Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive379

Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iovaniorgovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ([1])

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7], but before in the edit log

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
Unfortunately I had no other choice to report this user who with different invented arguments want to object an image that is supported by the current RFC. Initially, not respecting the abitration, he/she just started to remove the image, after by his own action cropped the original image by his own taste and reuploaded it to Wikimedia and without any consensus - just reffering to the talk page although noone agreed but objected this - he/she removed the original image and replaced by his/her one. He argued that if the image is altered, by referring the original license may be distributed, but he was told that not this is the problem, the problem is - as mentioned earlier - that he/she removes a map supported by an RFC and he/she adds a map that gained no consensus and goes against the RFC. Still he is pretending he does not understand or will not understand, because also earlier when other user's warned him about discretionary sanctions in the page regarding another issue [9], moroeover not adding anything without community support [10], and/or drawing attention of the result of the RFC and no consensus, he/she continued the reverts and accused more parties funnily "as being confused" ([11]), ([12]). What is really annoying, by his last revert he accused me as "abusive" and not referring to the talk page, although it is not true, since a long time he/she is active mainly only in this page and in not really nice manner continously confront other editors who anyway expressed their negative opinion about this, but accusing me not referring to the talk page, although I did openly did in the edit logs, as well referring to the RFC is an obvious reference to the talk page as well is again a clear attempt to mislead the community and identify himself/herself in a positive manner after 5 (!) reverts what other's really did not do....I think this is the point when intervention is needed, more of us explained him/her the rules, but it is ignored and even we are told what he/she is doing is "legal as per wiki rules"...no comment...KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)}}

KIENGIR informed me that Iovaniorgovan had mentioned me on this page. (1) When I proposed (to an other editor) that the caption should be changed, I did not imagine that any other editor would think that I agreed to modify the map. (2) I think the following discussion on the Talk page of the article excellently summarizes Iovaniorgovan's editing style: Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Transylvanian river names. I emphasize that the content of the debate is not interesting, it could be a simple, every day content dispute. What is remarkable that he is ready to refer to a scholar's book without any actual basis to substantiate his own original research (or rather faith or conviction). Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that discussion up, as it simply shows a lack or reading comprehension on your part.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Borsoka, this user have really a one-way interpretation of the rules, if it is something he/she likes , then not rules are not really important but everyone else is guilty for something, but with relevantly less problematic and clear things if he/she does not like, performs every kind of objection, even deliberately "misinterpreting" the rules and/or inventing everything to bludgeon the process. It may be perfectly seen about the maps he/she promotes with much problems, but of course none of us, making the same vica versa, as he/she does.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

Reply:
This editor failed to read the Talk page where the other Hungarian editor (Borsoka) agreed that: "I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)"" Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)" (that was in reply to my comment "So, it's Settled Romanians, not Settling Romanians (a subtle but important distinction). Shouldn't the caption then read "Romanian settlements"? If the caption is changed/cropped then I'd be in favor of including it, with the mention that it represents the Romanian settlements as recorded in those times by the Hungarians, etc (also important)."). The caption wasn't changed so I cropped it (all legally, as per Wiki rules). They are free to change it and replace the current photo. Moreover, the caption also bears contentious wording ("Autonomy") which can be easily misread or misconstrued (intentionally or not) in light of certain political movements (see here); to boot, "autonomy" (of either ethnic group) is not even discussed in the article so it's confusing to readers. One wonders why these editors are so attached to the title of the photo (which has no content other than the title) when the content of the map could be easily described below.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You think if you repeat your misleading in the front of the Administrators will result in something good? At is it is described in the talk page, Borsoka spoke about the caption, not cropping the image, and the the caption is "Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary (between 1200 and 1400)" that corresponds to this and was accepted. Moreover, the thing with autonomy is explained not just in the image itself, but also in the talk page. Now you introduce a new point that has again not any connection to the topic, since it is about a modern autonomy in the Communist Romania for the Hungarians, not having anything to do with the early middle ages. And please, stop misleading the community with such that "I would fail to read the talk page", I read it and you again pretend something that is not holding.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

I see you made a change in your reply, well it is still part of your misleading. You still fail to understand your proposal did not gain any consensus, at the same time you try to falsify outher users proposals (we all considered the "caption" the text written by us and put under the image, never any text in the image itself, and you were warned by more users they don't support your cropping and own interpretation [13], [14]). So there is an RFC that you don't respect, there is continous reverts with additions without any consensus and also continous edit warring. Not good.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

I used the word "caption" when I was referring to the map alone (before it was placed into the article), then afterwards I used "title/caption" or just "title" for clarity, but there was no confusion as to what I was referring to, hence the "cropping" mention, etc. It's possible you missed it. My comment was also added for clarity and context.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

No way, none of us missed anything, furthermore anyone who will check the talk page will clearly see your coining attempt, since more editors expressed immediately that your cropping is not supported and for clarity that there is no consensus for it, despite you continued and harmed a bunch of rules. It seems certain you are aware of what you did, but instead of recognizing it, you try to evade and invent other misleading excuses (hence regardless how try to explain out the unexplainable, still you went against the RFC, without consensus, and regardless of the multiple warnings you just went on edit warring).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC))

