Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive379

User:Iovaniorgovan reported by User:KIENGIR (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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, moroeover not adding anything without community support , 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" ,. 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)}}
 * informed me that 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. 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, ). 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)
 * , your above summary does not properly reflect the facts. For instance, see my answers to Srnec's proposals here and here . 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. And you are starting a new edit war . 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, , ), 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 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, 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.......although Borsoka tried to explain him/her in the talk page what I was just referring to ...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.: and . Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and again a new revert, 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))


 * 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))

User:EmSixTeen reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

POV tagging as "citation needed".

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

Warned User_talk:EmSixTeen, 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)
 * Bishonen &#124; talk 21:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC).

User:Ratherbe2000 reported by User:Natureium (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "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)  "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)  "Make that 3 shows."
 * 4)  "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)   "Warning: Edit warring on April Carrión. (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 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.
 * 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)


 * 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 had told their thinking to several times. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:77.94.15.152 reported by User:VoidWanderer (Result: )
Page: and also my talk page

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

also my talk page:

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)
 * 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. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   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: 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. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   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:
 * It was me who was asking about the scale of crimes and sources for it. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was me who was asking about the scale of crimes and sources for it. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Chas. Caltrop reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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 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)
 * – 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)

User:НазариНазар reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amatuni&diff=868682366&oldid=868671746&diffmode=source]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amatuni&diff=869000169&oldid=868690059&diffmode=source] removed close paraphrasing tag
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amatuni&diff=869000274&oldid=869000169&diffmode=source]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amatuni&diff=868682686&oldid=868374754&diffmode=source][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amatuni&diff=868684357&oldid=868682686&diffmode=source]

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)


 * Mz7 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:1003:b863:b359:915b:d6ec:b0af:20ff reported by User:Ponyo (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

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)
 * . Obvious edit warring, well past 3RR, was warned clearly. Blocked the /64 since he's rotating. Kuru   (talk)  17:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

User:EzekielT reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Herbalism, and has stated they will not continue editing that page. They have already been alerted to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS and 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)

User:Notthebestusername reported by User:Qualitist (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  06:19, 16 November 2018
 * 2)  06:44, 16 November 2018
 * 3)  07:32 16 November 2018
 * 4)  07:32 16 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Avoiding talk page completely. Using misleading summaries for his edits, and calling people a troll. 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)
 * – 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)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Woovee (Result: File deleted, no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:

User Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz has entered in a wp:edit war with two users: and Woovee. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has started on their own these last 24 hours, a croisade on many Siouxsie Sioux and Siouxsie and the Banshees-related articles against user:Carliertwo, withdrawing many files/pictures that have been online for years, regardless of other editors' objections: they even wanted to withdraw a file/picture discussed on this GA promoted in 2016 which is vandalism. I noticed today Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's disruptive edits and sent them a message about their violation of the wp:3RR in my summary edit of the article, 14:26, 16 November 2018 saying "wp:3RR; you already did 4 reverts Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. You have to stop these wp:disruptive edits. This picture is perfectly valid and its presence is explained". I also sent a 3RR message warning on their talk page: result, they instantly keep on reverting for the 5th time in a row whereas a new user had told them to stop. this file was uploaded on the article in January 2016, an article since edited by a lot of users and read around 33,000 times a month. Their talk page is loaded with multiple notices of ANI and people complaining about constant disruptive edits Woovee (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * File:Siouxsie-Creaturescolor.jpg has been deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC per WP:F7 by : so, it appears that at least one administrator agreed with Hullaballo Wolfowitz's assessment of the file as a violation. Just because a non-free has been used in an article for a long-time or has a non-free use rationale doesn't mean that its non-free use automatically complies with (or in this case complied with) Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; it could also just as easily mean that file should have been deleted/removed a long time ago but nobody who's familiar with relevant policy noticed it until now. It appears that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz tagged the file with rfu and then notified the uploader at User talk:Carliertwo. The uploader disagreed with the tagging which is fine, and di-replaceable fair use disputed can be used for that. Removing inappropriately added non-free files is listed as an exception 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:3RRNO. File has now been deleted. Merely having a rationale in the box does not make it a valid one. Nor does length of time unnoticed in an article. Suggest filer goes and reads WP:NFCC and WP:NFC. 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. --M asem (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)
 * Repeated removal of tagging by the uploader is the chief problem here.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

User:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "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)  "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)  "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. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Additional discussion ― Abelmoschus  Esculentus  11:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MrGeneric299 reported by User:Caltraser55 (Result: No action)

 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:
 * Page:

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 Talk:Brisbane page and on your talk page. In fact, you've reverted my good-faith contributions to the page by undoing the montage I uploaded, which should in itself be a punishable offence WP:REVERT which asks the question, Can you improve the edit, bringing progress, rather than reversion? More importantly it states that you 'succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea' in the edit summary or on the talk page, which you have done neither of. Simply calling it an 'ugly, bad quality' image (which it obviously isn't) in my talk page doesn't suffice. I've already put up a discussion on I've already put up a discussion on Talk:Brisbane where we & others can discuss the montage at length and work together to create one that shows Brisbane in all its glory. You can talk with everyone there regarding the 'ugliness' and 'bad quality' of my montage, or improve your own and upload it so we can make it better! MrGeneric299 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

User:Boomerbuzz reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Restriction agreed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Admin Edit"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 869474116 by TheRedBox (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 869473577 by TheRedBox (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 869472574 by TheRedBox (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* History */ citing"
 * 6)  "/* History */ Removed irrelevant information"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kappa Alpha Order. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Kappa Alpha Order. (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)

User:Yoleo reported by User:Black Kite (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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)

User:67.187.85.200 reported by User:Bonadea (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This is K-pop genre and it's not for both."
 * 2)  What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1)  What appears to be a personal attack in Korean - Jim1138 talk 00:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Iz One. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* November 2018 */ re"

