at the verge of WP:3RR. One more and I'm reporting you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jessica Chastain. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */ format"
2. 16:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */ cmt"
3. 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"
4. 16:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"
5. 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Rfc */"

Comments:

Began an RFC following an edit-war by the user. 6 editors voted against his preferred choice, following which I changed the image back to the original in good faith, since the article will be on the main page in the next few days (as I stated in the talk page). But instead of respecting consensus, he has begun another edit war. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You are listing two reverts. I'm about to initiate a case showing your four reverts, and the fact you're not waiting for the RfC to close but but unilaterally inserting your favorite image. Subverting an RfC and not following process is not the way Wikipedia works. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not unilateral at all. 6 editors disagreed with your choice and agreed on using the original image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0 and Tenebrae: Any chance you two would stop edit warring if the photo in the article when it was promoted to FA was used? [62] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I began the RFC in good-faith, without warring. But don't you think 6 vs 1 should be respected? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What I'd really like is for the edit war on a soon-to-be TFA to stop without blocking anyone. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with the original image or the one that was used when it was promoted to FA, as long it's not terrible. I'd hate for my work on the article to be ruined by the use of a terrible quality image when featured on the main page. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If you mean this, I'm OK with it. There's a larger issue here, however, and that is an editor completely undermining the RfC process. A nominator can hardly declare in favor of himself ... particularly after just three days! If nominators can simply do that — without even asking an admin to see if WP:SNOWBALL applies, which after three days and a small number of editors is not so in this case — then why have an RfC process at all. Subverting RfC so brazenly and defiantly needs to be seriously addressed. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no subversion. You undermining the opinion of the majority in favour of your own preference is what needs to be addressed. I repeat, not one person voted in favour of your choice. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You're doing WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I've already said that consensus is not a matter of votes. Do I need to link to that? And after three days and a small number of editors, there is no consensus. Finally, the proper procedure would be to have asked an admin if it were ready to be closed yet. You can't just close an RfC in favor of YOURSELF. Seriously, dude. That is the definition of subverting the process.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is the matter of arguments, and there were plenty that agreed to use the original image. If you refuse to listen to the opinion of others, then that's something you need to work on. ASAP. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is not up to you, the nominator, to decide in favor of yourself. That's the way dictatorships work — not Wikipedia. If you believe there's consensus after three days and a small number of editors, then you ask an admin to close. You don't go vigilante and take the law into your own hands. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely not upto you to slyly favour your preference over the original image either. The original one stays until you garner consensus to change it. And not ironically, the consensus on talk page so far is against your choice. So, there you go. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither of you behaved particularly well. As far as I can tell, the current image was added February 6th. It was changed multiple times over the last few days and each time the change was disputed. Tenebrae, at the point you should have left the photo alone and waited for consensus to form. Krimuk2.0, I understand that time, while usually not a factor, plays an important part here. You should've asked an uninvolved admin to step in before your four reverts. What I suggest is that an admin can judge if clear consensus has emerged in two days time, before the article appears on the front page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Neil. I'll respect the opinion of an uninvolved admin. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note No more edit warring over the photo until RFC is closed. Any reverts or re-reverts may result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's fine and I certainly accept your judgment, NeilN. In the meantime, given both he and I agreed to your proposal for that previous, non-contentious image, would it be possible for you to insert that? Otherwise, letting an RfC nominator unilaterally declare his position victorious makes a mockery of the RfC process. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You really need to get over these childish whims of "victory" and "loss". The better image should be used. Period. This is not a battlefield and neither of us are here to win or lose. My priority is the betterment of the article, one which I was responsible for making an FA. If you want to win at something, play a sport, because Wikipedia doesn't work that way. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, says the person who thinks the rules don't apply to him. You serious lack a sense of ethics.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't know me, so stop with the personal attacks. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor points out objective facts — that you did four-revert edit-warring and that as an involved editor you broke the rules (by definition unethical) and declared an RfC closed in your favor — and you call that an "attack"? Wow. Just admit, please, that you blatantly broke Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, which is the plain, objective truth. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Guys, please, I don't understand why this interaction between two long-standing valuable members of the community is full of vitriol. Is there some past history I'm not aware of? Can you not just accept that both of you could have handled things better and move on? You've both had your say about the photo - let others continue the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Enterprise Explorationist reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: Originally [63], now [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [65]
2. [66] - After which, user was asked to address on their talk page to address problems with the edit
3. [67] - Marked as minor
4. [68] - After templated 3rr warning.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70] - user talk page, but still.

Comments:

User doesn't appear interested in discussing their WP:FRINGE edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/89.115.121.50 reported by User:N1CK3Y (Result: blocked)

Page: Cantus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.115.121.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]

Comments:
This has done nothing else than reverting the same edits on this article 8 times on a single day. Need I say more? N1CK3Y (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm getting the strong impression that Mad_Duke, FGordillo, and 178.148.162.199 were brought by offsite canvassing, that their only purpose is adding the material to promote an organization they're involved in. Yes, the 89.115, did violate WP:3RR, but we don't tolerate this sort of organized WP:ADVOCACY, either. This is why I protected the page instead of blocking.

@Mad Duke, FGordillo, and N1CK3Y: What is your involvement with Board of European Students of Technology? There's no pretending that Mad-Duke and FGordillo are uninvolved, so don't even try it. N1CK3Y, you do have prior edits in unrelated topics, but they're so few and rare that it's unusual that you knew to file a report for some apparently "random" content dispute. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, you are correct. We are alumni of the aforementioned organisation. I think. At least, I am. I do not know if one, both, or neither of the two other named contributors are currently members. I do know, though, that the IP that just got blocked is very much a current member. That member is not trying to prevent promotion but, rather, to ensure censorship. Whether the "controversial" statement stays in the article or not does not actually matter much to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@N1CK3Y: see WP:YESPROMO. It's very clear that alumni are trying to "make people aware" of that organization, which is promotion. If there was an independent source that established that BEST was noteworthy for their cantus activity, and the intro of the article mentioned noteworthy cantus-hosting organization, it'd be different. But as it is, it's just holding up BEST and only BEST as equivalent to entire countries. That is promotion, plain and simple. There may be some potentially comparable problems in the article, but that doesn't justify adding more. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson:Fair is fair. I see you have protected the article. I agree with your decision. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Hello, Mad_Duke here. All I've done was to put back the mention that they keep on deleting because from their PR standpoint (as an organization which organizes Cantus events) they don't want to be associated with this practice. That is censorship pure and simple. If you take a look, this started on 21:15, 15 May 2017‎ Dragosgaf who is a member of the organization. There is ample evidence that in this huge organization which covers whole of Europe Cantus is regularly taking place. My only involvement is thus adding back the content which was previously deleted @Ian.thomson:. So basically, you got this whole thing backward. Members of the organization are the ones who wish to delete the mention because they don't want to be associated and a few alumni are the ones who keep adding it back because it's a fact that it exists. I don't personally care for the mention of BEST in the article, but I became active after I've found out that the reason why they went and deleted something was because it doesn't work with their image which they are trying to promote. Organizations are not physical individuals and the Europe "right to forget" does not count.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

See WP:YESPROMO. The edit war started when 178.148.162.199 added the mention of BEST to the article. It was not there originally. 178.148 was promoting the group, which goes against our policies. This has nothing to do with censorship or "right to forget." Honestly, the idea that you were called in to fight "censorship" of something the article didn't even mention until today is honestly really hard to believe. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Well, this is not a promotion. When a group that works in over 100 universities across Europe organizes this kind of event (Cantus) for decades already then it's a statement of fact. If you could help me how to prove it, without resorting to sticking "hundreds" of external links. The moment when a thing which can be proven to be deleted because someone wants to delete a mention because he is working in PR of that organization then it's called censoring. I can give you the proof of those intentions for the person who has deleted it for example. I'm surely not here to promote an organization I haven't been a part of for 10 years. comment added by Mad_Duke (talk • contribs)

@Mad Duke: "Statement of fact" is not our standard, citing reliable sources (for this kind of thing, independent reliable sources) are our standard.