The two Hungarian editors (Borsoka, Kiengir) screaming 'fire' here have been trying to sabotage this article (Origin of the Romanians) for a long time. Whether it's done on purpose or just through sheer ineptitude I can't tell, but the effect can be easily gleaned through a quick read of the article. Every independent Wiki editor who ever moderated any of the many disputes has arrived at the same conclusion: the article is a mess and is in dire need of restructuring. In fact, we've been having a discussion on the NPOV notice board about this very subject (you might want to take a quick look). The moderator there had this suggestion to make "I would recommend that each of you try to write an outline of what the major viewpoints are, which scholars support each viewpoint, and cite the important sources that describe each viewpoint. Basically, don't put the cart before the horse: don't try to figure out how to write one article from multiple points of view, before you agree on what the viewpoints are to begin with. This exercise should also help clarify the relative significance of each viewpoint, and might reveal points of agreement, positions on which there is scholarly consensus that could form the basis of background sections. Then you figure out what to do with the stuff that scholars disagree on. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)" and yet Borsoka, et al, have refused to comply with it. Now "they" are again resisting another moderator's (@Srnec) suggestion to improve the article, as you can see here. I'm afraid editing wars will be unavoidable unless something is done about these editors' behavior (incidentally I see Borsoka has a history of such behavior).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Iovaniorgovan:, your above summary does not properly reflect the facts. For instance, see my answers to Srnec's proposals here ([15]) and here ([16]). This is not the first case that your summary and the facts contradict each other (I refer to the same discussion as above: Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Transylvanian river names. And you are starting a new edit war ([17], [18]). Please stop it. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Any independent reader of those threads can see plain as day that you are resisting the changes that should be made to the article and are clearly sabotaging any move in the direction suggested by the moderators. If you hadn't the article would've been restructured (for the better) by now (you say one thing but do another). Moreover, you are the one trying to shoehorn information into the article, presenting it as fact, when I already showed you a couple

WP:RS that disagree with those statements. Please seek advice on the appropriate forums before ever attempting to do such a thing, in clear violation of Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk

) 07:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The community and the administrators may clearly see about the hapennings since last evening, that this user does the same like in the articles, he/she does not concentrate necessarily on the real things we have, but a continous deterioration from the topic and the whereabouts, in order to draw the attention away from the real subject; his/her malicious behavior and bad faith activity. Any edit warring notice or the ongoing discussion here about his/her behavior does not pull him/her back from edit warring - (already new three reverts [19], [20], [21]), on the other hand as here and on the talk page of this another issue he/she is not just engaged to accuse other editors [22] with incivility, but as well again accusing Borsoka with "lack of comprehension", that is odd since this discussion here, and the two other discussions referred here is the prefect proof that this editor is:

- does not willing to recognize and see what he/she did wrong (also not willing to understand some rules may have serious consequences)

- completely ignoring/rejecting community decisions and tendentiously rejecting existing consensus or building it

(and he/she dare to accuse other editors of "sabotage" that he/she does continously this regarding the referred topics...should I mention the third time his/her violation of the RFC, pushing and reverting without consensus - despite of the continous warnings - the same with edit warring? It is such amazingly aggravating...).(KIENGIR (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

Please allow me to reverse google-translate that for you. If you're accusing me of standing in the way of your vandalizing this article then, yes, you are correct (a quick summary of what the neutral editors/moderators have provided on the content and structure of this article is provided by another editor at the end of this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard.)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not "vandalize" anything, and with groundless and serious accuations you don't achieve anything. You refer to a discussion that has nothing to do with the several violations you commited - not surprised again about your deterioration from the subject - also in the discussion you referred it has been clearly seen the failure to understand and recognize some things, rules and with lengthy deteriorations the only goal is to confront, deteriorate and object. Moreover with this remark "I'm afraid editing wars will be unavoidable" you just reinforced and prolonged your behavior in the future, although you ignore you are here because of your edit warring mainly - next to other serious violation of community guidelines and rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC))

Information: User yust removed the report. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

That's the gazillionth sock of a perennial pest, totally unrelated to this case. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Again a revert from the user [23], again a situation where he/she completely ignores WP:BRD. If he/she makes an addition and regardless that the discussion is ongoing on or did not gain consensus yet, he/she is reverting with the reference to the "talk page and/or 3O" - even when the talk page does not support his/her reverts (not the first time as indicated above as well). But when i.e. Borsoka added something - as reffered above - he/she soon entered into a new edit war and reverted it completely, with as well the reference to the "talk page and 3O" or as an "ongoing discussion". Conclusively, he/she applies WP:BRD only when it is about any material he/she does not like, by regarding his/her additions - without consensus or against any other decision - it is not applied by him/her.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC))

And again...[24]....although Borsoka tried to explain him/her in the talk page what I was just referring to [25]...how long this can go on?(KIENGIR (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC))

It is clear that he is not here to build an encyclopedia.: [26] and [27]. Borsoka (talk

