Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive378

Page

Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ginjuice4445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 23:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Excessive citations. Separate "notes" section reformatted as references, as references for this point should be treated like every other reference in the article"
3. 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866183419 by Ixocactus (talk) The language of this paragraph has changed significantly since the "edit war." There is not consensus for your changes. Sort this out on the Talk page."
4. 20:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866178215 by K.e.coffman (talk) Please provide a reason for this change before undoing it."
5. 16:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Restoring
   WP:NPOV
   to first paragraph"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring again */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ginjuice4445 has resumed their push to change wording in lede to be more flattering to the topic. This is following a previous block for edit warring a few days ago. When I pointed this out, Ginjuice4445 denied that it's edit warring, saying that it's just clean-up.

The article has, coincidentally, become much more active and high-profile since the previous block, as it's connected to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

There are very many posts on the article's talk page about this issue from many editors, including Ginjuice4445. Consensus for these changes has clearly not been reached. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is absurd. Edit 1 adds citations and changes no language. Edit 2 was fixing references.

Edits 3-5 are a content dispute. I reverted no more than three times per

WP:3RR. Ginjuice4445 (talk

) 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit 1 is contrary to the discussion on the talk page, where your interpretation of these sources has been challenged. Further, you had already tried to add those sources earlier today with only slightly modifed wording: [1].

Edit 2 was a continuation of changes you had already tried to make earlier today: [2]. This edit was reverted. Repeating a change in content is edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Edit 1, these are new sources. Last time I checked the definition of a revert was undoing another editor's work. Adding a reference that supports a statement in the article without changing the statement is not a revert.

Regarding Edit 2, this was the end result. If the admins have a problem with that cleanup - someone who took the anti-gab viewpoint decided that there needed to be not one but two separate sections for references in this article - then I'll take a block. Again, not undoing anyone's work.

Regarding 3-5, the language materially changed overnight given events in Pittsburgh to be far more extreme. The first of these edits was accordingly not a "revert" to the edits from 48 hours ago but an attempt to temper the new editors' contributions and bring the lede of the article back to

WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginjuice4445 (talk • contribs

)

Page protected – Five days by User:Mz7. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Jair Bolsonaro (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Coltsfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&oldid=866208775

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866209198&oldid=866208775
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866215036&oldid=866214430
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866215036&oldid=866214430
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866224943&oldid=866223373

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coltsfan&diff=866226554&oldid=866226486 (user removed my warning saying I was trolling)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&action=history

Comments:
User:Coltsfan is clearly on a political activism pushing his biased opinion and trying to censorship Wikipedia. He has been doing a disservice to the article Jair Bolsonaro. Please can someone check his recent contributions there? BDMKK (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Just an FYI: user BDMKK has been blocked indefinitely on his native portuguese wikipedia for trolling, use of proxies, sock puppetry, bias editing and use of Wikipedia for political activism, even to the point of a fellow editor feeling 'harassed'. I stand by what i said that talk pages should be used for discussing the content of the article itself or to talk about subjects related to said article, not for political activism or trolling. Coltsfan (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  BLP violations or other blatant violations of policy, there is no valid reason to repeatedly remove other editors' posts from talk pages. Edit warring like this is disruptive, and is in no way justified by the ad hominem argument above. Bradv

  03:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Again... a article's talk page is a place to discuss the content of said article. Is not a forum, not a blog, nor a place for you to discuss world wide problems or talking about conspiracy theories or anything not related to what's in the article. And as you can see,

WP:TPG. Coltsfan (talk

) 09:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:REFACTOR, If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Bradv

18:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Both
  WP:OWNTALK. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Page

Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866117060 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Still post ing unsourced content without edit summmary after recent block and subsequent warning by blocking admin. Charles (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week by User:AlexiusHoratius. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Page

Battle of Jericho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jimmy everett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

None, but I added a welcome message, explanation of the issues, warnings and a request to use the talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reverted now by 4 editors including myself. No response on his talk page or the article's. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And again just a few minutes ago, still no attempt to discuss.[8] Doug Weller talk 12:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Page: Cleopatra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PericlesofAthens (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866441283
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866438192
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866438910
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866440312 , however this one was not "undone" just edited to remove

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

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

Comments:

Protecting the page for 3 days, Makedonija's hands aren't clean here, they've been reverting/undoing as often. * Page protected Doug Weller talk 12:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

While my hands aren't clean, I at least stopped at 3 whereas this user kept on going (not to mention the user's inflammatory message left on my talk page and outright refusal to engage on the Cleopatra talk pages. I would expect Doug you to at least enforce the rule. Macedonia (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The message was after I protected the page, so I obviously couldn't take it into account. I'd rather not block either an experienced user (you) or a very experienced user, both with clean block records (mistaken blocks don't count) when I can just protect the page. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Page: Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Comments:
Unfortunately, *Treker seems to think that personal attacks in edit summaries and on the talk page are a way to push their edit through. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked
  User:*Treker for 1 week. Unfortunately, this is not the first instance of edit warring and personal attacks.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots}
  23:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Page

2018 Freiburg gang rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866635727 by
   WP:BLPCRIME
   does not apply"
2. 15:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866634971 by NatGertler (talk) This is relevant information about the case; no one is blamed as a person, but information about the suspects are decisive for the reader's understanding; rename the section to "suspects"; above that, he has become public figure by mentioning in the press, even his father gave an interview"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866557127 by
      WP:RS
      decide, what is connected or not, not users"
   2. 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866632438 by NatGertler (talk) Restore section about perp, now the name isn't mentioned anymore"
4. 00:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866542636 by NatGertler (talk) The connection is made by the sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */ new section"

Comments:

User NatGertler is repeatedly trying to remove sourced material about a suspected rapist to deny unwanted information, if someone wants to block me for it, so be it.--Greywin (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I had a look at the page in question, and it would appear that

WP:BLPCRIME into an article about a crime. Simonm223 (talk

) 15:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page: Plenty of sources name him (without surname, which I did't use either), so he is a public figure, not only in my opinion (and a supected gang rapist determined by a DNA probe, who should have thought about if he wants to be a public figure before committing a gang rape on top of that!). But the suspect is not even named anymore in the article. So it doesn't matter, if he is or not. It's relevant information about the case, which you obviously want to deny, because you just don't like it.--Greywin (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If the only source of notoriety a suspect of a crime has is being a suspect of a crime they are not covered under

WP:WELLKNOWN - this is what I mean by unusually broad definition. You have no clue what I do or do not like. But I will tell you this: I don't like POV pushing edit warriors so maybe stop at 5RR, OK? Simonm223 (talk

) 16:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

He's now up to six reverts here and refuses to listen to anybody at talk, can we please have a short-term block? It's the only way this'll stop. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

It's the only way the unwanted information can be removed. So please block everything quickly! It will be a better world afterwards! :)--Greywin (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected It's not apparent to me that Greywin is entirely in the wrong here, so I have protected the page instead. To the talk page, please. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Page: Operation Cedar Falls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piccadillysquare (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. [15]
2. [16]

and also on Operation Piranha:

1. [17]
2. [18]

and then moved the delete info from Operation Piranha onto Batangan Peninsula where it is already covered:

1. [19]
2. [20]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I advised on my revert that this should be discussed on talk Page rather than edit-warred.

Comments:
Piccadillysquare, a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user, (SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette) adopts the same approach of edit warring rather than discussing controversial edits on Talk pages in order to push their POV that US forces massacred numerous Vietnamese civilians. Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The revision I made to the Cedar Falls article as far as I'm concerned addressed your issue by clarifying quite clearly, that it was in the control of the NLF, as you said I was trying to inject POV. None of what I wrote was POV and was taken directly from the citing article, that is written by Jonathan Schell cited throughout this page. This was not just a revert as it accomodated your clear and strange issue with the matter.