No evidence has come up to show that the IP who was removing things works for the PR of that organization, and you would need to be very careful in how you try to prove it. It is obvious that you have a conflict of interest with the organization. It is obvious that your account was registered solely in connection to that organization. There is no denying that you have tried to add a mention of that organization that was not there two days ago, in a way that equated that organization to entire countries, while not mentioning any other organizations that organize cantus activities, without citing any independent sources to show that those activities are noteworthy. To claim that you were not promoting but that the 89.115 is trying to censor the article on behalf of BEST is a Trump-esque level of denial and projection. If you cannot or will not acknowledge that, we will have to assume that you are not here to build an encyclopedia but to promote BEST's activities. If you leave us with that assumption, it would only be reasonable for us to block you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I hereby reaffirm that I think the decision that was made is fair. Forsooth, adding BEST in this article explicitly does not serve any obvious purpose other than promotion. The goal posited by my comrade hereover has already been fulfilled somewhere else (albeit implicitly, which doesn't change a thing) and that page already has a link on the page being protected. N1CK3Y (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: It appears this edit war has actually been going on for nearly a year.[80] From what I can gather, both parties seem to have been sockpuppeting pretty repetitively ever since. All in all, this seems pretty WP:LAME to me. N1CK3Y (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course this edit war is going for a year. It just became better communicated lately. Also, threats of account deletion are lame. First, it's not unlike I don't have a new IP every 24hrs so that doesn't make any sense. If someone wants to do harm. He will do it. Also, expecting hard proof of BEST Cantus from independent sources (like there are news agencies that follow student drinking when nothing bad happens) is double standard because then this whole page can be deleted as well as all other mentions: "Belgian, Dutch, French, Baltic, Afrikaans student organisations, and fraternities. ". By the same logic BEST is bigger than some countries concerning the number of universities present. :) Mad_Duke (talk 00:43 CET - 20.03.2018. —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mad Duke: Blocks apply to the user, not just the account. Once you're blocked, your words it's not unlike I don't have a new IP every 24hrs so that doesn't make any sense. If someone wants to do harm. He will do it. have just given every admin the excuse to block any and all accounts restoring any mention of BEST to the Cantus article as one of your sockpuppets. Seriously, consider this your last warning: either you are here to help, or you can go to hell.

As for sourcing, in-depth coverage from independent sources are our standard, and if you don't like it, you should find a different site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: So, you are threatening all articles containing BEST. because of so called actions (for which you have zero evidence) of one person writing under one account? Have you maybe thought about that I want exactly that. To completely destroy any mention of BEST on this "encyclopedia"? :D That would be a cool win. Then I will proceed to each and every other student organization pages. Pinging you in the process :D Oh, and sorry, but you don't know how the internet works. Every 24 hours (or every 5 minutes with a VPN) I can make a completely new account. Not that I feel like it. People actually need to work also hehe :) Also, this is an attack on me because you didn't answer about the inclusion of "Belgian, Dutch, French, Baltic, Afrikaans student organisations, and fraternities. ". Why are they included. I see no references to independent sources. in-depth especially :)

@Ian.thomson:, I'm FGordillo, I was part of the International Board of the organisation (BEST), and now I'm just an alumnus that cares about having proper and relevant information about BEST in Wikipedia. Cantus is being organised by BEST for years but they are not part of the main activity of the organisation, this is why I believe this reference doesn't belong to the Cantus Wikipedia page. I guess mentioning that Cantus is organised by Belgian student organisations is enough to understand the origins of Cantus and since there are no other organisations mentions I see no point on mentioning only one. The main activity of BEST is providing complementary education to students of technology. Cantus it's just a side activity that happens during some of our events. It's the first time I answer in this type of threads, feel free to adjust it or move it somewhere else if needed. FGordillo (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2018 (CET)

User:Mujdeda reported by User:Mélencron (Result: Blocked)

Page

Forza Italia (2013) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "sry i must finish this war"
2. 23:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "that ip wasn't me"
3. 22:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[81]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Forza Italia (2013)#Flag in infobox (resumption of unilateral edit-warring after block)

Comments:

Immediate resumption of edit warring with little engagement (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive363#User:Mujdeda reported by User:Impru20 (Result: blocked)), warned on talk page for a second time here by Impru20 (talk · contribs). Also see article history for obvious edit warring while logged out. Mélencron (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It should be also noted that a sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mujdeda) was filled several days ago because of Mujdeda's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block. Not only may he have evaded such a block, but he has resumed his edit warring behaviour from his own account once the block was lifted. Impru20 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 reported by User:Crook1 (Result: Blocks, Semi)

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 Special:Contributions/93.65.5.225 Special:Contributions/2.35.55.62 Special:Contributions/2.35.52.252

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:16, 19 March 2018‎ (UTC)

Comments:
A clone of User:Olonia. Edited the same page after being banned from his work/study IP. A sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olonia) was filed yesterday because of Olonia's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block.

Since User:Olonia was blocked, I ask all associated IP addresses to be blocked too. I'm asking to reverse his last edit and protect the page. Crook1 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Olonia and User:RegiaMarina were blocked indef by a checkuser. I have semiprotected Italian destroyer Espero (1927). All IPs are stale except one, and he seems to have access to many IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:The Keeper of the Garden reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: Blocked)

Page

Talk:Ancient Corinth (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Keeper of the Garden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Biblical Corinth */"
2. 18:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Biblical Corinth */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Ancient Corinth. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831460056 by The Keeper of the Garden (talk) Still no attempt at consensus"
2. 18:56, March 20, 2018 post-initial report dispute resolution attempt on user talk page
3. 18:59, March 20, 2018 post-initial report dispute resolution attempt on article talk page
4. 19:00, March 20, 2018 WP:NOTHERE response

Comments:

This revert and this revert were both by IP editors identifying themselves by this username although not at that point having created their registered account under that user name and should be considered together with the two reverts listed above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So there has to be a consensus as dictated by Mr Eggishorn? A consensus about what? About the fact that historiography is science and that the Bible isn't? A consensus between what parties? Scientists and Christians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Keeper of the Garden (talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2602:306:37DA:E40:311F:B7AE:39A8:D54A reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: blocked)

Page

Stacey Dash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2602:306:37DA:E40:311F:B7AE:39A8:D54A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831494717 by Tenebrae (talk)"
2. 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 21:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831494376 by Tenebrae (talk)"
4. 21:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) to 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831494167 by Tenebrae (talk)"
6. 21:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831493679 by Tenebrae (talk)"
7. 21:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831493545 by Binksternet (talk)"
8. 21:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831493145 by Tenebrae (talk)"
9. 21:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Added {{ISP}} template. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[82]. Also, previous discussion at Talk:Stacey Dash#Sources differ as to her birth date

Comments:

Note, per WP:EDITWAR: "There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the Biographies of living persons policy." I believe that applies to my edits in this case, since the anon IP is violating WP:BLP by shaving a year off the subject's age in defiance of multiple sources including the book Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The anon IP is also adding vandal edits, such as this. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours but do take care not to let yourself get dragged into an edit war. In this case it was not so urgent that you couldn't wait for them to be blocked and then revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DY91 reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: blocked)

Page

Slot car racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DY91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "Why did you change this???? It's been up for days with references......."
2. 08:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "Your cluebot keeps undoing everything I write with references. Please advise."
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC) to 08:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
   2. 07:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
   3. 07:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 08:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "You will never let this hobby grow if you don't stop micro managing it. There's poor grammar and punctuation on this. Why don't you fix that??? Read my next update here which you might approve. I'm undoing with improvements."
   2. 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 07:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
   4. 07:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Slot car tracks for competition */"
5. 07:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC) "There is no reason for the undo. I'm trying to help slot car racing with the truth. I work in the industry EVERY DAY. Please advise for the undo. Thanks, DY"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked by Yamaguchi先生. I can't help feeling this could have gone differently if people had taken the time to explain why the edits were not an improvement. This good-faith editor seems to have got frustrated with having every contribution reverted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:71.246.98.233 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Sphere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "people say bring this on talk, but there's NO discussion on the talk page at all about this yet.... Again, BURDEN ON YOU TO PROVE that this site is "unreliable"....No one has yet. Mere assertions are not proof of anything. This source was agreed upon (to repeat) a while ago....stop edit warring for obvious I DON'T LIKE reasons"
2. 18:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "already "defended" and approved and agreed-upon a long time ago. If you want to remove it YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT'S AN "ADVERT" OR "UNRELIABLE" SOURCE.... It's an academic and school learning website.... And WP does not forbid such sites.... Burden on you. This source was already confirmed in the past..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor repeatedly inserting the same link which has been removed by multiple editors, repeating their same refuted arguments in edit summaries and on multiple editor talk pages. Warned already, but has disregarded that and multiple replies. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Contrary to what the IP asserts, the source was discussed on the talk page in 2015 and was hotly contested and removed multiple times. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Kostja1975 reported by User:Germash19 (Result: blocked)

Page: List of the busiest airports in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kostja1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]
4. [87]
5. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:
--Germash19 (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Kostja1975 blocked 24 hours - has been warned earlier in this month and is still edit warring. I would also have blocked Ian 1975 but I see they have only just been warned, so I will hold off for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:142.196.0.207 reported by User:WarMachineWildThing (Result: blocked)

Page: Kane (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.196.0.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]
6. [97]

1st 3RR warning:[98] 2nd 3RR warning:[99]

Comments IP was warned twice before report was filed, IP made a total of 6 reverts of the same content 2 different ways. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jaco IV reported by User:Colonies Chris (Result: both warned)

Page: Italian basketball clubs in European and worldwide competitions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jaco IV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previous version reverted to: [105] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:
If I block User:Jaco IV I'll also have to block User:Colonies Chris because you've both violated 3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• I think that's not necessary to block anyone. Just make a recommendation to Colonies Chris to stop edit wrong or dated links, especially for the Italian basketball clubs or for any basketball club that is using sponsorship names because he mainly transmits wrong information and secondly he causes a small chaos in the pages in which he "offers" any "help". (Jaco IV · talk) 15:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've pointed Jaco IV to the places in the MOS which explain my edits, but he chooses not to engage in any discussion about them, just reverts without explanation. My edits are not 'wrong information', and I have no idea what 'small chaos' means in his response. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You are both warned that any further editing will result in a block. Closing report now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:119.224.3.221 reported by User:Tubedogg (Result: stale)