) 01:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and again a new revert [28], with the same tactic, not undestanding that as per WP:BRD Borsoka had the legitimate right to revert and this user should should wait until he/she would establish consensus (with or without 3O, that anyway was not known by Borsoka, since it was launched along with the revert). The most sad the thing tha he/she is accusing Borsoka of edit-warring, although this user makes it on and on, with the double measure referred above (since being reported, already the 3rd (!) edit-warring, with a total amount of 11 (!) reverts (including the root cause)....(KIENGIR (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC))

• Page protected I figured all the discussion here indicated that people were discussing and not reverting, but I see a good deal of undoing in the recent history. Iovaniorgovan hasn't broken 3RR lately at least, and nobody else has seemingly come close. The tone of the above discussion, plus the page history of the last week, aren't reason for action here; anyone wanting further action should go to
  WP:ANI and copy this discussion over. Nyttend (talk
  ) 02:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, well, regarding "discussing and not reverting" does not hold for the reported person, did he/she break 3RR or not, I don't understand why his/her other serious violations has been ignored, not even receiving a warning from any administrator since there is pretty much evidence here (and seeing the tone of his/her style of discussion, deliberately not understanding BRD process and it's appliance I doubt without any admin action he/she will change or understand). However, after the page protection expires, a kind of "duck test" will show indeed, since the map supported by the RFC will be put back that he/she deleted and replaced without any consensus and on the contrary that immediately two editors four times warned before and meanwhile his/her edit warring that it is not supported, does not have consensus (I did not revert more and I made the report and waited all along this discussion as per wikietiquette, hoping the admins will do something, since Iovaniorgovan said he/she practically expressed not care about what he/she did, I can do whatever I want. If hs/she would revert it again, that would mean he/she understood nothing, and then already we would be at disruptive editing... So I think not just me, but other editors will be disappointed, after-meanwhile this report plus two deliberate edit warring he/she did and violations as well disregarding BRD and nothing happens...what will pull him/her back then in the future? At least apply your proposal about the "good deal", and undo recent history back to "Revision as of 11:24, 8 November 2018", as after this point the reported user with misleading reference in the edit log started the clear edit warring and violations.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC))

KIENGIR, please see

WP:WRONG — if I protect a page, I'm supposed to protect it as I find it, without regard to whose version is current. Nyttend (talk

) 11:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Nyttend, maybe you misunderstood me, I know the protection does hot have necessarily any connection to the current validity of the page, but your opinion was "I see a good deal of undoing in the recent history", for that was my reaction. Anyway, I will follow that procedure that you remommended, if again we'll notice that this user did not learn anything from this case and after the protection expires the same behavior continues, heading to the other noticeboard will be inavoidable. At least, please keep your eye on the article and if you see that BRD is again only applied in one way and reverts would be done by this user with false reference and without consensus already discussed in the talk page, do not let the case escalate, none of us wishing to play this revert game with him/her, because normally such kind of tendentious edit warring even without breaking 3RR should be sanctioned, I may treat your closing decision as a huge gesture to a newbie user who may be uncertain by some rules and wikietiquette. Thank You for your understanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC))

I see reverts by Favonian, Iovaniorgovan, TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit, and Borsoka in the latest fifty edits, and Iovaniorgovan hasn't exceeded 3RR lately. Edit-warring sanctions for just one person would be inappropriate, so the only appropriate actions would be to block them all and let God sort them out (generally a bad idea), or to close your request with no action whatsoever (bad idea, given the ongoing slow edit warring), or to protect. Blocking only Iovaniorgovan would only be appropriate if he'd overall been a good deal more in the wrong than the others: you'd need to present additional evidence in a setting more appropriate for discussion, which is why I recommended WP:ANI. If I were convinced that Iovaniorgovan was in the right, or convinced that you were targeting him unfairly, I'd close this with prejudice (i.e. "Not a violation, and stop harassing him", at least), and if I were convinced that he was in the wrong, I'd be blocking him rather than protecting. By protecting, I'm basically saying "Something's wrong, so it needs to be stopped, and any investigation needs to have time to happen". Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see your argumentation. Then I have to accept that in this noticeboard the appropriate appliance of the BRD principle is not investigated or taken into account, subsequently to those materials that are added without consensus or against any other community decision, but practically the raw number of reverts and their initiative repetition, if I interpret it good, thus with these issues in case I should go to the other ANI (that is for the deeper investigation). Thank you for the clarification.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2018 (UTC))

Page: Black and Tans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EmSixTeen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

POV tagging as "citation needed".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]

Tagging a statement in a conclusion section which has already been covered in detail in a prior section.

Their only discussion is equally POV: Talk:Black_and_Tans#Importance_of_citation_when_making_loaded_statements_presented_as_fact

Warned User_talk:EmSixTeen#November 2018, but their only response was retaliatory and to repeat the edit yet again.