I'm going to stop editing the second set, and accomodate your odd issue with it being included on that page specifically, despite actually discussing the operation quite clearly. Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User is attempting to draw me into an edit war, by suggesting I edit the main page and finding unreasonable reasons to revert my other edits. He suggested that I copy it onto the Batangan Peninsula page instead of on the Operation Piranha page, which I did. Now he is reversing these edits too on reasons which are not entirely clear. [21] and here [22] Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it. If someone reverts your edits you take it to the Talk Page, not edit-war. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It'd be great if you raised the issue with me first instead of just declaring I'm some other user and start harassing my edits. I have difficulty seeing how they are my POV or any other issue since your issues aren't properly clarified. I literally just dig through sources already used on the page and put in more details to create context since they aren't entirely clear to me, none of it is my opinion or POV on the matter. Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

It'd be great if you followed WP:BRD rather than edit-warring everywhere. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just going to point out that user reporting me engaged in a clear 3R violation. [23], [24], and here. [25]. I am not going to debate the matter further nor defend myself from further charges made from the user on this issue specifically since its a general waste of time to put in this much care over something this insignificant and pedantic, so I will just await admin comments. Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

suggest you actually read

WP:3RR Mztourist (talk

) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&oldid=866272854

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&type=revision&diff=866382293&oldid=866357149
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&type=revision&diff=866390515&oldid=866389994
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&type=revision&diff=866000642&oldid=865824723

Comments:
User AntanO has reverted new adds multiple times for this page. See History here

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&action=history

I tried to discuss the reverts to understand further to resolve in talk page.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AntanO#Vairamuthu_edits_removed._Readding
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vairamuthu

See AntanO Talk page version diffs history since some of my comments on talk page also were deleted

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AntanO&diff=866395278&oldid=866394829

• Also I was borderline bullied that I will be blocked because I was engaging in edit war. But in reality my NPOV adds with proper citations were being reverted in a speedy manner by AntanO who was the one engaging in edit war. Perusing the edit history, starting around 10/12, when the personality (whose biography is in dispute )was accused of sexual harrasment, I can see updates regularly reverted in a coordinated manner to provide a curated positive biography over factual biography that is supported by relevant and credible citations. This appears to be a blatant attempt to protect the personality and marginalize the metoo movement and the victim. There was no slander or non factual references and conclusions involved. proper citations for the allegations were presented including the official video response of the individual. Afraid, this amounts to censorship in wikipedia.

I changed the header line of this report to show it's a dispute about the *article* called Vairamuthu not the talk page. User:AntanO made five consecutive edits on 30 October, so there was no 3RR violation. Unless more information is supplied, this will likely be closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO exemption so I think this is not actionable. Their attempts to discuss with the filer were pretty unnecessarily aggressive (e.g. "do you have problem to reading?" [26]) but I think this is more language barrier than deliberate incivility. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 18:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone know the context of allegations and politics related to Vairamuthu that well connected by a user towards me as your politics and bias and favoritism which is more sensitive if someone know the context. But I never aggressively response until the user ignored my note to discus at the articles' talk page. --AntanO 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• I am a relative newcomer here and trying to make updates with relevant citations and without any agenda. Sensitivity is a relative thing. The BLP personality Vairamuthu is not a politician or government official. He is a poet and movie song writer now accused of sexual harassment by multiple women and there is no politics involved and question of sensitivity does not arise when updating with factual and relevant citations without conclusions or prejudice.No OR here either.A simple google news search on the name will bring pages and pages of results on this topic yet Wiki updates have been removed regularly since Oct 12. User's Aggressiveness came too quickly when I justified my update with citations and when the user was unable to defend the revert and already threatened I will be blocked in wiki?

I believe as long as I follow the BLP policy - which I did in the first place (NPOV, V, OR) I can go back and add the content that was twice removed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasksk (talk • contribs) 21:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

• Result:
  WP:3RR rule. If AntanO removes this material again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page they are risking a block. Your question at the BLP noticeboard is confused and seems not to show understanding of Wikipedia's BLP policies. If you are not clear on the matter, ask an experienced contributor or an admin for advice. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 20:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss at question at the BLP noticeboard? --AntanO 20:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

As an admin who is watching the edit-warring complaints, it isn't my job to reach a conclusion on what should go in the article. But you are expected to get consensus for your own changes. I take note that you just removed an admin warning from your talk page, marking it as 'POV'. Be aware that this doesn't earn you much sympathy if the dispute continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Manuela d'Ávila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Coltsfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]
5. [32]
6. [33]
7. [34]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've been trying to resolve with arguments but once again ([36][37]) this user engages in an edit war.

Comments: Coltsfan has been tracking my contributions and tend to revert my edits that challenges his left-wing activism. BDMKK (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Alterations made without sources can be reverted, based on

similar behaviour. Coltsfan (talk

) 00:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:4RR? By the way I've been disputing the arbitrary block on the Portuguese WP. Like yourself, there are many left-wing activists there trying to push their biased POVs. BDMKK (talk

) 00:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

First, no it's not enough (see

WP:NPOV. Coltsfan (talk

) 00:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Please

Wikipedia is not about winning. BDMKK (talk

) 01:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filer User:BDMKK blocked 48 hours for personal attacks on the noticeboard: "Coltsfan has been tracking my contributions and tend to revert my edits that challenges his left-wing activism." "Like yourself, there are many left-wing activists there trying to push their biased POVs." It does not come as a shock that BDMKK was indef blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where one of the charges against him was POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: I'm tempted to block indefinitely. The block on pt.wiki was for socking, and a check here shows that there is extensive logged-out edit warring and at lease one additional account (GematriaAnswer). This is a POV warrior who has no intention of abiding by our requirements for collaborative editing. Thoughts?--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Given that BDMKK is already socking here on enwiki, I agree that indef is the right action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OnceASpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]

Diff of edit warring: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57], User_talk:Zackmann08#Geobox

Comments:

User has repeatedly indicated that they

and insisted that since he maintains the article he gets his way.

• When warned abotu
  WP:OWN, the user reverted the edit on their talk page (obviously his right) with the comment that they are just maintaining the FA status [58]
• User has repeatedly invoked
  WP:IAR
  to ignore policy in order to get their way.
• Template:Geobox#Other_guidelines clearly indicates that the template is deprecated and should not be used.

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

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

Zackmann08 is

WP:NOTGETTINGIT and edit warring here just as much as me. I warned him on his talk page as well: diff. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi)

17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the
  WP:BLPSOURCES explained to them. A bit less templating and a bit more assuming good faith, please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}
  23:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps removing/changing sourced information, and falsely calls the ponzi scheme section "defamatory" when it's sourced and verified. Refuses to follow

) 18:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Declined This edit is a good edit adhering to

WP:BLP correctly by taking out contentious information sourced to tabloidesque gossip. Frankly I'm more likely to block Kirbanzo for recklessly restoring BLP violations. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

23:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

You're not helping your case with

that kind of comments. Wikipedia is not the place to expose your dreams about "visa for Tabriz" (only your dream for now and very likely forever). Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)}

23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
The user made one comment on the talk page and continued edit warring without discussing taking into account the feedback they received or further discussing the issue. They edited their own talk page to remove the 3RR warning [59] with an edit summary of "please dont". --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Of course gay actors can have their sexuality mentioned (see the

good article John Barrowman to pick one random example), but if other editors disagree if it's appropriate for this article, then a discussion needs to happen at the talk page. Which is now ongoing and the reverting has stopped for the minute, so no admin action required. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

diff

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

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

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

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

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

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

Also see threatening comments left on the talk page [65]. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

) 02:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly warned by other editors: [70], [71], [72]. RolandR (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

) 07:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Yahboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]
4. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79][80][81]

Comments:
User has persistently been trying to remove sourced content from the article in an apparent attempt at whitewashing. The behavior has been called out by 2 different editors and yet is escalating (and becoming quite belligerent), culminating in this latest episode of edit warring. No attempt was made by the user to address the latest issues on the talk page despite a thread having been started previously[82] regarding a different discussion pertaining to the source. There is no legitimacy to the edits -- the source clearly backs up the version prior to this user's edits, as was explained in the edit summaries and on my Talk page. Seems like a likely