See talk:Iz One - no contribution by 67.187.85.200
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 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)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   00:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:2001:EE0:4001:694D:0:0:0:0/64 reported by User:Hhkohh (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Good try, Softlavender. Try again."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 869404702 by Softlavender (talk)"
 * 3)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Sock of Hhkohh (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * /64 range  Acroterion   (talk)   00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DonutsAndBakewells reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Undid revision 869089908 by AlexTheWhovian (talk))
 * 2)  (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)  (Discussed)
 * 4)  (Discussed on talk page.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series)

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, a supporting editor who also removed the content. --  Alex TW 00:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * You edit-warred over the content despite being warned, and give the policy that it violates, and being told that Wikipedia isn't here to just make things easy. Your blasé attitude about policy-violation on both the content and edit-warring will not help your situation. --  Alex TW 02:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – 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)

User:Dheeraj Palvai reported by User:Akhiljaxxn (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Opinion polls */"
 * 2)  "/* Opinion polls */"
 * 3)  "/* Opinion polls */"
 * 4)  "/* Opinion polls */"
 * 5)  "/* Opinion polls */"
 * 6)  "/* Opinion polls */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Telangana Legislative Assembly election, 2018. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Telangana Legislative Assembly election, 2018. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced pov pushing Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


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

User:Sinopsisus reported by User:216.248.99.93 216.248.99.93 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)


 * GABgab 19:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

User:122.57.51.251 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 869752685 by IanDBeacon (talk) rvv"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 869752573 by IanDBeacon (talk) rvv"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 869751710 by Crboyer (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 869751526 by Crboyer (talk) rvv"
 * 5)  "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Schindler's List. (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)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:49.180.99.171 (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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:

Comments:

Coltsfan dislikes being opposed and made WP:TENDENTIOUS reverts. It's not the first time he engages in edit war:      This IP uses multiple accounts and other IPs to evade blocking (see here) for WP:POINT, WP:DISRUPT and WP:SOCK. I'm fighting vandalism and bias editing. This has little to no merit. Coltsfan (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @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 WP:FORUMSHOP and which is actually something which might be seen as a form of WP:TE. Moreover, in these other posts you seem to be implying that your primary account is blocked which means WP:EVADE might also be an issue. If your currently serving out a block, you need to either have that account unblocked or simply wait until your block expires before trying to resolve this other matter; otherwise, you run the risk of having the block on your main account extended and the other IP accounts blocked as 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. User:SacredGeometry333 has been blocked as a sock by a checkuser, and three out of four Coltsfan reverts listed above are reverting that editor. I've blocked the IP who filed this report per WP:DUCK, and per the admission that their regular account is blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Sharonaj reported by User:Galatz (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user clearly has no interest in having anything other than his exact edit on the following pages List of WWE European Champions‎, Grand Slam (professional wrestling) and WWE European Championship‎. I explained to the user that it needs to be discussed because there is a standard way an unrecognized reign is treated, and a template that is supposed to be utilized; both here and in edit summaries, and. Rather than having a discussion, the user simply stated that there is nothing to discuss and reverted back to his edit and accused me of trying to WP:OWN the page here. Additionally the user reverted my warning on their talk page stated it was harassment.

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 User:Galatz, who is making this report. Galatz feels that Wikipedia should unabashedly promote a former WWE wrestler as having held a specific title, when WWE's official records of titleholders (both at WWE.com and in their official encyclopedia) do not and have never listed the individual. Instead there are a couple of flimsy retrospective pieces claiming the reign happened. I've added notes to the relevant articles explaining this historical revisionism (pretty important for an encyclopedia, I would think), but Galatz is bulldozing forward with his version, in the anti-collaborative fashion that got him blocked before, while presenting retconning as actual history. I politely asked him to stop 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. 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)

User:194.82.219.50 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

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)


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

User:Vr46.bna reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (removal of ref again)
 * 2)  (removal of ref again)
 * 3)  (addition of promotional material)
 * 4)  (reintroduction of promotional material)
 * 5)  (reintroduction of promotional material)
 * 6)  (an again, even after being alerted of this discussion)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Also, renewed invitation to discussion: and.

Comments:


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

User:WikiInspector42 reported by User:Moxy (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 869356935 by Moxy (talk) hey, same Wikipedia provides that info"
 * 2)  "/* Government */ according to Federal government of Mexico"
 * 3)  "Mistake. Cortés rested for 14 years in Mexico-Tenochtitlan and did not go with his country to grant anything. New Spain started in 1535"
 * 1)  "Mistake. Cortés rested for 14 years in Mexico-Tenochtitlan and did not go with his country to grant anything. New Spain started in 1535"
 * 1)  "Mistake. Cortés rested for 14 years in Mexico-Tenochtitlan and did not go with his country to grant anything. New Spain started in 1535"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates. (TW)"


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


 * User talk:WikiInspector42....Editor has never replied to any inquires .WP:NOTHERE


 * Comments:

Not sure why the editor is removing maintenance tag over and over despite being ask to stop..Moxy (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, this just appears to be a good faith mix up, the state governments are unicameral while the federal government is bicameral. The rest of the edits seem to be mostly minor, good faith edits that are in some cases correct and being wrongfully reverted, such as this, where the date change appears to be an uncontentious correction of fact ("New Spain" wasn't established until 1535), or this, where they're being reverted for correctly removing Easter eggs. It's clear they're trying to communicate in good faith via edit summaries, and frankly it's ridiculous to say they're NOTHERE and refuse to reply to messages. This is crazy, this is a newbie and no one has ever made any sort of effort to reach out to them to engage in any sort of communication in good faith, not even a welcome template was extended to them, they're just being bombarded with templated messages. Making mistakes when you're a newbie is forgivable, because there's a big learning curve here, but experienced users such as you and should know about WP:AGF and WP:BITE by now. I'll protect the page, but I'm giving them a clean slate on their talk page.  Swarm  talk  07:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Swarm talk  07:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Content dispute? It's about tag removal....people are not reverting is minor edits. We have been trying to talk to him for almost a year. Never mind will deal with it myself. --Moxy (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment by Uninvolved Editor. I stand with, that this is far more than just a content dispute, and I take exception to the Closing Admin's judgement. A study of WikiInspector42's edits in the Mexico article makes it clear that the editor not only violated the 3RR rule but has also been disruptive for weeks. That he is now also violating the 3RR rule shows what happens when admins allow disruptive editors to perpetuate their acts and aren't shown --from the get-go and in no uncertain terms-- that the Community will not tolerate disruptive editing.  Let's take a look at his non-regard for sourced content, his infrequent use of the edit summary box, his incivility when interacting with other editors, his failure to use the article's Talk page for discussion, his failure to seek consensus. These skills don't require a Wikipedia learning curve; these are skills we all learned in kindergarten. There is nothing "crazy" about a newbie that knows to stay away and not answer except only when its convenient for him, and then surfaces only to spew out his venom when he does surface. The idea behind WP:DBTN isn't to forgive incivility, but to forgive honest mistakes that are part of the learning curve; incivility isn't one of them.


 * To let the offending editor get away with not even a slap on his hand, as did, reinforces the incorrect notion that he hasn't done anything wrong. I further take exception to the Closing Admin's judgement in that, to add insult to injury, by locking the article to everyone (but himself and his buddy admins), the Closing Admin is also punishing those of us that have not been involved in any interactions with the violating editor. This was truly poor judgement. A 24to48-hour block on the violating editor would had been appropriate, to give the editor time for some soul-searching and, most importantly, to inform him --first hand-- what can happen when one tries to act as a lone ranger in a community of editors. A valuable teaching opportunity was allowed to just fly by.
 * Mercy11 (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

He deleted those messages.

See Talk:Amity_University,_Noida which has been launched by me, a month back. He did not participate, any.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

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

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

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

Seeking an indef on a SPA.

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

&#x222F; WBG converse 18:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – Besides blanking this 3RR report, they also removed others' comments from the article talk page, with the summary 'Removed useless talk'. It is hard to see any desire to help the encyclopedia here. A notion of promoting an organization, perhaps. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced that the editor will follow Wikipedia policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on User:JONNY is Gaming. (TW)"


 * Comments:

User has removed CSD from user page without conversation. User is clearly here to advertise for their own Snapchat, Instagram and Youtube pages. I am not going to readd the CSD as this will be the third strike to the edit warring. Mr Xaero  ☎️ 02:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 3RR doesn't matter on a user's own pages, Mr Xaero. However, I've deleted the userpage as promotional. I suggest we leave it at that. If they're only here to promote their youtube channel, they'll end up blocked soon enough. Thank you for reporting. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ken Wilber. (TW)"


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

Edit warring continues, please see and. Ifnord (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


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

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 11:13, 20 November 2018
 * 2) diff 00:08, 21 November 2018
 * 3) diff 04:26, 21 November 2018

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

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

Comments:

Not past 3 but the edit warring is quite clear.