• Also note that this article may be subject to a 1RR anyway, under
  WP:TROUBLES, although the scope isn't clear enough to use that punitively. But 3RR is still 3RR and this is clearly ignoring it. Andy Dingley (talk
  ) 17:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Bishonen | talk 21:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

Page

April Carrión (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ratherbe2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868831417 by Natureium (talk) And I've warned you too many times to stop messing with this article because you don't have a leg to stand on. If anything I should block you for misconduct."
2. 18:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868827802 by Natureium (talk) It's possible to recreate the page if some time has passed, so that point is irrelevant. Stop now."
3. 18:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "Make that 3 shows."
4. 18:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "Added extra info and sources. And I'm pretty sure appearing in 2 reality shows, 2 music video credits for big name artists AND one of the main features for an award winning film doesn't equal "Not notable". Don't like it, too bad."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article has redirected per AfD, (Personal attack removed) Natureium (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone else tried to discuss it with them [34] but they just removed it. Natureium (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm not smarter than everyone else, that doesn't look good on your character. Second, I told you several times, I believe three at least, that the person in question is in fact notable because of multiple tv appearances, music video appearances, a documentary appearance as well as a strong social media following. Plus other contestants from the reality show April was on have Wikipedia pages with similar or even lower notability than them. Every single time I defended using this, this user completely ignored because he knew he didn't have a counterpoint. When he started the request for deletion (for no reason might I add) only three users commented, clearly not enough for a consensus, and I told him about this, and tried to reopen the discussion, yet he still brushed off my comment as nothing. On top of that, I told them that AfD can be reversed if enough time and more notable action/appearances have happened over time, and yes, it has happened before on this website in a matter of days. Simply, The user posting this was the one in the wrong. Ratherbe2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

You saying a person is notable doesn't make it true. You can shout it from the rooftops if you want. The fact is that the article was redirected following an AfD less than a week ago. You ignored being told to take it to DRV, and instead edit warring with multiple people and leaving uncivil edit summaries like Don't like it, too bad. and And I've warned you too many times to stop messing with this article because you don't have a leg to stand on. If anything I should block you for misconduct. (Not sure how you are planning to block me, but go ahead and try.) Next time, rather than ignoring the deletion review process, ignoring decisions made at AfD, ignoring reversions by multiple editors, and ignoring and deleting talk pages messages, you should probably read the guidelines. Natureium (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record Natureium had not edited the article before today. I believe I am the user that Ratherbe2000 had told their thinking to several times. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Armed Forces of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and also my talk page User talk:VoidWanderer (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.94.15.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]
3. [38]

also my talk page:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]

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

Comments:

I'd like to comment that the original version which used to exist more that half a year is here. User VoidWanderer is trying to remove a well sourced content using made up excuses. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Original version is not original. It was added in March 2018, and was as inappropriate as the current one. It does not rely on secondary independent sources, instead it's built on several primary sources, which is unacceptable for such a chapter/article. Explanations were provided on a talk page. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually this is outright lie. The version relies on highly respected secondary sources: UN reports. Each UN report contains a references to the primary ones. In addition to them there is a book of Dutch journalist cited in the article. And on the talk page you were given a bunch of other reports which you are prefer to ignore. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

You're confused by secondary and independent sources, and mixing them. No secondary sources were provided for Ukrainian armed forces, but you some of those sources may be considered as secondary for the conflict as a whole. You're unable to provide a scale/total number approximation of crimes committed by UAF specifically. That's the clear indication no secondary sources for UAF were provided so far. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

As I said this is a not true. The highly respected secondary sources were provided for you, but you are just repeating the same song ignoring the evidences. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

No violation The IP has only made 3 reverts.

3RR specifies "more than three reverts". This isn't yet actionable, there's no cross-page warring going on. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss

21:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention to make another revert so the IP will cancel it for the 4th time. Its behavior is disruptive already. --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Warring on my talk page goes on:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]

Protection from anonymous users requested. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Explain me, please, why you remove the warning from you talk page? --77.94.15.152 (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

per

WP:TPO, you're perfectly entitled to remove most stuff from your talk page. Removal is acknowledgement of receipt. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss

22:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

77.94.15.152, first and foremost: it's not me who edit-warring. Quite the opposite - it's you who did it in the Armed Forces of Ukraine article. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, really? Watching the edit history looks like you are trying to whitewash the war criminals. --77.94.15.152 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really. Other than an edit-warring in the article, you're violating

WP:NPA

now:

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.

It was me who was asking about the scale of crimes and sources for it. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: initial diff, 15:06, 11 November 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff, restored above after revert, and changed more 15:43, 11 November 2018
2. diff, restored above after revert, and did more 17:33, 11 November 2018
3. diff, restored one thing, given EW notice after this. 17:52, 11 November 2018
4. diff, after being reverted on a different edit, restored it, and did more. 03:23, 12 November 2018
5. diff, reverted major reversion of their edits 09:55, 12 November 2018
6. diff, again reverted major reversion of their edits, then did more in subsequent diffs 10:20, 12 November 2018
7. diff again reverted major reversion of their edits, then did more in subsequent diffs 14:42, 12 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; please note their responses there.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Proposed_rollback and the section below it.