Page

Deception (2018 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "put back original source"
2. 22:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "rounding reduces accuracy"
3. 22:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "knock of the zap2it rounded inaccurate crap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
4. 21:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC) "restored better source -- no reason to change to rounded zap2it crap"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor was previously advised by myself and at least one other editor to take proposed changes to the talk page instead of continuing to revert. tubedogg (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I should note I have no particular interest in the outcome of what content ultimately stays on the article. I simply came across it via Recent Changes. tubedogg (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the report and had I noticed it yesterday I probably would have blocked. However the user has now stopped edit warring so I will decline to block until/unless this resumes. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Seanking2919 reported by User:Mooeena (Result: warned)

Page: Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seanking2919 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments:

Yes, I have reverted the reversions of my significant edit on the Gab page. However, the reason I made the edit initially was in good faith. Mainly to give some of a contrasting perspective to the opinion that Gab is an "alt-right and white nationalists" platform. And also to add that Gab is a free-speech platform and Ekrem Büyükkaya as one of the founders.
Yes, I did cite a Medium source in my edit to the Criticism section. However, it is important for anyone thinking about reverting the edit to read the source. Co-founder Ekrem Büyükkaya, who is a Turkish engineer, specifically states in the blog post that he has never supported Trump and that he encourages both, left-wing and right-wing people to use the platform despite the fact that a lot of the alt-right adopted Gab early on. He even says that if Gab starts showing favor to the right-wing that he will be the first to leave.
Yes, I did add a source where Andrew Torba discusses his platform. However, it should not be taken as "self-serving" and rather as part of what the founders have said in response to criticisms of being an "alt-right" platform.
I want to say that if you guys want to make any edits or add something new to it, you're more than welcome. But I strongly suggest that you'd ought to do those edits yourself without reversing my entire edit.
I know this report might get me blocked from ever contributing to this website again. And I want to warn you against it. I have done other contributions besides editing the Gab page. For instance, I've updated the Winrock Town Center page to inform of recent occurrences and to add a little history of the place while and before it was a shopping mall. And if you guys decide to block me over this edit war, know that you are making a big mistake. That you will be further destroying Wikipedia's public reputation as a source. That you will prove Wikipedia to be a biased source that lives within an ideological echo-chamber. And that you guys could possibly intimidate outsiders in the future who look into contributing to the constant growth and development of this free encyclopedia.
- Seanking2919 (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please be informed that any further edit warring is likely to lead to your account being blocked. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Piznajko reported by User:AveTory (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [114] [115]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124] [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [126] [127] [128]

Comments:
The user has been involved in vandalism and edit warring on Mikhail Bulgakov's page since early March and till this day. He keeps adding non-neutral information to the lead which doesn't belong there, as well as to a separate section currently named Views on Ukraine which I created after some debate. Mostly aggressive propaganda that condemns every mention of Ukraine, Ukrainian language or Ukrainian nationalists in two of Bulgakov's works (including fictional characters and Bulgakov's absolutely unrelated thoughts on Kiev during his visit after the Russian Civil War) using such words as "imperialistic", "ukraniophobic", etc. and lines such as "Bulgakov, like most Russians of his time, condemned Ukraine's independence movement", linking to the works of mostly ethnic Ukrainian researches that appeared after the dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

As I tried restructuring the text to fit Wikipedia rules on neutrality, original research and sources by adding quotes from the articles and Bulgakov's own works (since many of the scholars are biased to the point they change Bulgakov's original text to fit their agenda), Piznajko keeps reverting all edits, inclduing the fixes made to googlebook links, claiming that it's me who is reverting and deleting "constructive edits". You can see an example in one of the latest edits. Currently the section looks like an unstructured mess full of repeated abuses and one-sided accusations that have little to nothing to do with the topic. AveTory (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to explain to you on the talk page, doing analysis of literary works yourself is considered WP:original research in Wikipedia and should be avoided. Also calling certain university researchers with Ukrainian roots nationalists does not mean you can disregard their research and decide to do all the research of writer's works yourself. Also, using hate speech/derogatory term to describe others, e.g., seemingly calling all Ukrainians nationalists, or calling Ukraine "post-Soviet Ukraine" is not exactly friendly WP behavior.--Piznajko (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, you bringing information / passages that have no direct relation to the topic of the section, is not the way to truly improve the article. I'm referring to your bringing information about Bulgakov's involvement with Ukrainian cultural Renaissance (or more precisely the lack of thereof), which is unrelated to the topic of the section (at least the way you've used it); I've tried explaining it to you, but it seem like you disregarded my comment and keep adding it back.--Piznajko (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm seeing that Piznajko was also procedurally reverted by Sparafucil, which technically could be understood to mean that it's too late to just refer y'all to WP:3O. However, he hasn't participated in the talk page discussion, so I'm not seeing much in the way of consensus and am quite inclined to decline this report and tell y'all to go to WP:3O. (Not doing so right away, but letting y'all know that this seems too far from zero-sum for me to take any other action).

Also, @AveTory: read this until you get why I'm telling you to read it.

And @Piznajko and AveTory: this isn't a content dispute board, this is a procedural board. If y'all wanna get into content, I'm seeing possible OR and NPOV issues on both sides. I would like to believe that if y'all were to earnestly try to write from the other user's perspective, y'all might arrive at something mutually agreeable version. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I just would like to notice that Piznajko already made three reverts on the same page, after being reported here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

If User:Piznajko has continued to revert the Bulgakov article while this report was open (i.e. since 13:38 on 20 March), it suggests indifference to violations of our policy. He also appears to be engaged in a nationalist dispute, which falls under WP:ARBEE. I recommend a block of Piznajko for edit warring unless they will reply here and agree to take a break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add that per my TP analysis (sorry if I miscounted, long discussion and multiple sections also outside the open RfC) - it is Piznajko vs. 5 other editors.Icewhiz (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, please don't misinform the community. Per RfC, it is three editors supporting my version of the section (piznajko, Sparafucil (with reservations and request to improve grammar/style) and Mykola Swarnyk) and four against it (AveTory, Icewhiz, Markbassett, and My very best wishes). Also @EdJohnston: / @Ian.thomson:}, per EdJohnston's comment: I have the highest respect of WP policies and strvie to follow them; can you be more specific when you claim that "indifference to violating of our policies"?; e.g., I didn't break 3RR rule, as I've only reverted the page version 3 times in the last 24 hours - not 4. Also, the reason I reverted, is because the user 'My very best wishes' came and deleted the section in its entirety - which in my view is a violation of WP most basic principles such as Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (I have many issues with AveTory's version of the section, but between AveTory's non-ideal version and non at all - I would choose AveTory's version). ps. @EdJohnston, on what bases are you claiming that I'm engaged in a nationalist dispute? --Piznajko (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piznajko: Running up to 3 reverts every 24 hours after a report is filed is edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. You've been reverted by AveTory, My very best wishes, and IceWhiz, who have been discussing matters with you. No one has restored your edits. That's a clear indication you should have stopped a while ago. You need to either promise to stop editing the article with regard to this topic (and let other people carry out edits that receive consensus on the talk page) or you will be blocked for edit warring. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Thanks for clarification. Okay, I'll stop reverting - but I openly express my unhappiness with user 'My very best wishes' just blankly deleting all the work done by other editors (including AveTory), which I see as a violation of Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary.--Piznajko (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say just "stop reverting," I said "stop editing the article with regard to this topic." You're still free to suggest edits relating to the topic on that article's talk page, you're still free to edit unrelated parts of the page, but your prior interpretation of edit warring leaves me wary of the prospect of you adding "new" material on the topic and claiming it's not a revert. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I apologize - I was editing based on the earlier version of your comment, where you said "you need to stop reverting or be blocked". . Anyways, yes I'll stop editing the article.--Piznajko (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:124.253.234.122 reported by User:Natureium (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Reverted someone else
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831863907 by Natureium (talk) Don't act god."
   2. 15:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831864325 by Natureium (talk) I am going to add relevant links. Meanwhile please disclose if you work for CIA"
3. 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831863322 by Natureium (talk) Why are you choosing only Western sources? Don't act so innocent."
4. 15:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "it's vital that in an encyclopedia, words such as "evidence" aren't used loosely. this is a wikipedia article, not boris johnson's loaded speech."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. (TW)"
2. 15:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. (TW)"
3. 15:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This article is linked to from the Main Page. And they accused me of working for the CIA because I demanded sources. I haven't reverted the disruptive editing that currently stands, because I don't want to violate 3RR. Natureium (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 reported by User:Crook1 (Result: Declined)

Page: Italian submarine Tembien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) BaoBabbo49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RegiaMarina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Special:Contributions/93.144.170.9 Special:Contributions/193.206.177.144 Special:Contributions/93.65.5.225 Special:Contributions/2.35.55.62 Special:Contributions/2.35.52.252

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
A clone of User:Olonia. Second report on the same IP. Vandalism and personal attacks. Why wasn't this IP blocked? A sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olonia) was filed recently because of Olonia's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block.