) 01:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

I would also ask that some administrators take a look at the disputed reference on

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

) 04:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88] Update FWIW: [89]

Comments:

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

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

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

Summary from an uninvolved editor

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

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

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

Notes:

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

There is no violation of 3RR. Nominator was doing nothing different other than sending me template messages and an unhelpful rant telling me to "stop" and calling my justification "plain wrong" without citing any policy or guideline. An editor cannot edit war with themselves, we were both edit warring, nominator made it sound like they were uninvolved in the back and forth reverting. They brought up

WP:BRD when reverting me, which didn't make sense because they were the one who's being reverted first, they should be attempting to discuss. Editor failed to get their way on the article so they decided to make a report here to put me in bad light, hoping that actions can be taken on me so that they can restore their changes without any trouble. Hayman30 (talk

) 08:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

@

User:344917661X made a BOLD edit, I reverted it, then it should have gone to discussion. But instead, you twice over chose to revert rather than discuss. Your last revert is my particular concern, but your first revert as well. Maybe I should never have engaged you, but when someone fails to follow BRD (you with your initial revert) and then responds to a request to stop the revert warring with another revert, that is too much. —DIYeditor (talk

) 21:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page: Mike Braun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments: I added a sentence sourced to PolitiFact which stated that tax revenues increased slightly following the passage of the 2017 Republican tax bill. Snooganssnoogans reverted it without a substantive edit summary but left a message on the article talk page. I left a message in response challenging the explanation. After receiving no response, despite the fact that the editor had edited other pages since then, I re-added the material, thinking that maybe Snooganssnoogans' silence meant that they had decided to let the issue go. It was quickly reverted with an edit summary stating that there was nothing to respond to and which simply repeated earlier accusations. I challenged them once again but in a different way on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans' response did not even attempt to defend the position. I reverted for a third time because the editor had refused to participate in talk page discussion, warning Snooganssnoogans against reverting for a fourth time in violation of

) 03:27, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@

Snooganssnoogans: You don't get a BLP exemption for this

because that wasn't contentious material about a living person.

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [90]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. [94]
5. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
1) It is 2 reverts.[98] and [99]

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

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

Page:

)
User being reported: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

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

I was about to report Snoog for the same reasons. First, s/he repeatedly exhibited edit-warring/battleground spirit in the delicate American Politics area; second, POV-pushing a PolitiFact assessment in one article while trying to suppress the same source in another one, is a particularly obvious display of

WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Seeking admin action to prevent further disruption. — JFG ^talk

12:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

talk

) 16:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

(2) I never said PolitiFact wasn't a RS. I clearly said in the dispute above that it was

WP:SYNTH

and misrepresentation of the source. That's just a straight-up falsehood.

(3) I said (on my talk page in response to your unfounded BLP claims, not the article talk page) that your assertions that PolitiFact was "opinion" (as opposed to RS) raised "serious competence concerns"[100].

(4) I didn't just accuse you of stalking for no reason. First, I simply asked you how you came to edit the Don Bacon page five minutes after I did (I checked the 'Editor Interaction Analyser' and it was your first edit), and I explained why I thought it wasn't just a coincidence.[101] You didn't answer my question (a simple "this is my house rep" would have done), so I assumed that it was just stalking.[102]

(5) As for context on "edit warring against multiple persons across multiple pages", we're on the eve of the 2018 mid-term elections and I happen to watchlist the pages of politicians in nearly every competitive race. As is tradition, there are a massive number of bad edits (falsehoods, poorly sourced text, mundane trivia, whitewashing) made to these pages (both to add or remove negative info and positive info) to make sure they look in a certain way on election day, which need to be reverted. As a result, there is a lot of reverting that needs to be done. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of editors who watchlist and patrol pages of House reps and non-incumbent candidates, so the burden often falls on me. For example, I've repeatedly removed this mundane item, which seeks to depict a Republican congressmember in a ridiculously negative light[103] and I've removed a Wiki voice description of another Republican congressmember as a white nationalist from his lede[104]. I see that the white nationalist item has now been reinserted to the lede[105]. Should I revert the user again or would that just be another example of "edit warring against multiple persons across multiple pages"? Should Steve King be described as a white nationalist in Wiki voice on the day when the most eyeballs will be on his page in probably the entire history of the page?

talk

) 14:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

from the bleachers Yes he should. (ducks.) But seriously, this whole complaint seems retaliatory and like

WP:SOURGRAPES that the complaint above didn't go as the filers had hoped. Furthermore this sort of broad behavioural complaint is inappropriate for this noticeboard. Suggest closing.Simonm223 (talk

) 16:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

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

• Result: No action. There isn't a technical violation of 3RR. See also the above comments by
  Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 18:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  Not a technical one but what, the comments by Simonm223 such as "But seriously, this whole complaint seems retaliatory and like

  WP:SOURGRAPES that the complaint above didn't go as the filers had hoped" is suppose to be our reference point. Ok...surely will see Snooganssnoogans here again soon looking at his userpage and archives of complaints...or are all these folks wrong? I expect unless he threatens to kill someone on site the powers that be will continue to coddle him.--MONGO (talk

  ) 18:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Comments:

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

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

This is probably my bad. I just believe that the source provided by the

Lega Nazionale Professionisti Serie A is more reliable than the one that ESPN.com frequently updates. As of now, Lega Serie A is yet to add those "fifth assists" which probably belong to Cristiano Ronaldo and José Callejón, respectively. Hurrygane (talk

) 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User talk:Géographe96#November 2018

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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

Comments:

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

I strongly regret not reporting this incident sooner, because I too have crossed the line of

22:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Follow-up comment: At the time I started typing this, there was no discussion regarding this user. It was not intentional that I opened a second discussion about the same user. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 22:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [109]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [110]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114] After seven weeks of adding writer and director before the episodes air, now you're questioning me?????? I haven't been wrong yet. Greg David - TV Eh

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NB: I assumed good faith and used the unreferenced material warning (Template:uw-unsourced), as this didn't seem like an edit war at the time. So the messages I left on the talk page are those. [115] [116] [117] However, this user has been warned three times in the past for edit warring on other articles, most recently just last month [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:

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

User has ignored all messages that I've on their talk page, including a request for discussion [120] User has been blocked in the past due to disruptive editing [121] and a quick glance at their talk page shows a history of warnings for disruptive editing, all of which have been ignored. User seems to be involved in another edit war at [122] and has ignored all messages relating to that dispute too, including two requests for comment [123] [124].

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

Update - user has reverted the content yet again [125] Why not wait until 11 1/2 hours from now and then see if I'm wrong. You make me laugh with your antics. Klock101 (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a slow-burn edit war with six edits in the past three days. While Mickeydee15 has been right for the previous six weeks, the logic of stating that we should wait to determine if the editor is or is not right is not the issue here. I believe the issue is lack of source (

WP:V) and engaging in an edit war rather than waiting the four hours. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 21:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Update 2 - user has yet again reverted the content [126] Wait four hours and you'll see I'm right. Especially since you don't want to look it up with the source i gave you.