Comments:
This person seems determined to rewrite the page, regardless of other editors' objections. Their talk page behavior makes proclamations rather than discussing (e.g here, with edit note "reply to page owners". Doesn't seem to understand what we do here and how we do it. Initial response here changed another user's comments along with the odd proclamatory style. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Reply to Jytdog

You are incorrect; I have repeatedly asked you and the other editors to be specific and give examples of which edit is factually incorrect. Collectively, you have replied with personality conflict complaints, followed by rollback of all of my editorial contributions. Surely, not every one of my edits is factually incorrect, is it, Colleague? I notice that you complain about me personally, rather than about me editorially. Am I out of line in asking you to be specific about my errors? Because when I wrote page-owner behaviour, it describes editors who revert all of my edits, and yet refuse to be specific about why my edit is "wrong". In my editorial experience, that is "Because I just don't like it!" Otherwise, why not tell me where are my factual errors, i.e. What section? Which paragraph? Which paragraph-line? Which sentence? Such high-hand force in applying the rules to me does bespeak gate-keeper behaviour. 'Please, Jytdog, limit yourself to my editorial contributions, not my personality.

Among the factual corrections I have realised, is the removal of the unsubtle POV-pushing, by way of Jew-baiting, by always mentioning the Jewishness of a personage, but not mentioning the Christianity of the American historian Daniel Pipes, yet mentioning the Jewishness of the Brit journalists who uncovered the anti-Semitic fraudof The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (1903). I know something of the subject, but do not command the rules, regulations, and guidelines of Wikipedia. So, please, tell me is there a rule that allows the continual restoration of such specific examples of POV-pushing?

Let me know,

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That about says it all. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog and I rarely if ever agree but this report is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Wow! Talk about "see a bit and dream a bit". Had Chas Caltrop popped up on the talk page wanting to discuss whether there was a disparity in the way in which different people's religions were mentioned in the article then that could have been discussed. Maybe a few minor changes could have been agreed. Instead he makes a load of large edits to no obvious purpose, and with very uninformative edit summaries. Only when we get here do we discover his reasoning. He blows it all up into "unsubtle POV-pushing" and "Jew-baiting" but I see none of that in the article as it was before he started on it and I'm somebody who loves nothing more than catching racists, anti-Semites and similar scumbags in the act, hitting revert and putting them straight on final warning. In other words, I'd be 100% behind his efforts if they had any basis to them and were executed semi-competently. Instead I see genuinely puzzling edits. They are not all obviously entirely bad but most not obviously net improvements either. I see edit summaries so uninformative that they do seem to have been chosen almost at random. I see people being confused by this and trying to straighten things back out. I see them trying to discuss with him and getting nowhere. My messages on his talk page sometimes got replied to with non-sequiturs which I genuinely can't make any sense of. More than anything else I see somebody who has repeatedly blundered into articles on sensitive subjects and gone through "like a bull in a china shop" leaving a mess for other people to clear up. I'm not sure if he is oblivious to this but he has been here long enough that he should have some idea what he is doing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but the general behavior issue you're referencing is beyond the scope of this edit-warring report, which is crystal-clear. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This behavior is entirely normal for this editor. I'd refer admins to the report I filed on him at ANI not too long ago, which at the time was the third report of that kind in a very short time period. The editor hasn't edited much in the meantime, but when they returned, they also returned to their POV-pushing edit-warring consensus-violating ways. A significant block is necessary, despite his only having one block to date, to convince Caltrop that he cannot continue to edit in this manner is a collegial and cooperative project such as Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I've asked Chas. Caltrop to explain why he shouldn't be blocked for edit warring, given the list of seven reverts offered at the top of this report. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  He seems to have absented himself. Given that the issues related here appear to be recurrent, I would hope that this matter not be allowed to die out simply because the editor in question does not deign to interact with other editors. Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring, with a pattern that has previously been reported at ANI. Any admin may lift this block if they become persuaded that the user understands the problem with their edits and will follow policy in the future. Walking away in the middle of a dispute might justify no action the first time, but the issue keeps on recurring. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 15 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: [47]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [48] removed close paraphrasing tag
2. [49]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50][51]

Comments:
User has continued edit warring over the same content coming off a 48 hour block. Blocking admin and I have both opened talk page sections to discuss the content but the reverting has continued without any discussion. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I would favor an indefinite block. The user seems oblivious to all advice. If you view their contributions you'll see a six-times repetition of garbled critique of the other editor, such as "Unlawful remival [sic] of references, bibliography and citation for credible informatuon [sic] by Seraphim System". This is not good-faith participation in a dialog. They resumed their edit war at Amatuni about an hour after their last 3RR block expired. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: EverQuote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1003:b863:b359:915b:d6ec:b0af:20ff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Undid revision 868932542 by HouseOfChange
2. Undid revision 868947027 by Largoplazo
3. Undid revision 868984557 by HouseOfChange
4. Undid revision 869022698 by Ponyo
5. Undid revision 869026872 by Ponyo
6. Undid revision 869028384 by Largoplazo

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Non-templated explanation as to why the IP edits are being reverted provided here by User:HouseOfChange

Comments:
IP repeatedly reinserting very contentious and poorly-sourced material to the article citing "NPOV" and their determination to show it "warts and all". Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A similar IP address is now making same reverts:

• Previous IP contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B863:B359:915B:D6EC:B0AF:20FF
• Newer IP contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:1003:B863:B359:5828:FB9:9A40:48C6
• Diff of recent revert and comment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EverQuote&type=revision&diff=869104658&oldid=869082399

Not sure what to do, except to add to report by Ponyo. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

• It's the same editor on the /64 range, so the block would need to be 2600:1003:b863:b359::/64. They're at about 8 reverts now, so I have no idea why they haven't been blocked yet.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Obvious edit warring, well past 3RR, was warned clearly. Blocked the /64 since he's rotating. Kuru (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: initial edits 02:46, 26 October 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff revert 03:03, 26 October 2018
2. diff revert and then some 16:49, 26 October 2018
3. diff revert and then some 20:39, 14 November 2018
4. diff again 20:59, 14 November 2018
5. diff again 00:02, 15 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (also notice of DS on altmed here and on PSCI here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Herbalism#Opening_Statement

Comments:
Long-term editing warring on a topic with two kinds of DS. Please block. Will escalate to AE after block if this continues. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will stop editing the herbalism page. I reverted my edit. I fixed an error, something that was not construed by the sources themselves, and clearly explained why, but you can't seem to understand. I tried to explain things to you, but you reported me before really fully understanding me and my points. I don't want fighting, I don't want reporting, and I don't want misunderstandings. And I would rather leave Wikipedia than get an undeserved block. So because of this, I am now considering retirement from Wikipedia... -- EzekielT ^Talk 00:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You did revert #5, which still leaves the four. You are being far too bold on a page where two kinds of discretionary sanctions apply. We have DS for very good reason and you are not being mindful. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest anymore in editing the herbalism page now. I would rather retire than get blocked. I hope I made that clear... -- EzekielT ^Talk 00:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Can we have an agreement: I'll stop editing the page, and you'll seize your efforts to block me? I have ceased my efforts. I'm not interested anymore. I never expected you to report me; we were just starting a discussion and it seemed all of a sudden. You hadn't said you wanted me to completely stop editing the page, so I thought doing a slight correction was okay. And I don't want any arguments with you or anyone else. -- EzekielT ^Talk 01:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I am now going to take an indefinite Wikibreak, and I'm also considering retiring. Drastic, I know, but fighting with other users is just not my thing, and it's never worth it. Not that I'm ever interested in doing such a thing. I will still reply if you or the others give responses though. Also, the fifth one was not a revert: I did not undo anything, it was just a normal non-revert edit. I only made 2 reverts in a 24 hour period, not 4 as required to be blocked under the 3RR rule. As such, I did not even nearly violate the 3RR rule, so it's completely impossible for me to receive a block. So this report is invalid. Plus, I self-reverted. I am not in any way applicable to get blocked. -- EzekielT ^Talk 01:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Since you have self-reverted there is very unlikely to be a block. I don't know if you actually read the edit war notice that i left you but there is a link to

WP:BRD in it. Being bold is great but if you are reverted, actually discuss it before making it again. BRD. Where there are DS -- as there are here -- you should to make really sure it is OK before making it again. That's all. Jytdog (talk

) 01:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :). -- EzekielT ^Talk 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Can this be closed with no admin action? The editor reverted their last change to
  WP:ARBACU. EdJohnston (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EzekielT (talk • contribs
  )

• Result: No action, per my comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Statue of Unity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Notthebestusername (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55] 06:19, 16 November 2018
2. [56] 06:44, 16 November 2018
3. [57] 07:32 16 November 2018
4. [58] 07:32 16 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Comments:

• Avoiding talk page completely. Using misleading summaries for his edits,[61] and calling people a troll.[62][63] Qualitist (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the information I have posted on the

statue of unity

is bonafide info, based on highly reputed references. The trouble is the statue itself is a bit like a statue in North Korea - official sources tend to be propagandists. I could make out that the page was being inundated by fake news. I tried to set this right without getting into a brawl on the talk page (I have interacted with such page editors in the past, and this tends to be a ridiculous battle against a wall). However, let me try to engage with them on the talk page.

Also, quantlist is a blacklisted id with no info on its talk page. It bears the signature that is usually used by trolls in India.Notthebestusername (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please be sure to look at the article history for all those making big reverts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and my BRD request may not have been appropriate. With all the edits, I may not have understood which was the last stable version. My apologies for that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours to Notthebestusername for edit warring at Statue of Unity. If anyone believes that the current article still contains copyvio, please explain on the talk page so that it can be removed. Should the reverts continue, full protection may be necessary, so please use the talk page to get agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz (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. 13:14, 14 November 2018
2. 19:55, 14 November 2018 with the summary: "What part of "WITHOUT REMOVING THIS TAG" did you not understand?" Answering with this tone and screaming to another user is not acceptable
3. 01:55, 15 November 2018
4. 23:52, 15 November 2018 with the summary: "FINAL WARNING":
5. 20:36, 16 November 2018

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

Comments:
User Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has entered in a