Since User:Olonia was blocked, I ask all associated IP addresses to be blocked too.Crook1 (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Declined Crook1, this board isn't WP:SPI so please don't open reports about block evasion here. Open a new SPI report or approach the admin who closed the previous one. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BaoBabbo49 reported by User:Crook1 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Italian destroyer Espero (1927) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BaoBabbo49 (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. 07:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:
A clone of User:Olonia. Edited the same page after being banned from his work/study IP. A sockpuppet investigation (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Olonia) was filed recently because of Olonia's suspected use of IP accounts to keep on his edit warring while evading his (then 24-hour) block.

Since User:Olonia was blocked, I ask all current reincarnation and all associated IP addresses to be blocked too.Crook1 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely @Crook1: See below NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bsems reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bsems (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 22:22, February 25, 2018, 17:38, February 26, 2018, 18:42, March 4, 2018, 20:18, March 5, 2018, 03:11, March 11, 2018, 02:48, March 17, 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:59, March 6, 2018 First revert back to edit from 20:18, March 5, 2018
2. 05:51, March 17, 2018 After a period of not editing the article Bsems edited the article back on 02:48, March 17, 2018 to their version.
3. 16:30, March 18, 2018
4. 08:14, March 20, 2018
5. 01:40, March 22, 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:26, March 13, 2018 Last stable version before Bsems began to revisit page and keep reverting to the edit from 02:48, March 17, 2018 they made. Editor Msalmon reverted page back to last stable version on 05:51, March 17, 2018 which Bsems reverted Msalmon's edit back on 16:30, March 18, 2018 (link #3 above), Editor Spanneraol reverted page back to last stable edit on 16:30, March 18, 2018 then Bsems reverted Spanneraol's edit on 08:14, March 20, 2018 (link #4 above), Spanneraol again reverted the page back to last stable edit on 08:14, March 20 and Bsems again reverted on 01:40 March 22 (link #5 above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion on order of 3rd/4th place contestants known as Jury Order Active editors of Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) discussed the issue that Bsems keeps currently reverting and all editors involved minus Bsems seemed to have agreed on a consensus. The last reply to the discussion was on March 1, 2018. Bsems only made one reply to the discussion on the talk page but didn't sign their name.

Comments:
Judging by edit patterns for Bsems the editor will make an edit on a few pages then come back a day or two later. This is evident by the reverts on March 18, March 20 and March 22 which "technically" allows the editor to be in compliance with WP:3RR however looking at Bsems' User Controbutions and the Reversion history for Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) clearly shows the editor is involved in edit warring instead of trying to have a proactive discussion on the talk page to support their views on the controversial edits in question. User was warned on February 26th about disruptive editing then a sock puppet case was opened on February 27th. Based on edit patterns Bsems in regards to this article it seems the editor will keep reverting the established consensus. I'm not entirely sure where to take this but here according to policy seems the best place. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:BrightR reported by User:Doniago (Result: Warned)

Page: 12 Monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BrightR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [130]
2. [131]
3. [132]
4. [133]
5. [134]
6. [135]
7. [136]
8. [137]
9. [138]
10. [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:

Not sure what to say here. BrightR inserted refs into the Plot summary for the film, and multiple editors have reverted them feeling they were unnecessary. BrightR started a discussion at the article's Talk page, but then seems to have dismissed every argument raised aagainst their edits and an evident lack of consensus in favor of them. They even went to the point of starting an RfC on the matter, one which not only isn't providing the consensus they're apparently hoping for, but which they keep attempting to clarify in the apparent hope of ultimately changing peoples' minds on the subject. I hoped starting a discussion with them on their Talk page asking them to at least hold off ontil they had a visible consensus would prevent this filing from occurring, but they seem to have decided that they don't really care what anyone else thinks at this point. DonIago (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@BrightR: you are incontrovertibly edit warring on that article. You have also been here a long time and have never been blocked before. Do you undertake to stop edit warring and not make that edit until it is supported by consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:BrightR is warned they may be blocked if they revert again at 12 Monkeys without getting a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. The diffs provided don't show a 3RR violation but they do show a pattern of long-term warring that has been going on since last July. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Lengthy response. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
​ As anticipated, I was warned and may be subsequently blocked because an article owner reverts edits with "not needed" and claims local consensus: 1. Local consensus does not override policies and guidelines: Local consensus Where there is a global consensus to edit in a certain way, it should be respected and cannot be overruled by a local consensus. However, on subjects where there is no global consensus, a local consensus should be taken into account. Wikipedia Arbitration Committee · Levels of consensus Local consensus Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Wikipedia · Consensus § Levels of consensus 2. "not needed" is WP:OWNBEHAVIOR: An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version. The version with priority is the version that's supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, the one that reflect a high level of community-wide consensus which local consensus does not override. 3. In this particular case, a policy and a guideline support the edit: A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Wikipedia · No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources Sourcing and quotations The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible, as this helps discourage original research. If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:QUOTE. Sometimes a work will be summarized by secondary sources, which can be used for sourcing. Otherwise, using brief quotation citations from the primary work can be helpful to source key or complex plot points. Wikipedia Manual of Style · Writing about fiction § Sourcing and quotation Admins, by warning or blocking the party that's striving to improve Wikipedia in accordance to its policies and guidelines, while giving an implicit (or rather explicit) go-ahead to the parties that use "local consensus" and ownership behavior to override Wikipedia policies and create consensus-by-mob, you are acting against Arbitration Committee decisions and Wikipedia policies. You are contributing to the general decay of Wikipedia into mob rule.

While I will not restore the edit, note that it is correct, beneficial, and in accordance to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while the reason and method it was removed is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Bright☀ 09:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User:AldezD reported by User:Udar55 (Result: No action)

Page: Tattletales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AldezD (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. 16:01, 21 March 2018‎ (UTC) - I re-add information user decided on their own had no merit
2. 16:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC) - First revision by user
3. 19:18, 21 March 2018‎ (UTC) - Second revision by user
4. 12:43, 22 March 2018‎ (UTC) - Third revision by user

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

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

Comments:
User unilaterally decided in February 2018 to delete info that was removed in November 2017 and reverted by ClueBot NG as vandalism. Information was re-added by me yesterday and user almost immediately reverted it. When I reverted it twice, user took it upon themselves to revert it two more times, thus violating the 3RR rules. User has offered a litany of reasons for why this information should not be on there (first it did not meet guidelines, then it wasn't sourced, then the source wasn't good enough), always changing it when I ask them to show me a specific regulation forbidding this information. Essentially trying to drown me out in Wiki regulations. I left a message asking them not to revert a third time in order to not violate the 3RR rule in 24 hours and they did it anyway. Please resolve. Udar55 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute. User continues to add WP:LISTCRUFT material that does not meet WP:EPISODE, WP:GNG and WP:V and violates WP:NOTDIR. User does not engage in debate nor cite community guidelines arguing for inclusion; he merely states he does not agree, then re-adds the listcruft content. See Talk:Tattletales#Episode lists.

Content user is arguing for inclusion is merely a list of celebrity guests on a daily television program.

Additional strong precedent to remove listcruft game show episode content based upon the following discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? UK episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hollywood Game Night episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The X Factor (UK) episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal Special shows
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Deal or No Deal (U.S. game show) episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Figure It Out episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of My Family's Got Guts episodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BrainSurge episodes

AldezD (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

User is blurring lines with this info; all examples given were for individual pages of game show episodes. The content in question is on the actual page. Udar55 (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Both of the warring parties are at three reverts. Any more could be blockable. Please use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick result. However, I am not at three reverts, only two. Glad to see that the user reported can clearly violate policy (three reverts in 24 hours) and nothing will be done. Udar55 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I undid an edit by a IP user who re-added the content along with a threat in the edit summary ("Don't revert back desgraciado! If you revert back, I'll kill you AldezD!!!") and who also blanked the talk page section. Can an admin do an IP check based upon the edit?