@

WP:V and warring on the article instead of discussing the issue. I really don't like reporting someone who's trying to help out, but their editing is disruptive and their failure to communicate (along with the flippant revert messages) suggests to me that they're just going to continue. They've been blocked several times in the past for similar behaviour (block log: [128]). Klock101 (talk

) 22:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The surface issue has resolved itself as the episode has aired, however the underlying issue (

WP:V) has not. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 01:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• WP:V has to be addressed sooner or later. Any admin may lift this block if the user will agree to follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 21:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Law and Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ObserverEU (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134] IP 84... has previously been made aware of edit warring policy by User:General Ization

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:

The account ObserverEU seems to be created for the single purpose of pushing this position in the Law and Justice article. Before the creation of this account, 84.226.141.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) took the same position with the same set of arguments, editing and discussion style, so I assume the same person behind this IP and user account. If we count the reverts of IP 84... the number of reverts is even greater: [136], [137], [138]. --RJFF (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not inclined to take any action at present, except to wait and see if the talk page discussion develops. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Great power (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trenton444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

• WP:RS. Light Millennia (talk
  ) 15:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• For reviewing admin; I've fully protected the article. Feel free to change protection as you see fit. The only reason @Light Millennia: wasn't warned is because I was edit conflicting on Trenton's user talk> Tiderolls 15:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
• I have started yet an attempt to resolve this on the article talk page after the article was locked indefinitely. [146] Light Millennia (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Why to hold an article written by a guy without broad consensus?It should locked after reverted to former one with broad consensus. This article is in this way abusive. Partial and not logic decision. Trenton444 (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Light Millennia (talk) tried toi vandalize reverting Talk page of Great power article.Really not correct.Time to stop him.Trenton444 (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Thousand Oaks shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC) "GO TO TALK PAGE Undid revision 867879614 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
2. 15:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ happy to DISCUSS ON THE TALK PAGE"
3. 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867879337 by Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk)"
4. 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC) "GO TO THE TALK PAGE Undid revision 867879307 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
5. 15:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC) "/* See also */ because this was TERRORISM TOO!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:33, 8 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Here we go again! I don't know what it is with these articles; repeated insertion of unsourced, poorly sourced, original research seems to be the order of the day here. ——SerialNumber54129 15:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've lost track of the number of reverts now—[147] ——SerialNumber54129

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]
4. [151]

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

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

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

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

This whole issue surrounds a link (stoneparadox.org) that I tried to contribute to Wikipedia's

Omnipotence Paradox page. Nothing else, just a simple link which is absolutely relevant, informative and echoes the page topic. I'd appreciate it if an Administrator would step in and stop the deletion of this content, because this censorship campaign is clearly ideologically driven.--EPROM (talk

) 13:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that http://stoneparadox.org does not constitute a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. I would close this with a warning to

WP:COI, since they are the creator of the web site at stoneparadox.org. I would also warn them they can be blocked if they continue to talk about stoneparadox.org at Talk:Omnipotence paradox. If they are unhappy with this, they could request approval of their external link at WP:External links/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk

) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could you not blatantly lie ? "Constantly" is just a lie when I litteraly posted 3 short messages, more than a month ago. Wikipedia is not a forum and the talk page is now polluated with ERPOM's messages. I will not count the number of characters, but most of the talk page is from him, promoting his website and claiming that wikipedia censors him. Again, wikipedia is not a forum and the talk page should be used for editing purpose, so I'd suggest a clean-up of the page. Alcyon007 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Alcyon007, you had absolutely nothing to do with the deletion of my link until I reverted the very first deletion. That's when you "chimed in" and looked for every possible reason you could for supporting the deletion. You dedicated your life to pointing out any flaw or technicality you could use so that your link censoring would be justified. You wanted to "WIN" even at the expense of Wikipedia's reputation. And I did NOT "lie" about your treating the Talk Page as a forum. What you do is write, "This is not a forum, but..." and then you go right on to add your many forumesque comments. We're not stupid! You then argue that it's all justified because you qualified it with, "This isn't a forum, but..." which is complete BS. It's all right there for everyone to see, so don't call me a "liar," pal. But yah, you go right ahead and have everyone "clean up the page" but you are NOT allowed to delete my words as per the Administrators decree and Wikipedia rules to which I have previously cited. I haven't argued for the link submission after being warned, so my words STAND as written. It is a violation of Wikipedia regulations for you to delete my words... PERIOD! What I'm going to do is introduce a new section that will fully comply with Wikipedia's Talk Page policy and I'm going to expose the Atheist agenda that is actively going on in the process. I will craft it in a way to where if you try to delete it, you will be exposed for what you truly are. Anyone from the outside tuning in will see exactly what you all are doing in in censoring valuable data in order to protect your ideology. Yah, sure, you get to "WIN!" this time (and that's all that matters to you in this case) but there is a costly price tag attached to your censorship victory. You (and you Atheist agenda) cannot stand up against the truth.--EPROM (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Well, let's just leave it at this. Alcyon007 deleted my words on the Omnipotence Paradox "talk page." The Wikipedia's talk page guidelines clearly states as follows: "The basic rule—with exceptions outlined below—is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Now you are unilaterally declaring that you will "ban" me even though Alcyon007 is the one violating the rules. I have not tried to re-submit the link, but I HAVE made my argument on the talk page (which is what we are REQUIRED to do in situations like this). Logic states that one cannot make an argument if their words are deleted the moment they are posted, right? Apparently you don't even want me to be able to present an argument! Look, if this was some type of science-based page, physics-oriented or something that can actually be "analized" in a scientific way I would understand... but it's clearly not in regard to the topic of the page. "Omnipotence" is merely a thought experiment and there is no qualified research to support it or refute it. It's just a paradoxical question, therefore links that would normally not be deemed acceptable might be deemed acceptable in this regard as specified by Wikipedia's rules for external links where it cleaerly states, "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." ...My link submission exceeds this requirement based on the subject matter. My link also in NO WAY violates any of 19 qualifiers that are listed in Wikipedia's "External Links normally to be avoided" section. But now, even though I have Wikipedia "rules" clearly in my favor, you are still threatening to ban me for merely presenting my argument on the "talk page" (which is what we are supposed to do!). ...That speaks volumes! You have now placed me in a situation where I can't even garner support from others that might not think the way that you and Alcyon007 do, but then again.... that's how censorship works, right? It least this clear agenda-driven issue has been documented in this area. At least THIS page can't be "censored" and can serve as empirical proof as to how valuable information can be censored or removed by those who fear it on Wikipedia.--EPROM (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC) This isn't really suited to this particular dispute resolution venue, but: as you can see from the talk page, I've tried many ways to resolve the dispute in an unbiased way. When you first insisted on reinserting the link I notified the various noticeboards, and three different editors unanimously disagreed with you. You accused me of canvassing them, which RL0919 and Tryptofish both refuted. Then after you got into an edit war with Alcyon007, and threatened to get Alcyon007 banned, I did the reporting for you by notifying this AN/EW noticeboard, which led to yet another editor disagreeing with you. Seriously, what does it take to convince you that you are in the minority? You write that you've not had the chance to get support from people who might not agree with Alcyon007 and unnamed others, yet we've been to five different venues now (the talk page, the three WP project pages, and AN/EW) and nobody has supported you. I can't stop you from calling it censorship, but from my perspective you are just trying desperately to push a claim everyone (other than you) agrees is a minority view, and which Wikipedia is sensibly declining to do. Banedon (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC) You could follow EdJohnston's suggestion and post to the External Links noticeboard if you wish. You make the post this time, so you can't accuse me of being biased or canvassing my friends or whatever. I don't think you'll get anywhere, but what the hell. Banedon (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC) Banedon, you just showed your hold cards, bud. You profess to be "unbiased" but you just exposed yourself as being agenda driven. You say that you reported this in a supposed "unbiased" way, but all along you have supported your friend Alcyon007's deletion of my words on the talk page (even though he violated Wikipedia rules in doing so). This Administrator EdJohnston doesn't seem to care that he broke the rules as well. You also commented about "rationalwiki.com" on the Talk Page (which is known to all as an Atheist's website and also a website that despises my CGCP resolution to the Stone Paradox). You have also stated that you are involved in "Project Atheism" and THAT is the area you ran off to recruit you Atheist friends to come over to the Omnipiotence Paradox page and support the deletion of my link submission and the words I have written on the Talk Page. It wasn't "various noticeboards" as you claim. This is clearly a well-orchestrated censorship campaign. What you have done is no different than some butt-hurt Christian running off to "Project Christian" to recruit a bunch of fellow Christians to help support the deletion of any content YOU submitted that conflicts with their Christian ideology. If that doesn't scream "AGENDA!" and a "conflict of interest" then I don't know what does? ...Any courtroom judge would say the same thing! But hey, the Administrator is in you camp anyway, so you get to "win." "Winning" and protecting your Atheist ideology on Wikipedia is far more important that providing people with information that absolutely, without question, would make them "smarter" after reading it. But that's how censorship works, my friend. Don't try to convince me fore a second that you're Mr "Fair-n-square" because you are not. You are an agenda-drive Atheist that cannot stand the fact that there is a resolution to the Stone Paradox that anyone can use to shut down the question right on the spot. You don't want to support it because it kills your "go-to question" that Atheists have enjoyed asking everyone for over 800 years. Congratulations to you, Alcyon007 and this Administrator called EdJohnston. I don't care what you do from this point. The TRUTH is what it is. You have all damaged Wikipedia and ignored the rules in favor of forwarding a specific ideological agenda that you all just happen to have. I will remind you that if you are forced to violate Wikipedia rules, resort to censorship and use "mob rule" tactics to protect your ideology ...then there's a serious problem with your ideology.--EPROM (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with a warning to User:EPROM for using Wikipedia as a forum and for personal attacks. Specifically I'm issuing "a warning to User:EPROM not to continue posting his link to any Wikipedia articles, and with a warning about WP:COI, since they are the creator of the web site at stoneparadox.org. I would also warn them they can be blocked if they continue to talk about stoneparadox.org at Talk:Omnipotence paradox. If they are unhappy with this, they could request approval of their external link at WP:External links/Noticeboard." In my opinion, EPROM's response to this AN3 contains personal attacks, which I will not take action on provided they stop now. I'm also applying a collapse box to the extended discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [153]
2. [154]
3. [155]
4. [156]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [158], [159]