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

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


 * As Jytdog is aware, according to WP:BLPSPS the use of self published sources to source material about living people is a violation of BLP, and "removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy" is one of the few exemptions to 3R. Forbes.com contributors are listed under WP:RSP as self published sources. - Bilby (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your rationale that this is some clear-cut case is gutted by your own !vote linked above. This thread is about your persistent, long-term edit warring on a topic with two sets of DS. I am hopeful that you will be blocked so that you begin to see your own behavior and we can avoid AE. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, please stop this. You know my stance on self-published sources in BLPs - I'm ok with using them to source the opinion of the author, but it is a BLP violation to use them to make statements about any living person other than the author. The example that I supported and you are linking to is the former, and that is ok. What I (and User:Tornado chaser) reverted was using an SPS to make a statement about a living person who was not the author of the SPS, and both policy and the community is clear that this is a BLP violation. You know this, because you recently ran two RFCs to get WP:BLPSPS changed, and the community view was clear. You withdrew them yourself. As to the other example you give:
 * : I tagged two references as possibly unreliable. Not a revert.
 * You reverted.
 * Trying to find a solution, I replaced one of the sources I was concerned about with what I thought was an acceptable alternative. Also not a revert.
 * You reverted.
 * I tried a compromise and kept the old source while adding the new. A partial revert.
 * You reverted.
 * Who was on 3R there? Then yes, I took it to RSN, as you suggested. . The "bizarre posting" was at your request. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Bilby's !votes are not inconsistent or hypocritical, in the !vote that Jytdog mentions Bilby was ok with the use of an SPS as a source for the authors opinion about another person. However here Bilby is removing a statment of fact about a living person sourced to an SPS. BLP policy requires the removal of BLP violating statements, and using a non-staff Forbes contributor as the source for a statment of fact about a living person is a clear cut BLP vio(see WP:BLPSPS and here, where Forbes contributors are stated to be self published for wikipedia's purposes) so it can be removed without regard for 3rr.
 * Also, the evidenceTalk:David_Wolfe_(entrepreneur) that Jytdog presents of attempting to resolve the dispute on the talk page is actually me agreeing with Bilby and trying to get other users to stop restoring BLP vios, on the talk page nobody attempted to justify restoring this BLP vio without attribution Tornado chaser (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog says I agree that the content shouldn't be there as this is trivia and the content should be attributed if we were going to use it, but the rationale being offered up is not OK, nor is the lack of discussion, nor is the edit warring. How is it "not ok" to use the fact that something is a clear BLP vio as rational for removal? The edit warring is justified for removing BLP vios, and regarding lack of discussion, neither Jytdog nor any of the editors that reverted Bilby have attempted to start any discussion either. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Tornado chaser I did not revert Bilby in the series of diffs that are the subject of this case (well, II did, and then immediately self-reverted.  So I did not revert him. You have misrepresented what I did at an admin board. Please strike it. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I never said you reverted Bilby. I did say neither Jytdog nor any of the editors that reverted Bilby. If this is the statment you are referring to I am talking about both you and the editors who reverted Bilby, not saying that you reverted Bilby. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * fix ing my ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As expected a huge amount of chaff is being thrown up. Bottom lines here are
 * a) Bilby is not working on this page in an admin capacity. confirmed by them after repeated queries here)
 * b) Going back to last year, Bilby has been continually edit warring giving flat edit summaries like "BLPSPS" and similar flat statements on talk.
 * c) their particular run of that here, has zero validity, again based on their own !vote earlier this year - diff from above.
 * d) There are other ways to solve the "concern" such as "must be attributed" and them simply adding the attribution in the content, or discussing that on Talk. Instead we have the aggressive edit warring and lack of communication. People fall into obsessive, bad behavior holes like this (I have done so myself at times).
 * But the edit warring must stop. Again I encourage a short block to underline this. Bilby has provided enough diffs by now to form a reasonable case for a TBAN from this page at minimum under the PSCI DS at AE, but this is a far more appropriate first step. Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Bilby and the editors who reverted them should have used the talk page, absolutely. But this diff is not contradictory with Bilby's recent actions, as it was attributed, unlike the content Bilby was just removing. Yes Bilby should have either added attribution or stated why attribution would not solve his concerns, (I personally think it would have been odd wording "according to Senapathy, Wolfe deleted reviews" ect.) but bad faith shouldn't be assumed based on poor communication. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok. One more try:
 * I reverted BLP violations. In spite of Jytdog's ongoing misrepresentation of my position, which is frustrating given how many times I've had to explain it to them, policy is very clear: "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". A recent RFC run by Jytdog further confirmed this position. The edits in question used a self-published article as a source of material about a living person other than the author.
 * Under BLP, we must "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ... relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP".
 * Removing BLP violations is one of the few exemptions under 3RR.
 * I explained the reverts to editors concerned:
 * I did not enter into discussion on the talk page at the time, because a) Tornado chaser had pointed out that it was a BLP violation, and thus there was nothing to add; and b) the only other comment was Jytdog stating that the content was trivial, and that they would not be discussing the issue
 * This is hanging on a false claim - that somehow because I supported the use of this source in a different context, I must therefore support the use of this source in all contexts. The previous use was not a BLP violation. This one was. - Bilby (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep making absolute claims that are false. You originally said about the other source by her in Forbes, at the Wolfe article, diff, That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.. And you made that flat, uncollaborative, BATTLEGROUND statement several times before then. You then !voted to use that source here. When I called you out on this at WT:BLP, you wrote: Yes, as I should have said "we cannot use the Forbes piece the way it is being used". You are doing the same thing now that you did before, so your stepping back there, was entirely fake. You are wasting so much of everybody else's time with this absolutist, battleground behavior.
 * Your edit warring behavior on this page is long term and clear. Jytdog (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * From reading the links, the previous use of the 2016 Forbes contributor piece was to justify a RSOPINION statement about Jones' stance; that's a bit iffy and Bilby's caution about that sources seems appropriate, but as they suggested phrasing its inclusion (with clear attribution), not so much of a BLPSPS issue. But the specific case brought up in the diffs is a completely different article dated 2018, even if by the same contributor, attached to "factual" claims related to whether or not posts were deleted as reaction to skeptism thrown at him. No way that type of claim could fall under an RSOPINION claim, so the question is whether this Forbes contributor piece can be used to back that "factual" claim up. The community has readily decided that Forbes Contributors are not RS for facts, and certainly would not be RS for claims related to BLPs. As Tornado Chaser points out, Bilby's removals in the diffs that lead this complaint all seem to be in line with the allowed exceptions to 3RR. Yes, talk page discussion would be helpful to avoid it, but I can't see this as a violation. --M asem (t) 01:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Masem says exactly what I was trying to say better than I said it myself. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I made it clear that it was a different piece by the same author in the same publication.
 * The issue here is the edit warring - the clear sign of uncollaborative, BATTLEGROUND behavior. First saying flatly, absolutely That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.  And then agreeing to  use the source'  when it is used with attribution.  I will note that at WT:BLP Bilby said that SPS can be used on a BLP with attribution.  In his odd way of saying it distinction between using an SPS as a source of material about a subject, and using an SPS as a source of material about the author's opinion on the subject.. The reversion based solely on "we can't use that source because of BLPSPS" is invalid, even by Bilby's own standards.
 * The edit warring here is clear. as is the uncollaborative, battleground behavior. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The difference is that whether or not Wolf deleted reviews is a statment of indisputable fact, not Senapathy's opinion, so this doesn't really fall under "using an SPS as a source of material about the author's opinion on the subject". Tornado chaser (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as uncollaborative behavior is concerned, The editors who were reverting Bilby were not making any attempt to use the talk page either and were using bad edit summaries:
 * Patently false claim that this is somehow not an SPS
 * Drive-by revert, how is using an SPS for a statment of fact about a BLP "well sourced"?
 * no justification whatsoever provided for this revert
 * Tornado chaser (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I did inform two users of the issues with their edits on their talk pages: - I didn't revert and not discuss, but opened up discussion directly with the users concerned. Second, I have clarified why, almost a year ago, I made the statement that we could not use Senapathy at all, and that I was wrong. I have apologized to Jytdog, and explained it multiple times. Fundamentally, I do accept that there are situations where an SPS might be used. However, the edits in question here were not one of them. - Bilby (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your own diff above says we can't use articles by Forbes contributors to source material about living people. and is missing the key words "without attribution" or in your idiosyncratic way of saying it: "But it can be used to source the person's opinion about the living person." You did apologize to me back in July; your "multiple explanations" however were misrepresentations -- just as you did then, you have done since then, and did in the present case -- reverting multiple times and flatly saying "cannot be used", leaving no way forward. The same battleground, uncollaborative behavior Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


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

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Steven Universe episodes

Comments:

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

I have attempted to discuss with the reported editor by starting a discussion on the talk page (as linked) to prevent an edit-war, but they insist on only reverting and refusing to discuss, despite the fact that I have pinged them in the discussion twice. I'm ceasing any further editing of the page or contact with the editor until the situation is resolved, through either means of this report or if they actually decide to discuss it, because I can estimate that if I edit the page any further, I will be face with only reverts and no contribution to the discussion that I started in good faith. --  Alex TW 00:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 10:41 21 November 2018.