I'm prepared to continue discussion on the article talk page. However, @Udar55, you still have not addressed the WP guidelines presented in the discussion and have not provided an argument for including the list other than you don't agree and the content is "not hurting anyone". AldezD (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You both should consider using the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. It's better to do that than to get blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:100.11.107.157 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

Judith P. Hallett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "How many times do I have to make my position clear to you? This section is bad practice and does not belong in this entry. It was not created by the principal authors of the entry and was added by someone else with ill intention. Please remove it permanently."
2. 22:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "I have already explained why I removed this section. If it continues to appear, after I have fully explained why it is bad practice, mean-spirited, and unjust for a teacher and scholar of international distinction and professional integrity, then we will request that the entire entry be removed."
3. 22:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "I just wrote to explain fully the reason I removed this "Controversies" section. Please, this section is completely inappropriate and unjust to an internationally regarded teacher and scholar. Whoever added this section does not understand the good intentions and positive spirit of the WCC UK team who created and published the rest of the entry. Please, understand why I am removing this section. It is unkind, unfair, and mean-spirited."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Judith P. Hallett. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Doesn't appear this user will stop. Kirbanzo (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• Holding. The IP has not reverted after being warned about 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Warned Looks okay right now; any more reverts may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Stevendrowe reported by User:KATMAKROFAN (Result: Editor has stopped)

Page

American Academy of Health Behavior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "Another attempt at making some basic changes to this entry."
2. 22:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "2nd attempt at publishing this article"
3. 21:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "Update by SDR from EG on 21 Mar 2018."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Obvious COI is obvious. lo prenu .katmakrofan. (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, copyvio. [142] General Ization ^Talk 22:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Stevendrowe, I strongly suggest you use the article's talk page to request changes to the article because of your conflict of interest. Will you do that? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Stevendrowe has stopped editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User:M 31 340 2 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocks per SPI)

Page

AEK B.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

M 31 340 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832067710 by IdreamofJeanie (talk)"
2. 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832049086 by Dr.K. (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 10:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC) to 10:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 831984700 by Dr.K. (talk)"
   2. 10:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Depth chart */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 14:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC) to 18:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Performance in European and Worldwide competitions */"
   2. 18:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC) to 23:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 23:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Current roster */"
   2. 23:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Domestic competitions */"
   3. 23:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Relegation, dissolution and fresh new start: The Makis Angelopoulos era */ Alexandros Alexiou"
   4. 23:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Season-by-season */"
6. 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Ownership and Current Board */ Kakiouzis leaves AEK"
7. 23:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Current roster */"
8. 23:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Page semi-protected AEK B.C.. (TW★TW)"
2. 17:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on AEK B.C.. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Block-evading, LTA sock. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marios2134454 and my ANI report. Dr. K. 17:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural close - SPI is the appropriate venue. This (understandably, it has to be said) is essentially forum shopping. Admins, please go to SPI block these smelly socks! ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Misguided comment. This is definitely not forum shopping. Please read my ANI report for the reasons I asked for help outside SPI. Dr. K. 19:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:ApM12 and User:M 31 340 2 were both blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Marios2134454. Let me know if any pages ought to be semiprotected. (I notice that several AEK-related pages already are). EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Ed. Take care. Dr. K. 19:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Acdcguy1991 reported by User:MaxBrowne (Result: Blocked)

Page: AC/DC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Acdcguy1991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]
5. [148]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149] [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Twice invited to discuss on article Talk page. [151] [152] MaxBrowne (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

MaxBrowne is being a hypocrite by targeting my post but continuing to uphold another rumored based news article on the AC/DC page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acdcguy1991 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I was trying to be nice about it, but you continued edit warring instead of going to the talk page. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - User:Acdcguy1991 has made yet another reversion without discussion or use of edit summaries here: [153]. There doesn't appear to be any discussion on the talk page, so I've started it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48h. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Annabanana11 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Semi)

Page

Elena Satine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Annabanana11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Satine&diff=832098322&oldid=832079967
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Satine&diff=prev&oldid=832065215

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Satine&diff=prev&oldid=831999379

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Satine&diff=prev&oldid=831998119

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1700:E201:8240:51DD:D92A:BFB5:AD75&oldid=832079626
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1700:E201:8240:B425:3605:584F:6190&oldid=832079787
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2605:E000:8485:6700:F0AD:E108:D508:28C7&oldid=832079763
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2600:1700:E201:8240:A109:7257:6980:AB64&oldid=832079737
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elena_Satine&diff=prev&oldid=832079967

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elena_Satine&diff=832103801&oldid=832101520

Comments:

This editor has reverted edits in this article four times today, using three different IPs. They have made other reverts previously, with other IPs. The edit summaries make it obvious that these are all the same editor, who has created this account, Annabanana11. — TAnthony^Talk 21:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page indefinitely semiprotected due to WP:BLP concerns. An editor called User:Elenasatine claims to be the subject, and she she has described 'Elena Skirtladze' as a fake name. For example, she removes the name here but accepts being called Georgian-American. The continued IP revert war is not acceptable. The history shows there has been an edit war about her birth name and nationality that's been going since at least 2010. The article talk page shows some poor-quality though sincere arguments (appeals to personal knowledge, for example). Use WP:DRN or WP:BLPN if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Treble Chart reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Talk:Jacob (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Treble Chart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832325058 by IdreamofJeanie (talk)"
2. 08:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832324920 by IdreamofJeanie (talk)"
3. 08:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832324881 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
4. 08:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832324148 by SA 13 Bro (talk)"
5. 08:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832323994 by IdreamofJeanie (talk)"
6. 08:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832323906 by IdreamofJeanie (talk)"
7. 08:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832323529 by SA 13 Bro (talk)"
8. 08:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832323372 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
9. 08:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832323260 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
10. 08:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832323062 by SA 13 Bro (talk)"
11. 07:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832322759 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
12. 07:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832322616 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
13. 07:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832322484 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
14. 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832321991 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
15. Consecutive edits made from 07:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 07:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832321691 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    2. 07:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC) ""
16. Consecutive edits made from 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832321643 by Tgeorgescu (talk)"
    2. 07:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC) ""
17. Consecutive edits made from 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC) to 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    1. 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "←Replaced content with 'Tom Lock'"
    2. 07:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Talk:Jacob. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Clearly NOTHERE. Numerous warnings –Ammarpad (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this user is a vandalism-only account, see this report, now blocked. SA 13 Bro (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I just saw it after I have already submitted this report. Thanks. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely From WP:AIV NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Cpurcellartwork reported by User:Kohoutek1138 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page: Whitewashing in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cpurcellartwork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [155]
2. [156]
3. [157]
4. [158]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [159]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [160]

Comments:

Editor has already engaged in disruptive editing, pushing their POV without merit. They will be blocked shortly, as they have been reported to AIV after incurring multiple warnings. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:26, 24 March 2018 (UTC) I have never, and never intend to engage in 'disruptive editing', and have not 'pushed my POV' at any point. I modified the "Whitewashing in film" page by correcting the terminology used throughout, and reverted changes that use incorrect, bias and hypocritical terminology. If you are describing someone based on skin color, logically you should describe others based on skin color. If you are describing someone based on ethnic heritage and country of origin, you should describe others based on the same principal. For instance, the terms "black" and "white" could be used concurrently, and the terms "African-American" and "European-American" could be used together, but you should not call someone "black" and someone else "European-American", nor should you call someone white while referring to someone else as "African-American". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.249.243 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely From WP:UAA NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Geographyinitiative reported by User:Seraphimblade (Result: Geographyinitiative warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [167]

Comments:

This editor has been edit warring for some time in regards to the iconic image of Washington crossing the Delaware, insisting in various ways that the article must either not include the image or must include the editor's own OR. While talk page consensus has been strongly against either one, the editor has continued to make reverts, and has indicated in their edit summaries that they intend to continue doing so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that what I did constitutes edit warring- if it does, then I don;t object to banning me. Whether the painting is iconic or not, it contains blatantly anachronistic content- content that not one of the people in favor of keeping the painting believes isn't anachronistic. All I'm saying is that the painting shouldn't be included in a section describing the facts of military history without a note about the historical inaccuracy of the painting. Ahistorical painting is ahistorical, regardless of how iconic it is (and I know it is iconic). I think it should probably be moved to a section about culturally significant depictions of Washington. I'm just one person advocating for making a clear dividing line between truth and myth on Wikipedia. I love wikipedia. If in the end I don't win out, at least I stood on the side of presenting only history in the history section and/or trying to give readers a critical perspective on the Washington mythologizing that they have been exposed to from cradle to grave. Thanks for your work here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Geographyinitiative warned that further reverts without getting consensus on the talk page may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:67.188.179.66 reported by User:O1lI0 (Result: Page protected)

Page

Tashi Dondrup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [168] ""
2. [169] "Not reliable source"
3. [170] ""
4. [171] "Unreliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchUser=67.188.179.66

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:67.188.179.66&oldid=830335690 O1lI0 (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:LebaneseBebe reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Phoenicia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LebaneseBebe (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. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]
5. [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:LebaneseBebe is currently edit warring on Phoenicia and Madrasa. Madrasa edit warring:
1.[178]
2.[179]
3.[180]

And judging from the comments made by LebaneseBebe on article and user talk pages, I am not convinced this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I also suspect that Batanat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is also edit warring on the Phoenicia article, might be the IP that reverted LebaneseBebe.[181] --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Edit warring and personal attacks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies if I edit-warred on Phoenicia; I believe I only reverted LebaneseBebe twice, in response to unnecessary and seemingly WP:BIAS and WP:FRINGE reverts on their part. Batanat (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:999912345K reported by User:Waddie96 (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