Comments: User asserts that Westmoreland House is named after the wife of David Fane, 15th Earl of Westmorland (which is correct), and therefore should be spelled like the Earl (which does at least make sense). However, numerous reliable sources such as BBC News, Bristol Post and The Guardian say otherwise. In particular, note this photograph of the building's main entrance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

List of Irish supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868185251 by Ifnord (talk)"
2. 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868184892 by Ifnord (talk) Revert unconstructive edit."
3. 15:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Add Irish-born supercentenarians as Ireland was part of the U.K. when they were born."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"
2. 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Warnings are still visible to everyone, even if you blank the page or remove them"
3. 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

It's Ifnord who is edit warring. He reverts my edits even though there is no reason to revert. I think Ifnord should discuss with me about my edits before reverting. 217.21.239.230 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Ifnord (talk

) 15:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we should continue this discussion here. 217.21.239.230 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – 1 month for block evasion. Last block was for one week by User:Tide rolls. This IP is evading a one-month block of a different IP, 90.226.9.15. At first glance, this looks to be Irish-vs-British nationalist edit warring, even if based on a technicality. See this edit: "There are no supercentenarians from Ireland". Though Tide rolls mentioned the longevity Arb case when issuing one of his blocks so maybe this is just a regular longevity warrior with fixed ideas about how to clean up the data. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
• (non-admin comment) reverted all the list redirects made without consensus. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Risentheft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]

 Comment:A lot more reverts were performed by the user, but were not listed.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164] 3RR warning.

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

Comments:

 Comment: Curious that he doesn't report the user that was actually doing the vandalism, and instead reports the user reverting the vandalism.--Risentheft (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Curious that he doesn't include my attempts to resolve the dispute on the article talk page either, which were numerous.--Risentheft (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: I insistently reverted the vandalism because it's dangerous to innocent people that may stumble upon this article. Even if it gets me banned, I still think it's the right thing to do. To quote myself: "[His] version promotes casual usage of an illegal and dangerous drug", "[His] version talks about magic mushrooms, parallel dimensions, spirits and extraterrestrial entities", "It is by far more controversial".--Risentheft (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've handed them both a block. Rather than reach out for other remedy such as page protection or administrator intervention, these two just went at it for 2+ hours. -- Longhair\^talk 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [165], but this might not be entirely accurate, as NorthBySouthBaranof has been edit warring at the article in the past

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NorthBySouthBaranof is very well aware of our edit warring policies, and has been reported here two weeks ago.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: take a look at the talk page yourself. There are a lot of discussions on the talk page, and while NorthBySouthBaranof participated in most of them, many replies to him are still awaiting a response.

Comments:

Yes, this was over a week ago, but NorthBySouthBaranof performed another revert yesterday, which is the same as one of his reverts listed above, without responding to the stale talk page discussion in which multiple editors disagreed with his last comment there. Obviously, NorthBySouthBaranof wasn't the only one to edit war, but others performed no more than two reverts in 24 hours recently if my counting is all right. wumbolo ^^^ 17:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I made no edit to the article for a week, and then simply fixed one unambiguous issue - there is no such thing as a "stated" gender identity, and the word is unnecessary. A person's gender identity simply is. That is not "edit warring" under any imaginable circumstance, so I don't see a need to further engage here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof has a long history of edit warring [170]

NorthBySouthBaranof was topic banned from gender related disputes for edit warring and battleground conduct: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof

NorthBySouthBaranof appealed his topic ban promising to demonstrate he could "successfully edit in those areas" and wouldn't "leap back into the middle of any fracas." It was lifted (according to one Arbitrator) "on probation." [171]

Despite all this NorthBySouthBaranof is again edit warring and battlegrounding in gender related disputes. Ultimately this will probably end with a reapplication of his topic ban. But a short timeout might nudge him in the right direction, so we can avoid it.

talk

) 03:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, D.Creish, a

undue-weighted material. Strange, that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 03:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Isn't there a policy that when someone points out problems with your behavior the thing not to do is excuse it by focusing attention on the commenters? I wasn't involved in this article but I've seen your behavior in other articles follow the same pattern.

talk

) 04:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it's well established that anyone bringing claims against other editors opens their own behavior up to scrutiny. We even have a handy essay about it:

WP:BOOMERANG. You might know that if you had more than 1,000 edits and had done anything on the encyclopedia other than push right-wing conspiracy theories about living people and remove well-sourced descriptions of white supremacists as white supremacists. But, well, you don't and you haven't. You're a single-purpose account and that fact is quite relevant here, despite your protests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk

) 05:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"NorthBySouthBaranof has a long history of ..." - no, but D.Creish on the other hand, who afaict is not even involved in this dispute, DOES have a long history of stalking other editors for political reasons, and who's very first edits to Wikipedia [172] - citing obscure Wikipedia policies - clearly suggest that this isn't D.Creish's first account (he's refused to identify any previous ones). As far as NBSB goes, that first diff isn't a revert. Volunteer Marek 04:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: yes it is a revert of this sequence of edits [173]. I should have been more specific. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is straight up incontestable evidence of D.Creish engaging in WP:STALKing behavior and revenge edit-warring: shortly after I made this comment s/he went over to an article that s/he never edited before and proceeded to revert me [174] and then follow that up with edits which misrepresented sources [175]. Volunteer Marek 09:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Took a look at it, and I agree. While VM reverted DC many times, VM's always come to the talk page. This has been going on for many months – DC appearing at an article for the first time and reverting VM's recent edit. That's not removing content you disagree with, that's removing content added by a specific editor. While there haven't been much more than a dozen of these cases, they shouldn't continue. VM has the benefit of editing most articles for a longer period of time than DC, but that should be a motivation for DC to edit constructively (most of their edits are to talk pages and reverting mainspace edits). wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on this particular article/dispute, but since D.Creish dropped by to blackball NBSB, I do want to note that D.Creish has more zeal for partisan editing than respect for (or knowledge of) the BLP, as evidenced by this edit summary on Linda Sarsour: "CRYBLP all you want but this sourced", one of the weakest arguments one can use in a dispute over a BLP. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder"
2. 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder"
3. 15:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) to 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Questions from Softlavender */"
   2. 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) to 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Questions from Boing! said Zebedee */"
   3. 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Questions from Winged Blades of Godric */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An ex-arb and a legacy-admin; vouching for an ARBCOM tenure; aware of 3RR...... ∯WBG^converse 15:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Update: Fred Bauder has been blocked, unblocked himself (compare
  WP:NEVERUNBLOCK) and been reblocked for 24 hours. Emergency desysop requested. Bishonen | talk
  15:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

• And has unblocked himself again. I don't think I'll follow this inevitable debacle further. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC).