Diffs of the user's reverts: 10: 41 21 November 2018. Comments:
 * 1) diff 12:50, 19 November 2018
 * 2) diff 22:01, 20 November 2018
 * 3) diff 12:10, 21 November 2018
 * 4)  16: 07 22 November 2018.
 * 5)  19: 28 22 November 2018.

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


 * You have added things that are at worst baseless or at best simply not notable. You have also been editing on an article full of vandalism. That aside, your editing notices have included lines such as "For a fat dude with an abnormally small penis, Farouk had a very active sex life; this is what money buys", making your claim of authority dubious. Nukleon (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently, my sense of humor escapes you, through it is interesting that you take exception so strongly to that edit summary. If you actually looked at what I added, instead of the edit summary which excises you so much, what I added was the fact that Farouk, who was very obese and is described by all of his mistresses as having an abnormally small penis, was seeing at least three beautiful women at the same time, which was I meant by "what money buys". I have never claimed any authority over the article and all I would like is for you to stop deleting everything I add to that article, which I have been working hard since October under the spurious charges of "vandalism". Through it is interesting again that you making this into a matter of "authority". For three times in the last 24 hours, you reverted everything I have added to that article under the grounds that it is either "vandalism" or because of "erroneous" information about his death, which is a matter which I have not written about at all. Two of your reverts occurred after I posted a message to your talk page informing you that I had appealed to arbitration here, which strongly suggests that you do not take my concerns about edit warring seriously.


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


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


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

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This WP:SPA user has repeatedly inserted blatant WP:PROMO content to the article, deleted reliably sourced content (whitewashing of details critiquing the company), added unsourced content, and engaged in continued edit warring (despite multiple warnings from two editors on the user's talk page and on the article talk page) and has made no effort to use the article talk page to resolve whatever issue the may have the article. A good example of the kind of promo content added is this line "Dato' Dr. Lim Siow Jin, whose deep interest and endless effort drove him to utilize the fullest potential of Ganoderma or Lingzhi, for human health and wealth..." Ridiculous! Since this bout of edit warring, a second WP:SPA entered the fray and made the exact same edit as Ameertha raising the issue of a potential WP:SOCK. Blocks (or bans) for both would seem appropriate in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * . Spam-only account; silly puffery and edit-warring. Not clear on the other account; maybe a meat-puppet - will watch the page. Kuru   (talk)  17:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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


 * I've self-reverted -- I have no idea why "Thewolfchild" was so desperate to make sure that his earlier edits were removed from the record. But now he has what he wanted, so I don't see any edit warring being necessary. MPS1992 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what edits you're referring to. I archive article talk pages all the time, have probably done hundreds of them over the last 5 or 6 years. I made it clear to you that you were reverting archiving content, which a copy of was still on the archive page. You were being disruptive, went on some kind of vengeance revert spree and you made a mess. You only self reverted after I filed this report. Why didnt you just stop edit earring after you were given the 3RR warning? And what about the other pages you deliberately reverted my edits on during this spree? If an admin wants, I'll provide diffs. Or they can easily see it all your contribs. - wolf  05:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * MPS1992 self-reverted, disruption stopped. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  - added by editor on 19/11

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: November 2018

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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


 * Excuse me?


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * You are edit warring - albeit possibly unintentionally. "Wait[ing] a couple of days before adding information" is specifically covered in the Edit Warring article: "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring".  Whilst you may not have reverted four (now five) times, you have added and re-added contentious information that at the very least is being discussed.
 * Existence of a thing does not equate to notability of a thing. Hall of light may show that it exists, but many things exist - as my previous comment of Starquake T-shirts on eBay & Amazon.  We don't talk about them in the article either.
 * I don't think we link or reference non-commercial or official versions in the infobox, nor a mention in the lede.
 * Most of your points are laid out in all the policies and links that have been provided to you - if you read these, you'd understand them and I wouldn't need to repeat myself here. I am not the only editor who has commented upon your contributions.  Radnyr has also been involved.  Perhaps not as vocal, but another editor nonetheless.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but your argument makes no sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3). This game has been commercially released