Kumanovo Agreement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

999912345K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism, blatant POV and restoring sources."
2. 09:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism and restoring sourced content."
3. Consecutive edits made from 08:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC) to 08:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 08:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832476602 by Waddie96 (talk)Restoring content per sources."
   2. 08:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism, again."
5. 20:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverting vandalism, again."
6. 16:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832366316 by Hakuli (talk) Reverting vandalism."
7. 14:21, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Again, infobox is full of mistakes and Albanians were not signatories of the agreement."
8. 14:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Again, infobox is full of mistakes and Albanians were not signatories of the agreement."
9. 13:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Albanians were not signatories of the agreement."
10. 13:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC) "Albanians were not signatories of the agreement."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
2. 09:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kumanovo Agreement. (TW)"
3. 10:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Kosovo Agreement */ new section"
4. 10:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Kosovo Agreement */"
5. 10:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Kumanovo Agreement */"
6. 10:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• possible sock case / block evasion of User:Kerkkk Berkkk _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jake Brockman: Please consider leaving a comment at the Sockpuppet investigation claim then. Thanks -- Waddie96 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Per SPI NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Dimadick reported by User:2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6 (Result: Filer blocked for evasion)

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

Previous version reverted to: [182]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [183]
2. [184]
3. [185]
4. [186]

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

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

Comments:

Dimadick's edit added uncited personal information, and possibly undue material over the arrest --but not conviction-- of a relatively unknown figure, contrary to BLPCRIME. --Mike

The anonymous user has blanked articles like Anne Heche, Tia Carrere, Fiona Apple, and Tom Wopat, citing supposed BLP violations. He/she is actually deleting sources. And Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLPCRIM applies only "to individuals who are not public figures". Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• One. Not anyonymous, my name's Mike, as I signed.
• Two. No blanking of articles, just some overly detailed, undue, poorly sourced, or non-BLP-compliant material.
• Three. In cases of doubt, (eg. the "well-knownness" of an actor, how relevant info is, etc.) on a BLP it is important to leave material out while under consideration. Be conservative.
• Four. I notice you blindly reverted without giving reasons. --Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:781C:A200:34B4:81EA:E4EA:3AA6 (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Every single thing this guy does is reverted three times in each article he edits in. They keep removing any mention of anyone's arrest, even when there are reliable sources covering it, and in one case I personally just reverted when the person has already pleaded guilty to a crime. Dream Focus 16:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• The IP's editing style has a strong resemblance to the recently blocked editor, Hillbillyholiday --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP blocked one month for evasion. Last September User:Hillbillyholiday boldly declared he had no attention of obeying his editing restriction, and here we are again with reverts to multiple BLPs. (Hillbillyholiday was blocked one year on 20 March for "violation of community editing restriction almost immediately after returning to editing"). On the Tom Wopat dispute, WP:WELLKNOWN applies, but see Talk:Tom Wopat#Arrest for a suggestion on how to improve the wording about this event. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ed. I was pretty sure about the socking but wanted a second opinion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:2A02:C7F:1408:E600:599D:6C71:4B14:672C reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Scott Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2A02:C7F:1408:E600:599D:6C71:4B14:672C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832596581 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
2. 22:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "My edit WAS the neutral revision of objective Wiki info. Regardless of the deleted info being sourced or not, can you please acknowledge the painfully obvious fact that the deleted info was 150 billion percent placed their by insecure trolls with an obvious vandalism agenda? Just look at any previous edit in the history which has the word "reverted" next to it. It was all rightfully reverted because of obvious trolling. I don't intend to start any type of "war". So come on Wiki mods, for once be on the side of actual neutral objectivity/actual NORMAL people."
3. 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832595216 by Kirbanzo (talk) this is objectively one-sided troll NONSENSE. Hence why "internet fanboy favorite" writers and actors don't have any negative references attached to their own Wiki pages despite having similar negative reception. DO NOT revert."
4. 22:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "take your laughably pathetic, biased butthurt troll atttempts elsewhere, loser nerds."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Scott Buck. (TW)"
2. 22:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Scott Buck. (TW)"
3. 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Scott Buck. (TW)"
4. 22:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Scott Buck. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No resolution taken due to IP being a vandal. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:The1truesushiboy reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)

Page: Haphephobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The1truesushiboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here or so

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 20:32, 13 March 2018 as IP 2604:6000:a882:5500:5414:9215:68b9:4217
2. diff 17:46, 26 March 2018 as IP 2604:6000:a882:5500:e5bf:9d2e:9e7c:8095
3. diff 17:59, 26 March 2018 as IP 2604:6000:a882:5500:e5bf:9d2e:9e7c:8095

   article protected at my request in this diff

4. diff 20:19, 26 March 2018 as The1truesushiboy
5. diff 21:56, 26 March 2018 as The1truesushiboy
6. diff 00:02, 27 March 2018 as The1truesushiboy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see User_talk:The1truesushiboy#References and Talk:Haphephobia#symptoms

Comments:

Straight up edit war with her and me. They do not understand that we need MEDRS sources and just keep forcing garbage sources in. argh. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's not an edit war. I have been trying to add information that needs to be on the page. And, to that end, I have changed both the wording and the sources for that information, several times, so as to best comply with the standards used on Wikipedia. I'm not simply going back and redoing the same edit; I'm trying to work toward providing the information in a way that is tenable to the guidelines. And, at this point, I have done that, yet user Jytdog is engaging in belligerent arguing, and reverting the edit regardless of pertinence, usefulness, wording, or citation. Additionally, I have provided probably one of the best sources that is achievable on the information provided, the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, which is a reputable source of information for the information cited. At this point, Jytdog is easily far more guilty of "edit warring", based on their own repeated reverts which are now being made regardless of sources, information, or wording. I am actively trying to improve the page with information that should be on the page, because that information serves to better educate those who would read the article on what the condition entails. That is my goal, and at this point, it seems evident that they are bent only on winning whatever "edit war" they think is going on than on improving the article itself. The1truesushiboy (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• last two edits by them (one above and one subsequent) violated copyright and I have requested revdel. I am sympathetic to people with conditions but a) ADAA is not a major medical/scientific body, b) the source was not about this condition; and c) we cannot copy/paste out of sources. Its not about winning, its about building a high quality encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Last edit did not violate copyright, as it includes altered wording, as well as the fact that symptoms are not copyrightable, and facts aren't either. Wording may be, but a straightforward list of symptoms is not so much. Even so, parts of it were changed, and if more needs to be changed, then let those parts be changed, rather than remove them entirely. And A.) The ADAA is an organization that contributes to scientific research, and is run, in part, by a scientific advisory board and clinical advisory board, making it a scientific organization. Being a non-profit organization and a scientific organization are not mutually exclusive entities. The description provided for medical and scientific organization in Wikipedia's guidelines on reputable sources indicated that the ADAA does count as a reputable source, B.) The source was about symptoms that those with the the condition may suffer from, which is important information to have on the article, and given that it is not a condition for which other publication of its symptoms in specific context exist that are not discounted by the criteria for citable sources, the stress and anxiety symptoms of specific phobias, as a whole, is the best source of this information that is made possible, and remains important to the article, and C.) It was not, in its entirety copied and pasted, and if it needs rewording, then, by all means, reword it, but don't remove it. And the entire purpose of adding this information is to make Wikipedia a high-quality encyclopedia, i.e. one with information on the topic people look up, that will help people learn about it. The only thing I am trying to do here is make the article on this condition enlightening. But you seem bent on making it a dictionary description with nothing of medical value. Which, if that's what the page is going to end up as, means it doesn't need to exist in the first place, because it is not going to provide people looking for information on the condition with anything more useful than a wiktionary page would. If this were about making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, the information would be there to inform people of what the condition entails. The1truesushiboy (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. A simple list of terms is not a copyright violation. Jytdog, you should know better than to edit war simply to resolve a dispute. The1truesushiboy, please discuss this further with Jytdog on the talk page of the article. In the future if you are reverted and you feel you are "right", take it to the talk page. There is zero reason for being blocked trying to get information on the page. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Bloodybrilliantmusic reported by User:Kohoutek1138 (Result: blocked indef)

Page: Whitewashing in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Bloodybrilliantmusic]

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

Comments:
I believe that User:Bloodybrilliantmusic is probably a new account for User:Cpurcellartwork, who was reported and banned last week by Ronhjones  ^(Talk) for these exact same sort of Original Research additions and edit warring on the "Whitewashing in film" page. See Cpurcellartwork's talk page here and my previous report for edit warring, here [191]). Hopefully the administrators can look into this and, if it is indeed the same user up to his old tricks, or a new user who is simply edit warring with some kind of agenda, you can bring the situation to a resolution. Many thanks. Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

NB - the reported user deleted this entire thread as seen here - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Bloodybrilliantmusic (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC) Your 'belief' does not comply with a neutral point of view. I have not engaged in any 'edit warring'; if you consider my edits to be 'edit warring' then you must acknowledge the fact that a 'war' is comprised of at least two sides (it takes 2 to tango) and thereby you implicate yourself as a participant in the 'edit war' - if my account is blocked due to this Kohoutek1138 should receive the same penalty.