• Since I'm the person referred to in the last sentence, I must explain that it was obvious satire and was nowhere near the truth, even though it is a true story (no, it isn't). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)
  WP:NOT3RR and it does appear that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was at least trying to follow relevant non-free content use policy and then engage in discussion, whereas the other editor(s) were simply reverting without addressing the policy issues being raised. -- Marchjuly (talk
  ) 00:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• (ec) See
  WP:NFC#UUI. Only in death does duty end (talk
  ) 00:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• Looks like proper handling of inappropriate non-free imagery of living persons. Yes, we allow non-free images of groups that have split up, but those images already exist, so the additional images under questions would clearly fail NFC, which is exempt from edit warring. --Masem (t) 01:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• There's clearly no violation here, so I'll just note for the record that 1) there were no more than two reverts in any 24-hour period (the first "revert" listed was the initial placement of an F7 deletion tag, which is in no way a revert), and 2) disputed F7 deletion tags should not be removed absent unusual circumstances, but left in place pending administrator evaluation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• No violation Repeated removal of tagging by the uploader is the chief problem here. Acroterion (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

World Chess Championship 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869316291 by Fbergo (talk)I didn't say I wanted to violate anything. If the next 4 games are all won by the same player, the 1st to 6.5 points goal would already be achieved. Otherwise, it will take an 11th game at least to do so. I know all this for certain. I'm not predicting whether the tiebreaks will happen or not or anything else.."
2. 19:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869266960 by Fbergo (talk) As I explained in the edit summary for the edit that was reverted which is being reverted again here, the match is very likely to have at least as many draws as last time with few if any wins. Plus, it improves section placement, numbering and naming. Its not meant to continue from adding framework to future games by putting in headers without content such as the moves before the game has been played."
3. 12:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "The part of the article about the games should be in its own section, divided into mainly 2 parts (regular and tiebreak games). Only the former is up because whilst there is a very good chance the match will start with no fewer than 7 draws like in '16, the match could still be decided after game 9."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Despite an ongoing discussion on the framework of future games (now 7 thru 12) of this match, and opposition from at least three users (Banedon, myself, and Fbergo), this user has repeatedly added uncommented empty sections for future games.

User has been warned (albeit botched in the current form) for disruptive editing and the 3RR.

Recommend a block of this IP thru at least 22:00 UTC 19 Nov, if not 23:59 UTC 29 Nov when the match will end. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Additional discussion ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 11:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• User being reported: MrGeneric299 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User being reported: 175.36.136.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Page: Brisbane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Second attempt to write this nothing seems to be getting through to him, need admin help--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how to link the edits, but he has made at least 6 reverts to the Brisbane page in the past 2 days under the IP User talk:175.36.136.184 which I attempted to talk to, and again on User:MrGeneric299 page, both accounts were ignored and reverting continued.--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, look unfortunately that wasn't me. You also attempted to talk to me once, where I responded and yet you report me. You'll also note I added a discussion on the Talk:Brisbane page as well as putting in notes the reason for the update of my montage, then you've reverted back to yours with no reason given on notes. I understand things happen at different times on Wikipedia, but I've responded to you. Not sure why you're reporting me as I have not made 4 reversions. MrGeneric299 (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You have made 3 reverts within 24hours, and the other IPs were you since you kept trying to put up the same montage over and over, it's an ugly bad quality montage, you need to stop--Caltraser55 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I made 2 reverts, and one upload of a new montage, this is not 3 reverts. The other "IPs" are not me, I'm always signed in to Wikipedia on my computer. The montage I am putting up is not an 'ugly, bad quality image.' You either have a very bad screen, or you don't understand how photography works. You really need to start making some meaningful contributions and stop editing and then arguing with other members on Wikipedia as several people have already pointed out on the

If no admin here is going to sort this out I will start reverting Mrgenerics bad montage, he criticizes me for having a CBD skyline that doesn't have 1 William st visible in it when you can't see 1 william st from that angle anyway, Mrgeneric your own montage has a picture of 1 William st still under construction while mine is finished.--Caltraser55 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Give the admin some time. Rome wasn't built in a day. Read what I've said and contribute on the Talk:Brisbane page, don't go making reverts. MrGeneric299 (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Caltraser55 and MrGeneric299: Probably the lack of administrator response is that this is not an administrator problem. This is not the place to argue about who has the best montage in Brisbane. Stop the edit warring on Brisbane. Take the discussion to Talk:Brisbane to resolve. Kerry (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted collage to version before changes by Caltraser55 and MrGeneric299. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now. User:MrGeneric299 has not edited the article since 15 November, and the IP last edited on the 14th. If the reverting continues the article may be fully protected, to require people to wait for the outcome of discussion. See instructions at top of this page for how to submit a complaint here. You should include diffs of the edit war (I tried to fix this one up). EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Kappa Alpha Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Admin Edit"
2. 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869474116 by TheRedBox (talk)"
3. 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869473577 by TheRedBox (talk)"
4. 21:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869472574 by TheRedBox (talk)"
5. 20:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ citing"
6. 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Removed irrelevant information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 20:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems to be here only to remove anything negative from this article, also changed an old section heading on the talk page for similar reason. Doug Weller talk 21:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Editor was blocked, agreed to use talk, then unblocked, and is now using talk with promise to avoid article until consensus reached. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User is now unblocked, since they agreed to wait for consensus on talk, per Anna Frodesiak's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yoleo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]