• We don't do formal closes at AN3 as far as I'm aware, but this is a complex situation and has already reached Arbcom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

He has been Desystopped and a case opened. Also an ANi effort to site ban him. This is way outside 3RR now. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868213264 by Longhair (talk)"
2. 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868212709 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
3. 19:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868211373 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
4. 20:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868062124 by SovalValtos (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Moving forward */ cmt"
2. 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Moving forward */ cmt"

Comments:

This editor is only here to build a directory, not an encyclopdia. Recently blocked for the same. Charles (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It appears that User:Jorrojorro is never going to stop, no matter what anyone says. User was blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Sofia Airport on 24 October. After the block expired, they were back at it so I asked if they wanted to avoid a longer block. The next time around, another admin did a one-week protection of Sofia Airport. This user never uses talk pages or edit summaries. It may be time for an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868276512 by Risentheft (talk) Use the talk page."
2. 04:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868275060 by Risentheft (talk) Vandalism."
3. 04:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868274756 by Risentheft (talk) Use the talk page."
4. 04:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868273912 by Risentheft (talk) Use talk page to discuss. Most countries today are democracies, and these "experts" also consider psilocybin, LSD, and cannabis "dangerous enough to be illegal," while not saying the same of alcohol. This should cause anyone to question the intentions of these experts. DMT is not dangerous."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Result: Three editors have been blocked by other admins, some of them for sockpuppetry. User:Enigmaman has also applied three days of full protection. That ought to take care of it, and judging from a quick look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MapleBark the protection is probably not overkill. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868276978 by Ifnord (talk) Use the talk page."
2. 04:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868273290 by Vrsanelamat (talk)"
3. 04:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868272954 by Vrsanelamat (talk) Vandalism."
4. 04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Vandalism. N,N-DMT is not a dangerous drug. N,N-DMT can be consumed as a powerful psychedelic, more so than a hallucinogen."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – Indef as a sock by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.180.213.19 (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: page

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

Comments: The user is also under an

) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – One week for evasion by User:Favonian per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperSucker. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Battle of Shanggao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868472547 by Citizen Canine (talk)User-4488,he has long abused IP manufacturing damage, the editor did not help the content at all, his editor just added damage"
2. 11:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868434010 by 107.77.213.123 (talkUser-4488,he has long abused IP manufacturing damage, the editor did not help the content at all, his editor just added damage"
3. 11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868434010 by 107.77.213.123 (talk)User-4488,he has long abused IP manufacturing damage, the editor did not help the content at all, his editor just added damage"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warring on Battle of Jinan funplussmart (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• This anon is mobile and will quickly change IPs. I put together a list of articles that seem to have commonality. User:Jim1138/Single use IP

Page: List of cities in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Rambling Man (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. 21:22, 10 November 2018 of this
2. 20:21, 12 November 2018 of this

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: informed of violation (quickly reverted

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_cities_in_Israel#"consensus" as well as the rest of that talk page, a place where The Rambling Man has made exactly 0 comments.

Comments:

• This is the same editor who avoided 1RR by tagging a different section of the page? Gaming the system. Nope. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You refused to allow the article to be tagged so I tagged the problematic section. That isnt gaming, that is trying to resolve an issue, an issue you have said 0 words about on the talk page. You are gaming the system by asking everybody else to follow the 1RR while you ignore it. We all follow the same rules here, and you can still do so by self-reverting. nableezy - 20:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Please also note that article is not subject to 1RR. There's no edit notice. Nableezy tried to game the system but it failed. I suggest a boomerang, and maybe a warning to Nableezy for deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

All articles in the Israeli-Palestinian topic area are covered by the 1RR. Regardless of edit-notices. nableezy - 20:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• All I see is Nableezy not happy with how the article is and trying to game the system by any means necessary to get his version of the article. I suggest a boomerang or at the very least no action with this request. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
• No violation.

  "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense."

*puts on wikilaywer wig* TRM did not revert the page within 24 hours, there is no violation there. The tag is removed in this diff, the original author being Nableezy. Either way, this is a separate tag to the one removed in this diff, the first being {{

BOOMERANG. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss

20:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Both of those are reverts and both came within 24 hours. My 1RR self-revert was based on another portion of the rule, which says a reverted edit may not be re-reverted for 24 hours. There very clearly is a violation here, and Ive added the timestamps to demonstrate that. There are two separate reverts within 24 hours. That is literally a textbook 1RR violation. nableezy - 20:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

There's no 1RR here mate, as noted, your mistake, bye now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• No violation There must be two or more reverts within 24 hours to qualify. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You right, misread the dates, sorry. nableezy - 21:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "This is composed by nine Koreans and three Japaneses but does that mean this group is K-pop and J-pop? Non-sense!! This group is from K-pop purely! In your theory, TWICE is K-pop and J-pop? Please make sure the fact. Do not reply on the source which would be wrong. This is definite whoever see this!"
2. 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "genre is K-pop only. This group is not for J-pop!"
4. 18:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "genre is K-pop only. This group is not for J-pop!"
5. (RV after report) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Please make sure that this group is from K-pop. Why is this group originated on J-pop as well? Do not rely on the superficial sources!! In your theory, TWICE is also J-pop genre? You know this is so ridiculous, don't you? I want to ask you that are you Japan-friendly user? See the fact and do not distort the fact!!!"
6. (and again) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "See my comments on your talk page! Please see the essence and do not hang on the superficial sources. Whoever think of it, this group was created by K-pop and not based on the J-pop? Why do you think that this is J-pop genre? What did they do to create this group? This is so ridiculous!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Cut it out */ new section"
2. 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Cut it out */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Nationality dispute */"

Comments:

I gave the user an opportunity to self-revert, and they have not done so. They have seen the warning - [177]. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mkenny6

I know that the entertainment industry in Japan is envious and jealous because of the tremendous success of k-pop. They want to inform j-pop by the free ride to k-pop. Produce 48 is one such attempt. But the obvious and unchanging fact is that Iz One, created by Korea's Mnet program, Producr48, is absolutely a K-pop group. Even if three Japanese members joined, this cannot explain that it is J-pop group or genre. Many sources, such as news about this group, are simply having superficial facts. Please do not rely too heavily on these superficial sources and deliver the only fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenny6 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@

INDEF block looks inevitable. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss

19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mkenny6

What are you talking about? Why would I do this to fight a genre war? I just do not want to distort the facts. Have you ever wondered what people would think if they did not know about this group and saw Wikipedia information? Again, this group is a pure Kpop group. Can you say this group is Jpop genre because Japanese members are in it? Please do not distort the essence by hanging on a superficial source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenny6 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Read the linked Genre Warrior page.

1. "Genre warriors almost never provide sources beyond their own knowledge." Y
2. "Reliable sources and consensus are alien concepts to them." Y
3. "Genre warriors enjoy the music of a particular group but would feel (choose one: ashamed, emasculated, belittled) to have the music—and by extension, themselves—categorized in a usually undesirable genre." Y

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

) 21:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Victoria Wilson-James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [179]
2. [180]
3. [181]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: After an interaction with this user on another page, he decided to follow my edit contributions and this is one of the pages he chose to start reverting on. He claims the "Tours" section of the page is unsourced, but it would be redundant to add a source there when the tours are already sourced in the "Career" section of the article. It's similar to how we list "Albums" in the "Discography" section of a singer/band's main page. There's no point in adding a source beside the album name if the album is already cited in another section of the article (ex. Beyonce). It's redundant.