• Blocked indefinitely SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Factfindingmission reported by User:Springee (Result: Warned)

Page: Smith_&_Wesson 
User being reported: Factfindingmission (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: As an IP address First add of material (not a revert) [192]

1. [193] Note accusations in edit comments - this continues in later edits
2. [194]
3. [195]
4. [196]

Page was protected at this point

As a logged in editor

1. [197]

Editor blocked 1 week at this point for abusing multiple accounts.

1. [198]First restoration after block and first of 4 in 24 hours.
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Editor was returning from block for same edits.

Notice on editor talk page: [[202]]

Comments:

• Warned. I am watching the page and will consider future events to be block-worthy. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Koranion reported by User:Heliotom (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Koranion (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 15:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC) to 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "fixes"
   2. 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "+attack"
2. 15:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "fixes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of terrorist incidents in March 2018. (TW)"
2. 14:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 . (TW)"
3. 14:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 14:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Comments:

User repeatedly adds unsourced attributions of terrorist attacks. There are sources that do not specify the perpetrators. When these are removed he makes reversions along with other additions to mask the reversions. Has made no response at dialogue on article talk page or on his own. Heliotom (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned This series of articles are a magnet for disruptive and poorly sourced edits. So much so that I've had to add an editnotice, Per Wikipedia's no original research policy sources should clearly ascribe events to "violent non-state actors for political, religious, or ideological motives" like ISIL or directly call the event terrorism or suspected terrorism on quite a few of them (thanks to EvergreenFir for highlighting the problems in this area). @Koranion and Heliotom: Please read the preceding and edit accordingly. A lot of the content also falls under WP:GS/SCW&ISIL so also please keep that in mind. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Heliotom reported by User:Koranion (Result: Warned user(s))

Page

List of terrorist incidents in March 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832712007 by Koranion (talk)"
2. 14:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC) "It says militant organisation, not ISIL."
3. 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Adding unknown"
4. 18:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 832060125 by Heliotom (talk): Last clean sourced version. Attacks should not be attributed to groups without a reliable source. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

- removes sourced content (perpetrators) - does not know that Naxalites are members of the CPI (Maioist) => terror organisation - reverting to older versions without correcting the errors - not able to translate arabic sources / does not read the complete text - (often) removes the whole edits (instead of fixing)

Point one: I restored that removal immediately Point two: the issue isn’t whether these organizations are terrorist, it’s you’re UN sourced attributions Point three: when you have made edit after edit of unsourced reversions mixed with new additions it’s hard to clean up without going back to an older version, which is precise;y why you edit in this way Point four: my Arabic is admittedly limited, I have only edited one with an Arabic source and have left it once you pointed out the error point five: see point three

You have made no attempt to discuss this despite my reaching out to you across multiple talk pages, including your own, though I note you recently chose to delete an range of warnings and requests to stop this unsourced editing behaviors. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koranion&diff=832087197&oldid=832060285 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 17:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned See above NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:CaptainPrimo (Result: No violation)

Page: Isle of Dogs (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheOldJacobite (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. [203]
2. [204]
3. [205]
4. [206]

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

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

Comments: Multiple people have removed content backed up by links to tweets by random users. This user keeps readding the content reverting the edits of multiple users. CaptainPrimo (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

CaptainPrimo's version of events is flawed, as can be seen by anyone who looks at the article's edit history. The white savior narrative link was added to the see also section by an anonymous editor on March 26. On March 27, I reverted a series of unhelpful edits, which included removing the link from the see also section as well as smaller section regarding the controversy over accusations that the film is an example of cultural appropriation. The second edit on March 27 was to the cast section and is irrelevant to this discussion. My third edit on the 27th was reverting GrossesWasser, who removed the cultural appropriation section and the see also link with no explanation. My fourth edit was again reverting the deletion of the see also link. The link has since been deleted again, but there is now a post on the talk page explaining the reasoning. So, yes, I made four edits in just over 24 hours, one of which was irrelevant. Two edits were to restore content that was removed without an adequate reason. The latter, to my mind, is simple vandalism patrolling. Again, the version of events offered by Captain Primo is dubious, at best, and the claim of content backed by tweets is simply untrue. It should be noted that this is the same dubious logic he offered when he deleted the cultural appropriation section again. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 12:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Declined @TheOldJacobite: When you have a high traffic article, and you have to clean up questionable edits while continuing to reach consensus on the talk page, I can allow a bit of give and take. I certainly wouldn't take any sanctions just by you reaching the letter of 3RR but not the spirit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Ritchie333. I know I skirted the edge here, which I will avoid in future, but I did feel the reverts were necessary and justified. It seems to me that consensus was reached pretty quickly on the talk page, which helps. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Lptx reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page

Arabic numerals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "sock puppetry"
2. 22:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Sock puppetry!!! I have not removed your fucking sources!!! Simply leave your concern on talk page!!!"
3. 22:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Removing incorrect information which is baised and unsourced or taken from redundant or unverified sources which do not stand any scrutiny and hence lack neutrality. POV concerns."
4. 21:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Disruptive edit. No response on talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Arabic numerals. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Lptx was editing against consensus on the talk page. _{Vermont | reply here} 01:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Three IP editors reported by User:220.253.123.249 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Roy Wang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 27.247.70.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 58.96.106.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 139.195.213.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [207]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [208]
2. [209]
3. [210]
4. [211]

Many other edit warring on the page itself.

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

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

Comments:

• Page protected NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:38.122.227.253 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: Vassar College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 38.122.227.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [212]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [213]
2. [214]
3. [215]
4. [216]
5. [217]

...and several other identical edits going back to at least June 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [219]

Comments:
It may also be necessary to semi-protect the article as it appears that this editor has also used other IP addresses, too e.g., 68.173.106.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ElKevbo (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week For disruptive editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:MapReader reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Not blocked - use dispute resolution)

Page

The Crown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832558920 by Drmargi (talk) Restore WP:Commonality edits made this morning. Further revert by Drmargj would breach 3RR."
2. 18:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832557525 by Drmargi (talk) No - first use was British, longstanding mix. WP:Commonality is preferable to your edit warring"
3. 16:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "/* Season 2 (2017) */Wp: commonality. Reverting editor warring unnecessarily."
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) to 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832529708 by 79.169.136.217 (talk)"
   2. 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832523893 by Drmargi (talk) unnecessary, WP:commonality"
5. 05:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832468767 by Drmargi (talk) hence the right thing to do is restore what was there before your recent editing."
6. 05:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC) "rvt inappropriate changes; talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seven reverts in a 24 hour period and no sign that it will stop if the other editor he's warring with (Drmargi) decides to revert again. They've both been going at it for more than a day. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. There has as yet been no breach of 3RR by either party. Your diffs overlook my having raised the matter on the article talk page, and on the other editor's talk page, neither of which she has yet meaningfully engaged with (and on the article page not at all). In summary, this article (concerning a US/UK tv drama co-production about the British monarchy) contained a mix of British and American English usage. To resolve the matter I traced back the edit history and identified that the first post-stub version that introduced an Engvar was early on 7 November 2016, which used British English. Hence I applied the MoS and edited the article into British English. This was opposed by Drmargi who edited the article into American English. I raised the matter on the talk page, and restored the mixed usage version as a compromise. This was rejected by Drmargi who again edited the article into American English. As a further compromise this morning I applied WP:Commonality and edited the disputed wording so that common UK/US terms were used instead. Once again Drmargi edited back into American English, with three reverts so far in the past few hours. In the circumstances I am surprised to find that I, rather than the other editor, am the subject of this report. In any event, administrator assistance to resolve the dispute would be helpful, as I have run out of compromises to offer. MapReader (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone want to explain how "has received critical acclaim for its directing" is American English and "was praised for its direction" is British English? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Those aren't the words at dispute. If they got caught up in today's to-and-fro it will be because Dmargi added them into her mass-edit removing my Commonality changes in favour (/favor) of US English (or more likely, made her mass-revert by returning to an earlier version of the page and the acclaim edit got rowed in by accident). Perhaps she can explain why? The "acclaim" words were added originally by an IP editor (User:79.169.136.217) who spends his/her time adding identical wording into numerous tv and film pages, and there are a number of editors including me who have been restoring the original wordings. As far as UK/US goes it's a red herring (in any event when I removed the IP edit originally, Dmargi suppported the change). MapReader (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that the article has settled down, perhaps this matter is best moved to the disputes page? MapReader (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not blocked NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry reported by User:Saqib (Result: Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry warned)

Page

Shehbaz Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832885781 by Saqib (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) to 15:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 832890574 by Saqib (talk)"
   2. 15:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 15:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 14:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shehbaz Sharif. (TW)"
2. 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Shehbaz Sharif. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie keep adding unsourced material which is sensitive to a BLP on a high profile Pakistani politician, despite two warnings. Saqib (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Hassan Nazeer Chaudhry strongly warned not to add unsourced content to a BLP NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:RobThomas15 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: RobThomas15 warned)

Page: Back to Beautiful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RobThomas15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [220]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [221] no edit summary
2. [222] "There's no reason why this page should be redirected."
3. [223] "Well then, instead of redirecting, why don't you go look for sources?"
4. [224] "Never [going to stop restoring the page]. You're just a big jerk if you don't want the page to be restored."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226]