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After seeing the proportions the situation was taking, I decided to step back and return to the article only once I had more time to do a thorougher research and to format his contribution (in case any reliable sources were located) to meet Wikipedia's standards. — Radnyr  ( talk ) 01:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My main response is that I'm not sure this is the best place for the discussion to be held given the depth it has now reached. It should really be on the article talk page.  I suggest that it it moved.
 * As my diffs point out above, you were, and are editwarring. Your first four edits reinstated challenged material, which you reinstated while the validity was being discussed, and mixed in with these edits you kept adding in the Amiga release version.  You have now revealed that not only are you the author, but that this is a commercial release, ergo there is a conflict of interest, and you shouldn't be editing.
 * You are intentionally misinterpreting my comments. You make claims about T-shirts, both agreeing and disagreeing with the points I raised.
 * I agree we're at an impasse, therefore while a resolution is sought we go back to the original version of the article prior to the contentious edits. You do not get to keep your version while we discuss the merits of the additions, be they regarding Amiga versions, or the artist on the game.
 * Finally - WP:BRD and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please, please, please, also read up on the links provided in your talk page so that you know what we mean when we talk about notability.  If you cannot agree to the rules & processes laid out in them, then Wikipedia is maybe not the place for you.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You literally are making this up as you go along!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GalahadFLT (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, my point is that as it's commercial and you are the author you will have a vested interest and stand to make commercial gain by promoting the product within Wikipedia. This is called Conflict of interest.
 * This is the same as above, and doesn't need making twice.
 * The T-shirt example was (as you seem to realise) that just because something exists, that does not make it notable. T-shirts for Starquake exist, but we do not mention them in the article, because they are not notable.  Just because your game exists, this is not necessarily notable.  Once you have reliable sources highlighting its existence, reviewing and commenting on it, then your game will be lifted from the mire of non-notability and may meet the requirements for inclusion
 * In this context "contentious" means challenged. Your edits have been challenged, and as the contributing editor it is up to you to justify them.  When an editor with 9 years experience and 26,000 edits asks you to read up on policies so you can apply them to your own contribution, perhaps you should do that, rather than hashing over the same arguments that don't meet requirements.  As per WP:OTHER just because something exists on page "A", does not mean it has to exist on article "B".  If your game is as notable as you claim, you should have no problems showing coverage by other (reliable) websites or magazines - I gave you an example of Retro Gamer, which is a highly respected and reliable source.  By "reliable" - I mean those that meet WP:RELIABLE.
 * Fine, take it to WP:DRN - there's the link. One of the requirements for DRN is that discussion has been extensively carried out on talk pages, but I guess this counts.
 * Also, learn to use discussion pages please - you're not indenting properly, which makes it awkward to read. Have a look at Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages.
 * Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: User:GalahadFLT is warned. They may be blocked the next time they try to add David McLachlan's name to the article unless they have got a prior consensus in their favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:24.155.224.54 reported by User:Aoi (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Assets to be acquired by Disney */  let's stop adding more ok"
 * 2)  "/* Assets to be acquired by Disney */  we need to stop adding"
 * 3)  "/* Assets to be acquired by Disney */  i'm still serious, so please stop adding more, because we had enough to add"
 * 4)  "/* Assets to be acquired by Disney */  DJMcNiff, you can't add it, it's too much!"
 * 5)  "/* Assets to be acquired by Disney */  i'm serious guys, we need to stop adding more companies, or else the police will be mad at us"
 * 6)  "/* Assets to be acquired by Disney */  i think that's enough arguing to add, we're going to leave it and don't add anything, or else the police officers will be upset with all of you"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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

Given the user's edit summaries, I am not sure if the user is serious in removing items from the list or if they are just trolling. Also, given the talk page nlte, it seems this user has been up to this for a while. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Ritchie333 <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  23:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

User:DanaRhys reported by User:Drm310 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 2)  "/* Returns */"
 * 3)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 4)  "/* Returns */"
 * 5)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 6)  "/* Returns */"
 * 1)  "/* Returns */"
 * 2)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 3)  "/* Returns */"
 * 1)  "/* Contestants */"
 * 2)  "/* Returns */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Miss Universe 2018. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Communication is required */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Sierra Leone */ new section"


 * Comments:

This user has repeatedly added the country of Sierra Leone to the countries represented, with only an Instagram source. They have refused to respond to all messages left on their talk page and the article talk page. Note also that has also added the same material, which could indicate possible WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional note: These two editors have also targeted the article Face of Sierra Leone, with the same improperly sourced edits (Special:Diff/869566273, Special:Diff/870186921). --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 10:41 21 November 2018.

Diffs of the user's reverts: 2018 Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:36, 22 Novemeber diff
 * 1) diff 22:54, 21 November 2018
 * 2) diff 03:10, 22 November 2018
 * 3) diff 18:26, 22 November 2018
 * 4) diff 18:32, 22 November 2018
 * 5) diff 18:41, 22 November