1. [182]
2. [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Comments:
User:Walter Görlitz has been warned by many admins to stop edit warring with other users in the past. He has been blocked many times in the past for edit warring as well as violating the three-revert rule. I also noticed that another user or IP also reverted his revert of my edit and User:Walter Gorlitz threatened to somehow block that user for making that one revision, which I find strange. Horizonlove (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverting unsourced addition of content. Should I open an SPI since the anon tipped the scales in Horizonlove's favour? First, they are not "tours", they are performances done by a company in which the subject was a member. It's misleading to state that they're tours. Second, they are not sourced as tours. For all we know, they were performances in a single location that had a long run as many theatre performances are. Horizonlove has no sources to support that these are actually tours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice, no attempt at discussion on the article's talk page, only comment on Horizonlove's user page after I warned for restoring unsourced content. No warnings either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Any attempt at conversation with you has obviously gone left and just jumps off-topic, so there was no point in further commenting. I just decided to take it the admin desk since you want to start an edit war. It's not usual for theater shows to take place at different theaters, hence a tour. But beside the point, you would not have known about this page if you wouldn't have followed my edits and then began an edit war. Furthermore, you have no business threatening to block another user for one revision and then trying to mask it as vandalism. Note to reviewing admin User:Walter Görlitz has also been blocked in the past for threatening another user. Also note that User:Walter Görlitz might be edit warring with two other users User:JzG and 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 on this page. Horizonlove (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No threats. Just a curious coincidence. Not edit warring at Billy Graham either. Two reverts is not an edit war. The anon, who appears to be an experience editor, engaged in a fruitful discussion with me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Note This may need to be moved to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. After opening up this report, User:Walter Görlitz decided to try and retaliate against me by opening up a failed and ridiculous sockpuppet investigation against me which was a demonstration of poor behavior. I also noticed that Walter Görlitz wasted no time in reverting my notification on this talk page about this discussion, although I don't have problem with that. There may be some further behavioral problems that need to be addressed on the appropriate platform.

Also note that Walter Görlitz is close to breaking the three-revert rule on Cinematic (Owl City album) page. Three reverts within 24 hours have already been made by Walter Görlitz. Horizonlove (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The SPI isn't closed though. only the checkuser. How long are you going to be following me? That's a clearly problematic behaviour issue that should be addressed. The Owl City album was a case of

WP:GWAR and again, not over 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 19:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Respectfully we would not be here if you were not following me from page to page (Victoria Wilson James, Martha Wash, etc.) but your bad behavior has made me aware of your aggressive actions, so thank you for that. You've been engaging in edit wars with other users again and instead of helping them or talking with them, you've been constantly reverting their edits and masking it as "vandalism", and then leaving "last warning" messages on their talk pages telling them to discontinue their edits or be blocked. You don't have the authority to block anyone and to imply that you do is another form of bullying and discourages users from contributing. Anyway, I think it is best to let an admin review your actions. If there is no violation, then you have nothing to worry about. Horizonlove (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

You wrote that I'm masking it as vandalism. Care to give me a clear definition of what you consider real vandalism and what isn't? I mean, when you were restoring an image to an article against guidelines, and edit warred to keep it, I didn't state it was vandalism. When you argued for a different image's placement against guidelines against guidelines and edit warred to keep it, I didn't state it was vandalism. However, when I see addition of unsourced content, against guidelines and policy, I believe that's vandalism, especially when it's explained. So please help me to understand which edits you think I'm masking as vandalism and why. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Great Britain Olympic football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VEO15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [185]

Diffs of VEO15's reverts:

1. 10/17 21:17
2. 11/6 21:15
3. 11/7 18:20
4. 11/7 18:37
5. 11/8 14:51

Diffs of Tvx1's reverts:

1. 10/17 20:03
2. 10/18 11:14
3. 11/6 21:29
4. 11/7 18:30
5. 11/7 18:39

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: VEO15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Tvx1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tvx1 10/17 20:10 and VEO15 11/8 14:40 (I am an uninvolved editor who has this page on my watchlist and have seen the edit war progress, these are the diffs of all of the discussion on the talk page.)

Comments:

Again, I am uninvolved. I take no position on which image is correct or preferred. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Both users warned: VEO15 and Tvx1 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, note that Tvx1 has not reverted since I warned him. But, he has been previously warned regarding edit warring:

1. 2/11/2016
2. 1/29/2017
3. 1/23/2018
4. 2/24/2018
5. 3/1/2018
6. blocked for edit warring 3/2/2018
7. dif of warning 10/27/18

Also, VEO15 has been previously warned against edit warring 2/24/2018 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

User VEO15 keeps replacing the logo at

WP:NFC#UU1#17. They have not made an attempt to demonstrate it does. They only go by their own thoughts. I have have made my continued reverts in the respect of Exemption #5 of WP:3RR (Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)), even though I didn't actually commit a 3RR violation.Tvx

1 12:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Extending edit warring here as well (while a discussion was ongoing) - seems to be one of those editors who can't let go of the bone on a narrow range of subjects -----Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it pretty below the belt to come and mention an article I haven't edited for 15 days nor its talk page for 8 days. That issue has been more than settled in the mean time. I also find extremely low from you that you go and accuse someone else of "not letting go of the bone", when we discussed on that article for weeks with you and you showed no willingness whatsoever to deviate even the slightest from your stance.Tvx1 12:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. I've left messages for both editors and VEO15 has not edited since 9 November, so is not available for negotiations. This will get resolved one way or the other. If not, this complaint can be reactivated. The separate dispute regarding Tvx1 and the Tom Pryce article would need some other report, assuming that attempts to resolve the disagreement on the talk page have actually failed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced this close with warnings to both parties. See below. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your judgement. However, I'm not sure what to do next. From the events it is clear that VEO15 intends to continue to revert me. A fair proposal on moving forward would be that someone reinstates the non-free content of which we are SURE that complies with the WP:NFC and that VEO15 than argues their case at

WT:NFC. As it stands now, per VEO15's latest revert, the article use inappropriate non-free content and I think we should no take any risks with non-free content.Tvx

1 21:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There was never a problem with the 'parent' image being used in the article in the first place, that was a can of worms opened by

WP:FUR but Tvx1 keeps on removing — a move they started in June 2016) that the 'child' is meant to cover and then some, the 'child' is effectively a redundant file but Tvx1 is standing by his worms. To sum up, there is no distinct crest for the Great Britain Olympic football teams and the other departments of Team GB, it is exactly the same as the one used by the rest of the Olympians for Great Britain. VEO^onefive

19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:VEO15 and User:Tvx1 are both warned. A block is possible if either of them changes the logo on Great Britain Olympic football team again or modifies File:Team-gb-logo.svg before getting consensus on some talk page that their action is correct. A suitable place for the discussion might be Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• EdJohnston, I will raisehave raised this at WP:NFC, but I think we should we should take some precaution with non-free content, after all we are dealing with copyrighted content, and reinstate the non-free content of which we are certain it is appropriate to use anyway.Tvx1 11:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187] Here he restores content very similar to content that was previous added by disruptive ip editors and reverted by regulars at the article as unsourced here [188] and [189]
2. [190] restores unsourced content
3. [191] restores unsourced content
4. [192] and [193] continues to edit war to restore unsourced content and external links to article body

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]