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

Comments:
New (ish) user who has appeared at this contentious article and reverted content four times in 90 minutes despite being told more than once to use the talk page, which they have not done today. They had previously made a semi-protected request at the talk page which was rejected. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I have given the editor a 31 hour block and some advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 18:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "This is K-pop genre and it's not for both."
3. 18:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 04:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 00:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 18:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 22:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 18:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* November 2018 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See

Comments:

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page which the IP has ignored. bonadea contributions talk 18:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• IP is also removing the citation supporting the genre being removed (J-pop). Added a sixth revert by 67.187.85.200 Jim1138 talk 19:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
• Added 22:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC) revert and talk page link. Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

Vietnam women's national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2001:EE0:4001:694D:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Good try, Softlavender. Try again."
2. 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869404702 by Softlavender (talk)"
3. [74]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Sock of Albertpda (talk · contribs) Hhkohh (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks /64 range Acroterion (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [75]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76] (Undid revision 869089908 by AlexTheWhovian (talk))
2. [77] (Who’s ‘we’ this Is a convenient way for readers to be allocated to the current/most recent series of the show, if that’s what they are looking for.)
3. [78] (Discussed)
4. [79] (Discussed on talk page.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has continued to revert with edit summaries like "discussed" and "discussed on talk page", despite at the time only having a singular contribution to the discussion. I had to ping them thrice to get a reply from them. They seem to have no intent to continue discussion properly, stating that the content does not violate the given guideline/policy despite being told exactly what part it violates, ignoring detailed response in the discussion to continue adding the content into the article. Pinging

Darlin you’ve gotta calm down! It’s an inconvenience having to scroll down the page to click on the current series that’s all I said! Don’t have a prolapse Hun x DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@

^TW

02:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I was asleep when this report was made so couldn't respond sooner but support the block. Matt14451 (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Dheeraj Palvai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
2. 18:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
3. 16:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
4. 06:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
5. 16:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"
6. 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Opinion polls */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on
   TW
   )"
2. 00:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced pov pushing

• Consider blocking Akhiljaxxn for engaging in edit war and not using talk page.[84] He tried to evade 3RR by using his IP address from Kerala [85], same place where Akhiljaxxn comes from, per his userpage. This warrants indef block. Excelse (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Andrey Kostin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sinopsisus (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. [86]
2. [87]
3. [88]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:I feel that the user Sinopsisus is not conducting good faith edits. I have not tried to block another user, so I do not know if this how I should ask for assistance. Thank you! 216.248.99.93 (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• No violation GAB^gab 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Page

The Pianist (2002 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869752685 by IanDBeacon (talk) rvv"
2. 04:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869752573 by IanDBeacon (talk) rvv"
3. 03:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869751710 by Crboyer (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama"
4. 03:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 869751526 by Crboyer (talk) rvv"
5. 03:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:58, 20 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Similar edit-war is ongoing at Schindler's List as well. See the IP's contribs. IanDBeacon (talk) 04:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding the word "fictional" as in "a fictional 1993 American epic historical period drama" makes it sound like the film is made-up. Other films based on true stories aren't called "fictional" on their Wikipedia pages. I did try to explain to the user once (and would have again, on their talk page, had I not had an edit conflict), but they aren't listening. Crboyer (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have been blocked because of this

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

Comments:

Coltsfan dislikes being opposed and made

• (Non-administrator comment) @IP 49.180.99.171: You're posting on all kind of pages about this which is not really something you should be doing per
  sock pupppets. Finally, you're supposed to notify an editor when you start a discussion about them at AN3, but it doesn't appear that you have notified Coltsfan. -- Marchjuly (talk
  ) 01:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Filing IP blocked. No violation by Coltsfan.
  WP:DUCK, and per the admission that their regular account is blocked. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 04:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: Sharonaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As part of a discussion on the issue at the Wikiproject [97]

Comments:
The user clearly has no interest in having anything other than his exact edit on the following pages

I believe this is clear Edit Warring rather than attempting to be collaborative. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 14:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I will take this opportunity to counter-report the formerly blocked

WP:OWNING Wikipedia here, but it's his way or nothing, as ever. By the way: he's reverting me too. Oh, and this ever-polite individual says I'm behaving in a "retarded" fashion.[102] Sharonaj (talk

) 14:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It looks as though some kind of agreement may have been reached at the WikiProject talk page. But if reverts continue, blocks may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Gibraltar national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 194.82.219.50 (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. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:194.82.219.50#November 2018

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

Comments:

Persistent IP vandal, adding nonsense to several pages. Posted here for admin intervention, I didn't think semi-protection would help as they're page hopping. WCM_email 16:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – Schoolblock one month for long-term vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [107] (removal of reference containing less than complimentary information)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108] (removal of ref again)
2. [109] (removal of ref again)
3. [110] (addition of promotional material)
4. [111] (reintroduction of promotional material)
5. [112] (reintroduction of promotional material)
6. [113] (an again, even after being alerted of this discussion)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Also, renewed invitation to discussion: [116] and [117].

Comments:

• Blocked for 72 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)