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edits constitute edit-warring, violation of the three revert rule and a violation of WP:NPOV. The editor delusively believes he has obtained consensus on the talk page, and pushes his views. He wants to push to the article a violation of NPOV, based on a blatant falsification of eight sources. For more information check the long discussion: IE linguist (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no violation of WP:3RR here. There are two separate and independent issues being discussed at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia that User:IE linguist is falsely conflating in order to push a false notice of violation here.  The first issue, that is reflected in the first two reverts refers to the section on "Notable persons".  It is a discussion that is being conducted at this Talk page location with User:StanProg.  It appears to be a fairly polite and productive discussion.  Only the final three reverts are in response to the POV pushing of User:IE linguist who has violated WP:BRD (and doesn't seem to understand it).  User:IE linguist has linked to the wrong place on the Talk Page for the discussion of attempting to resolve the issue.  The actual link is here.  I have provided abundant evidence of the WP:CONSENSUS on the matter, but he has made little attempt to reach a new consensus.  This discussion with User:IE linguist is independent of and in a different section (and on a completely different topic) from the discussion with User:StanProg.  There is therefore no violation of WP:3RR since this accusation is a conflation of two separate discussions on the page.  --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obvious 3RR violation by User:TaivoLinguist. Particularly worrying is the edit summary, on the fifth revert to the page within 24 hours. Taivo has been reverting both User:IE linguist and User:StanProg. , 3RR appertains to reverts on the same page, NOT reverts of the same content. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  19:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Taivo's comment is like acknowledging the following saying: "I edit-warred with even two users" and that's why he thinks there is no violation of the three revert rule? Whatever material you revert counts, except copyvio and vandalism. IE linguist (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So, User:Bellezzasolo, if two different editors are editing in violation of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD on the same page, but with unrelated content, what is the strategy to prevent their tag-teaming different content in order to push their individual POVs without building a new consensus on the Talk Page? --Taivo (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you just accused me in "tag-teaming" with another editor against you? --StanProg (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In the beginning you were not. We were having a good discussion.  But that last revert that you made certainly looks like tag-teaming where you reinserted the content that User:IE linguist was pushing, knowing that I was on the edge of WP:3RR (at least by my own interpretation of it).  But my question to User:Bellezzasolo was in the abstract, not specifically related to the matter here at hand.  --Taivo (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You could always leave a neutrally worded note on an admin's talk page, or any editor in good standing. As it is, I've had a look at the consensus issue and it's not clear-cut. What is indicative is that there's two editors who disagree with you. And stop citing the essay WP:BRD, which quite clearly states "BRD is not mandatory." The issue here is you crossing 3RR. &#x2230; Bellezzasolo &#x2721;   Discuss  20:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But until the last revert by User:StanProg, there were not, technically, two editors who disagreed with me. There was Issue A where User:IE linguist disagreed with me and Issue B where User:StanProg disagreed with me.  But the two issues were independent of each other.  It was two discussions about two different topics, not one discussion about one topic.  --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was the independence of the topics that led to my incorrectly interpreting WP:3RR to apply separately to the different topics. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)e
 * I was also party to the discussion., the other two editors have been pushing through their POV and much of the content does not relate to issues of language in Greek Macedonia, but about the codification of the Macedonian language in the Republic of Macedonia and issues of disputes with Bulgarian. Apart from it being POV, its also wp:synthesis and does not belong to that article. was acting to prevent disruption to a article that has long had a history of POV pushing with some wanting to "prove" that Macedonians don't exist or they are some other ethnicity etc. @TaivoLinguist has served the Wikipedia well and from observations of pages on my watchlist is not one to get into trivial edit wars. This case ought to be dismissed.Resnjari (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * After reverting five times today, Taivo makes a thanksgiving to a user, whom he canvassed(in 19:51) after getting reported. Taivo is not considering a different approach even after all this and thanked another user for edit-warring on his side. The priority of such users is to edit-war by whatever means. It is ridiculous that Taivo accused User:StanProg as tag-teaming with me, because I had never canvassed and written anything to this user. IE linguist (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Its very disappointing that you have gone down that route knowing full well that i have been participating in the talkpage for sometime. However you know that this article is covered by WP:MOSMAC. Your first edit was to try a place a large section of text into the article. It was reverted and you then rammed it two more times,  as you had no consensus for your edit. At least half of what you included in your edit does not relate to the topic but goes into other things about other topics. Heck what are we going to produce here wp:forks all over the place?Resnjari (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Both Taivo and Resnjari have a history of edit-warring blocks. Actually they have only blocks for edit-warring. The first one was blocked 3 times for that, the 2nd one 2 times and from what we see here they support each other in that endeavor. --StanProg (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You had no consensus for your edits. @TaivoLinguist explained to you the long standing manner in which that part of the article was treated so as to avoid neutrality issues that no ethnicity or citizenship etc is cited there. There has been a history of editors who are mainly focused on Bulgarian or Greek topics that have edited the article with POV edits in the past. As you edit Bulgarian Wikipedia and may not be familiar here with English wikipedia articles on Macedonian topics are covered by WP:MOSMAC to avoid disruption. Its disappointing that you highlight rare cases blocks of editors who have been on Wikipedia for a long time (more then a decade in my case). They have no bearing to this matter whatsoever.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit was to add very short description from the leading text of the articles of the "Notable persons" specified there. Here's the edit: . You can check every single article and see that this is exactly what I did. You are accusing me of pushing "my POV" which as you can see is quite far from the truth, just like the accusation of Taivo for "tag-teaming" with someone. --StanProg (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits to that part of the article are problematic. The article has had to deal with this kind of disruption for years. You know very well that many of the personalities from what is now Greek Macedonia, well in particular their identities are contested. Some in their lifetime switched their identifications as well which makes it all the more complicated. Its why that kind of content is not added to to the article to keep it neutral. If a reader wants to know who that person is, they can check the article themselves.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) Damn. You caught me, User:StanProg. I've been blocked three times. The first time was nine years ago and the most recent time was seven years ago. That's hardly "a history of edit-warring blocks". It's an utterly ridiculous claim and misguided attempt to bolster your accusation. I've said what I have to say here. I interpreted WP:3RR to be a topic application and not an article application. That's the only issue that's relevant to this. Whatever admin adjudicates this will make their decision based on that and that alone despite all the false and exaggerated accusations of User:IE linguist and User:StanProg, who initiated and prolonged the edit warring because of their refusal to build a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a general comment. I find it galling to edit-war in the middle of a 3RRN report. After reverted due to CANVASSING concerns,  reverted within 3 minutes, making this Resnjari's second revert in this edit war within 3 hours and while this report was ongoing. That's just unacceptable and makes a mockery out of Resnjari's involvement in this report. I suggest Resnjari self-reverts so that he can gain some credibility regarding his intentions here.  Dr.   