Comments:
I stumbled across the article while patrolling with Huggle, but regular editors Ammarpad and LouisAragon may have more to add. I did leave warnings on the user's talk page regarding external links and addition of unsourced content and indicated that I or volunteers at the Teahouse were available to answer additional questions, but the only response has been an edit summary calling it an unlawful removals, and now continuing to revert without edit summaries.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Despite the actual 3RR violation above, EdJohnston contacted the user on their talk page, however the reverting has continued and is restoring external links to the article as well as content that ips were edit warring over recently. This should really be nipped in the bud to prevent further edit warring over improperly sourced or unsourced content that does not meet basic standards for encyclopedic writing like The Artazian branch of Amatunis was ruling castle of Maku (they original Shavarshan) stil in XVth century. I would note that I reverted this as vandalism.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And continues edit warring over restoring external links to the article text with edit summary Unlawful remival of references and citation for credible informatuon by Seraphim System) . Wiki-warning for Seraphim System for violation of citations and opening war of editions. without responding to this complaint, or Ed's warning on the talk page. I'm not sure if the twirpx external link is copyright compliant, and I don't want to click on it to find out. Admin attention is urgently requested. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO won't be interpreted in their favor. EdJohnston (talk

) 18:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Your right, thanks for the reminder. I thought twirpx was a piracy site, but it's possible it could be an out of copyright book or something. I reviewed 3RRNO and I should have asked an admin to follow up on it first. Should I just leave the EL it in the article for now? Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not post your concern about twirpx.com on the talk page? Since the site is in Russian, a quick answer may not be forthcoming. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Just in case the recent edit war could have left a copyright violation in the article, I rolled it back to a July 20 version that precedes the war. Please continue editing as usual from this point. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:

)
User being reported: Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Stefka Bulgaria reverted everyone who edited the article yesterday. At least 6 reverts in less than one day, it's a new record! Note that there was almost no back and forth between users and Stefka Bulgaria reverted almost every new changes.

1. 19:03, 9 November 2018: [197] Reverting edit of Palosirkka.
2. [198] Removing edit by Mhhossein; the sentence saying "MEK was the first group carrying out suicide attacks in Iran"
3. [199]
4. [200] Removing edit by Mhhossein; the sentence says MEK did assassinations against the US.
5. [201], reverted me; Removed a sentence saying it did one of the deadliest attacks of the history. The source is a scholarly work.
6. 15:20, 10 November 2018: [202] Sixth one!!! Reverted edit by Mhhossein.
7. (let alone this one)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203], [204] and [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the reverts was removing new materials and was not followed by later reverting. Hence no talk page discussion. However, one of the edits were discussed but it did not make Stefka Bulgaria's reverts stop. I had removed some contents on one of the bombings by MEK when Mhhossein said on the talk page the source is not reliable. I agreed and believed we'd better remove them until the source is evaluated at RSN. But Stefka Bulgaria did revert without carrying the

and building consensus on article talk page.

Comments:

As many reverts consecutively in some days were done by stefka, I reported him last month. As result, The admin let Stefka go without any action but this decision did not affect him. You can see that Stefka Bulgaria reverted nearly all the edits done by other users. It shows that he is trying to keep his

) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There are two sides involved here - and they all should be discussing instead of adding / removing bits of text (there has been a back and forth situation here from beginning of November, with little discussion). I would recommend protecting the article for some time to foster discussion on the TP - in preference to blocking editors from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

You are defending a user with 6 reverts in less than 24hrs. Absolutely not, there's almost no back and forth situation here. As the OP said, almost every single NEW edit was reverted by stefka in last two days. The above diffs talk for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I was not defending Stefka, but rather saying this is a two to tango (or in this case - three) situation. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly defending an editor violating the rules and it's not unprecedented. I say almost every single NEW edit done by three editors were reverted by Stefka and you say there's a "two to tango". --Mhhossein ^talk 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

As for the talk page, the last 13 topics opened in the talk page was opened either by Saff V. or me. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

1) All reverts were explained/justified in edit summaries. 2) Mhhossein and Saff V. have also been reverting, see recent talk page discussions. 3) I agree that protecting the page for some time would help confirm what can/cannot be included. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your swift reverts are carefully protecting your favored version against every single change by other editors, so nothing more is required, but giving you what violators of 3rr should receive. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Saff V. and Mhhossein have vandalized the article numerous times pushing a POV; I can provide diffs if requested. Since they cant debate against reliable sources, they’re other option seems to be trying to get me blocked (yet again). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• The reviewing admin is suggested to see other cases of Stefka's misconduct in MEK article, specially the points by User:JzG showing, like now, he used to add materials without building consensus and saying Stefka inserts the points he "knows" to be true to, rather than a proper review of the sources holistically." I can refer admin to his heavy revert in other MEK related pages such as Manshour Varasteh, Masoud Keshmiri and Maryam Rajavi when he work on the same article with pahlevun. So, I'm not wondering to see Stefka asking for protection of the page which will make his version of the article safe for some time. Another thing; User Icewhiz is clearly an involved user here reverting to defend Stefka some ten days ago.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  I am not involved in the current edit war. I am involved on the talk page. My last edit to the article itself - on 24 October (so 19 days ago, not "some ten days ago") - was not to "defend Stefka" (please see

  WP:ASPERSIONS) but rather to remove undue information from an unreliable source.Icewhiz (talk

  ) 07:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• Mhhossein's recent edit to the MEK article is an example of the issue at hand: Mhhossein's first requests RS for more info, when a RS is provided, Mhhossein then decides he will not include the statement anyway. This has happened multiple times, and is disruptive to say the least.

About the article, there is a POV-pushing issue that I've been trying to help fix. This included some insertions by Mhhossein:

1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)
3. "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."^[1]
4. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government."^[2] (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)

POV-pushing at the MEK page also used to involve user:EoL, who was recently blocked for "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East" and sockpupetry.

Both Mhhossein and Saff V. have falsely reported me here in the past [206], [207] (Mhhossein and Saff V. have worked on over 300 pages together), and Mhhossein's has also been involved in more than a few ANI reports: [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223]

Mhhossein has also a habit of casting aspersions [224][225]

About Saff V.'s report above:

1. We cannot include articles as part of "In the Media" section as there are countless of articles on this topic. This was explained in the edit summary and the section title was changed to "Documentary films".
2. There is a tag on the article saying the lede is too long, so adding controversial material to the lede is a no go without a previous discussion first.
3. As edit summary states: "No event has been specified here, hence the ^[

])"
4. As per point 2, lede is too long, so adding controversial material to it is a no-go.
5. As edit summary states: "The MEK advocating the overthrow of the IRI is already mentioned multiple times in the article, and, as Icewhiz has suggested, they would not oppose a "soft-overthrow". Don't scarequote."
6. As edit summary states: "Per RS on TP"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here we are talking about 3RR violation but Stefka tried to emphasize NPOV issues! (while in the Anti-American campaign section that was written by Mhhossein there is any sentence against POV).It is my question If the user has a wrong behavior, is it true to do reverts again and again?!here I asked Stefka to demonstrate the verifiability by seeking a reliable source or evaluating the reliability of that source in

wp:RSN but Stefka do revert or here after some reverts, Mhhossein asked more RS but Stefke revert with source is considered as blog and finally I (instesd of him) tried to describe the issue in talk page.Six reverts during 24 hours illusrtate that he couldn't tolerate the against discussions or idea and without giving to time to discuss or knowing another user opinion he just does revert.Saff V. (talk

) 11:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• My main priority is that the information used derives from neutral/informed/reliable sources. Users Saff V. and Mhhossein have been pushing a POV in this article. I have been trying to clean up some sections via reliable sources. These editors have not been able to debate against these RSs (though they've tried); and thus making a bunch of controversial edits so they can report me once I've cleaned them up seems to be their next best solution. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

See how other users and admins described your behavior in MEK article (

CIVILITY and wait for the admin comments regarding your 6 reverts within a single day. I seriously warn you against repeating "pushing a POV" which is a personal attack. --Mhhossein ^talk

17:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

No edit-warring in days; whether or not a block were warranted when the report was made (I've not checked), it isn't warranted now, and any action now would be

) 02:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend: Hey, did I get it right? Anyone with as many as 6 reverts withing a single day need no action? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, I'll explore the WP:ANI option further. Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to the admin comment, the user who clearly violated 3RR is pretending as if he's the good guy. @ Nyttend: Does not he need even a single warning? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)