Comments:

• Warned Two editors have used the talk page, RobThomas15 hasn't. They are warned that any more reverts without gaining consensus may result in a block.--NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC) NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:198.46.126.2 reported by User:Elmidae (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Harpy eagle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.46.126.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [228]
2. [229]
3. [230]
4. [231]
5. [232]
6. [233]
7. [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235],[236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments:
Constant re-insertion of statement based on unsuitable YouTube reference (tape of TV broadcast) combined with clear OR (extrapolation based on unrelated source). I don't quite know how to make it much clearer than with the current edit summaries and notes on both their and the article's talk page. Behaviour actually predates with different IP, but seem to be static on this one for the nonce. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:FriendlyRiverOtter reported by User:Lionelt (Result: Warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

#	Time	Revert	Diff	Previous version
1	10:09	Line 183: changes 51% to 50.7%	[238]
2	10:22	Line 183: rearranges text to put popular vote first	[239]
3	10:36	Line 56: changes "easily won" to "locked up" and removes "landslide"	[240]
4	11:46	Line 183: changes 51% to 50.7%	[241]	FRO was reverted at 10:30
5	11:53	Line 56: changes "easily won" to "locked up"	[242]	FRO was reverted at 10:43
6	11:59	Line 56: removes 90.9%	[243]	90.9% was added at 10:53
7	12:33	Line 56: removes 90.9%	[244]	FRO was reverted at 12:21

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [245]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [246]

Comments:

FriendlyRiverOtter is a tendentious POV pusher. His purpose in this episode of edit warring is to remove "landslide victory" from the article. He attempts to circumvent WP:BRD by starting a discussion and then edit warring. He justifies edit warring by claiming that we're discussing the changes. When in fact, his efforts are being resisted by several editors and he is editing against consensus.

He is attacking the article on multiple fronts to push his POV and obscure his actions. As you can see from the above table of edit warring, he is attacking Lines 56 and 183 to spread out the reverts. He is also using confusing edit summaries.

FRO has been reported for edit warring before just a mere 3 weeks ago [247]. This time we need to send a clear message to this editor that pretending to discuss issues while edit warring is unacceptable. This is not a content dispute. Protecting the page would be a mistake and only embolden this editor.– Lionel^(talk) 01:40, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

---

I invite an administrator to please take a look at the Ronald Reagan edit history and Talk page.

Yes, correct, there was a previous charge of edit warring. The decision by an administrator was 'No violation.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive362#User:FriendlyRiverOtter_reported_by_User:Rja13ww33_(Result:_No_violation)

Earlier today (March 29) on the Wikipedia talk:Featured article review page, I started a topic entitled "article on Ronald Reagan controlled by handful of pro-Reagan partisans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#article_on_Ronald_Reagan_controlled_by_handful_of_pro-Reagan_partisans
Two separate persons inform me that FAR is not a dispute resolution process, which I can accept. I would like to know what is an appropriate dispute resolution process where I might ask for help, for our Ronald Reagan article really is controlled, primarily, by three pro-Reagan partisans. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit by Drdpw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832726042&oldid=832724993
(Reverted good faith edits by FriendlyRiverOtter (talk): Lead with EC as that is what is most important in a US presidential election. (TW))
Even though in two edits, I had included a new source and included what the source states are the accurate numbers for percentages of popular votes, my fellow editor reverted all of it.

Please particularly look at this edit, also by Drdpw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832728821&oldid=832727605
Drdpw added to our lead: "winning 44 of 50 states and receiving 90.9%."
Does this clarify the topic, or is it rather an example of sloganeering and politicking? Now, the source does include in a table that Reagan won 90.9% of electoral votes. But if this is read quickly in our article, people are likely to assume it refers to the popular vote. Percentages in text typically refer to the popular vote. And Reagan certainly didn't win 90.9% of the popular vote (!) (!) (!)

I have strived to remain middle-of-the-road and moderate, I think largely successfully. However, I welcome any constructive criticism of edits I have made. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the edit in which I perhaps most pushed the envelope:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=832738653&oldid=832737619
I do not think excessively. And if it makes a difference, removing the word "easily" from the description of Reagan winning the 1980 Republican nomination seems to have been accepted.

And this is the edit of how I think things should be:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&diff=next&oldid=832738653
If we're going to say Reagan won 44 of 50 states in our lead, we should also say that the popular vote was Reagan 51%, Carter 41%, and the bulk of the balance to Anderson.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Lionel writes: "he is attacking Lines 56 and 183 to spread out the reverts."
I used a reference to edit both the body of our article and our lead.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

+++

On March 19, Drdpw reverted my work on the Legal guardian page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_guardian&diff=831166220&oldid=830747707
A page which he or she has seemingly expressed no previous interest.

I sent Drdpw a message to his or her Talk page asking, are you following me about Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drdpw&diff=prev&oldid=831736016

And once there I saw that Rja13ww33 had previously sent Drdpw a message as follows: "Hi. Hate to bother you but if you could weigh in on the Reagan talk page with this on-going thing with NYCJosh, I'd appreciate it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)"

And Rja13ww33 seems to be the third very active member who "guards" the Ronald Reagan page. This may be our best opportunity to get some help. Yes, the page basically needs some adult supervision for a while.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. It seems unnecessary to issue an edit warring block when FRO has not touched the Ronald Reagan article since 27 March. Even so, User:FriendlyRiverOtter is warned that per WP:POV we expect that people will edit neutrally. Whenever FRO does offer his proposals for review on talk pages there is generally a landslide against him. We do not associate neutral behavior with phrases like "cartel of a handful of pro-Reagan partisans." The Ronald Reagan article is covered by WP:ARBAP2 which sets expectations for editor behavior on modern American politics. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Heliotom reported by User:Keivan.f (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 11:24, 20 March 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:39, 29 March 2018 Reverted good faith edits by Keivan.f (talk): Unexplained change.
2. 12:44, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833121841 by Keivan.f (talk)unexplained
3. 12:47, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833122784 by Keivan.f (talk)there a specific admin note, but fine, go ahead and see who they side with
4. 12:50, 29 March 2018 Undid revision 833123453 by Keivan.f (talk)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: 1

Comments: The edit that I have made to the article is not controversial in nature as the family concerned in this discussion is of American and German ancestry and the information is sourced in the body of the article. I added the same piece of information to the infobox and he reverted and asked for an explanation, which I provided later in my edit summary. He reverted again without a clear reason and started edit warring with me on another article. Eventually I left a message on his talk page and asked him to discuss the issue on the article talk page. He blanked his page, reverted my edit again, called me Idiot and wrote: "fine, go ahead and see who they [administrators] side with". He also reverted my edit one last time without providing an edit summary. I want the administrators to judge and see whether my edits were disruptive or his, and, based on our policies, I really don't think that it's appropriate to insult other users and call them "idiot". It's worthy to mention that he was previously reported for such behavior in the past. Keivan.f^Talk 20:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is all very energetic. Changes or specifications of some thing as fundamental as national background surely need a source. Citing ‘look at the article’ doesn’t cover it.

A technical but Seeing as the suggestion’s been deleted by himself before, -maybe Keivan.F should apply WP:brd before bothering everyone with this nonsense.Heliotom (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide whether it's nonsense or not. The point of the discussion wasn't about nationality, it was about ethnicity, and that his grandparents were German is a fact, based on the sources that we have in numerous articles related to him. By the way, it's not the right place to bring this up. You should have discussed it on the article talk page when you had the chance instead of reverting my edits multiple times. Keivan.f^Talk 00:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I should point out that your claimed attempt at resolution is nothing of the sort, being 1. A warning 2. In the wrong talk page and 3. About a different article.

In both rticles you’ve comprehensively ignored the principle of WP:BRD, even more egregiously on the Family of Donald Trump where it is clearly noted that changes after a reversion must have consensus, and come running to file a report here for edit warring that you initiated.

Still, things seem to have calmed down, and I see you have posted a discussion on at least one of the issues, to which I have replied. Hopefully we can find a common ground that satisfies everyone.

Heliotom (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I warned you about one of the articles on your talk page. What would be the point of another warning when you had already erased the first one? And yes, I opened an RfC as that's the most appropriate way to solve the issue when two users do not agree over the subject. I had engaged in an edit war already and I don't intend to get blocked. Keivan.f^Talk 18:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

User:101.189.113.1 reported by User:Nikki311 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 101.189.113.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]
4. [252]
5. [253]
6. [254]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On going discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources#Kayfabe memories

Comments:
I'm an uninvolved editor but saw this edit war going on in my watchlist. Despite four different users disagreeing with his edits, an on-going talk page discussion, and a 3RR warning, this IP has reverted well above the limit. Nikki♥311 06:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I am reverting vandalism. Talk to the others about proving the source to be unreliable. Until then, the source stays. 101.189.113.1 (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

People disagreeing with you =/= vandalism.★Trekker (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Obviously not vandalism NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)