K.  05:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on a sec., i have only made 2 edits and have clearly outlined my intentions on the talkpage . As you have not partaken in the talkpage discussion, there is no consensus for edits and the article in question falls under WP:MOSMAC. After placing an edit once , @IE linguist rammed in those edits twice , after being reverted. The same editor is now also admitting that at least half of the edits included were not needed . Discussion is currently ongoing on that talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 06:04, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The continuum of Macedonian and Bulgarian is spoken today...? (not are spoken today?) per WP:PN, I can't say I blame these guys for reverting, but self-reverting until this complaint is sorted out might be good form. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:07, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The issue is being sorted out on the talkpage. The editor in question attempted twice more, to add that content after they placed a large piece of text where there was no consensus. , that editor also edit warred sought no consensus. That editor has already conceded that a good chunk on that content might not be need in the article after all . Anyway this whole report is absurd and better use of the article talkpage should have been made. The time an energy that has gone here the article would have been done and dusted into good shape on this issue.Resnjari (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Resnjari: Your reply is disturbing. You have clearly joined an edit-war, and performed two clear reverts while this report is still ongoing. Now you are trying to justify your edit-warring and you show no signs of understanding that you helped inflame this edit-war while at the same time participating in this edit-warring report. This is a very disruptive attitude and I think you know that. I repeat my request that you self-revert as a sign that you understand the disruption you are causing. Dr.   K.  06:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @Dr.K. Disturbing how? Your claims of me edit warring are erroneous. When there is no consensus for edits its best edits stay out of the article until the issue is resolved in the talkpage. Otherwise its not acting in good faith to begin with. @IE linguist did this twice, ramming in much content which at least half was not about the topic itself. The article is covered under WP:MOSMAC due to that kind of behavoir having been prevalent in the past for those articles.Resnjari (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Disturbing how? Your claims of me edit warring are erroneous. When there is no consensus for edits its best edits stay out of the article until the issue is resolved in the talkpage. Nope. WP:3RR states clearly: You have performed two additional and clear reverts in an ongoing edit-war and you have inflamed the edit-war while at the same time participating on this noticeboard trying to justify your edit-warring. Your attempts at justifying your edit-warring are disturbing because they indicate that you have no understanding of what constitutes edit-warring.  Dr.   K.  06:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for highlighting the rules for me. WP:3RR states clearly: @IE linguist preformed two reverts prior to any edits of mine:,, clearly engaging in an edit war. The article is covered under WP:MOSMAC.Resnjari (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you continue evading the incontrovertible evidence of your edit-warring, let me ask you a simple question: These two edits by you with the following edit-summaries: and, four hours later reverting MPS1992 within 3 minutes of reverting you,
 * Were or weren't they edit-warring on your part? Dr.   K.  13:20, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you think rules were broken, then report. Otherwise we're done here.Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for bolding your response so that the patrolling admins can see it easily. No we are not done here. As it is clear by now, you are participating in edit-wars, you inflame them - you performed reverts 6 and 7 in this edit-war - without admitting any culpability on your part, or even acknowledging that you reverted and edit-warred. I think this lack of admitting responsibility for extending this edit-war, even as this report was still ongoing, is disruptive, and doesn't speak well for your ability to stop your edit-warring in this article or anywhere, now or in the future. I request admin intervention to set things straight with you. Dr.   K.  19:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I see you make lot of claims about me. But if you think those claims are true, then report. Otherwise we're done here.Resnjari (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Before this page turns into an edit war itself, let's just back up and everyone take a breath. This report isn't about anything other than the reverts that I performed (3 to User:IE linguist and 2 to User:StanProg) on different topics thinking that WP:3RR applied to different topics separately rather than to the article as a whole.  I've already admitted that I was in error on that.  That should be the end of this report and everything else is not relevant.  There is already a productive discussion being conducted at Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia including all the interested parties (User:Resnjari, User:IE linguist, and myself).  (User:StanProg wasn't involved in the principal topic.)  So let's just finish this report up, take appropriate action for my misunderstanding, and let the discussion on the Talk Page run its course.  Thanks.  --Taivo (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If everybody put the time and energy to discuss the additions after they were first reverted on the mainpage, no one would be here and it would not have gotten trivial or silly. Anyway after some discussion on the talkpage as to what would be most vital and what is not of use at all, a new discussion for the language section (in terms of article additions) is open .Resnjari (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding "false and exaggerated accusations of User:IE linguist and User:StanProg, who initiated and prolonged the edit warring because of their refusal to build a WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk Page". Can you please point where I did "false accusation" and which accusation is "exaggerated"? Also, when I did my first revert I pointed out that "Bulgarian politician" for a person that was member of the Bulgarian communist party and Prime Minister of Bulgaria is not "ethnic" identification, but a country politics affiliation. My second revert was returning of 20K well sourced and well written NPOV content added by another editor, with the explanation of possible vandalism. Can you also point out where at the talk page you worked for a consensus, when from the beginning until now you have not moved an inch from your theory, while I clearly rephrased my edit in which you agreed that is OK (according to your views). A "history of edit-warring", is a history and a fact which can be easy checked, regardless if it happened yesterday or 10 years ago. Let the editors that will check this comments consider themselves who is edit-warring, refusing to build a consensus and "tag-teaming". --StanProg (talk) 12:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all edits show they were toward consensus. Instead with your you reverted and placed again an edit of 20K by @IE linguist that had already been reverted, an edit that now even that editor is walking back from. Yes true that edit was well sourced, but was a large part of that content relevant to the article? No. Has @IE linguist walked back on at least half that large edit ? Yes . About other editors and use of the talkpage it could have been handled better. On my part i have used the talkpage in the capacity it was meant for and oddly enough editors have agreed  with the concerns about that large edit at least. This is unproductive. Everyone instead of consuming time and energy here why don't we all devote to getting a language section into shape to adding to the article? Resnjari (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'm not going to try to defend your honor here. Using a block seven years ago as "evidence" that I "have a history of edit warring" (when I have been a regular editor and made thousands of edits on dozens of pages since then) is exaggerated and disingenuous. You claim to be an admin on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. If that's the kind of "evidence" that admins use over there, then I'm glad I don't speak Bulgarian. I carefully explained on the Talk Page why your original edits were unacceptable on the Talk Page with links to previous discussions. I showed you why a particular type of edit was acceptable to me (although User:Resnjari has made it clear that too much of that makes him uncomfortable). That's all I'm going to say here. I have work to do at the actual Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The reported user violated the 3RR at the same article, a year ago, by 4 reverts[[[. He wasn't blocked, only the article was semi_protected.[[Special:Contributions/72.28.169.41|72.28.169.41]] (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was again my misunderstanding that different issues didn't count for one WP:3RR violation. It's not the same revert four times.  --Taivo (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You were told what exactly the 3RR means in 2017. You were reported for violating the 3RR a year ago and you pretended misunderstanding the 3RR again. I am quoting what you were told in this report back in 2017: "Actually, the 3RR states: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page-whether involving the same or different material." Now, you are spared again because you "misunderstood". Why are you denying any responsibility on your part? You forgot or didn't understand what is written? Different users can have different problems and difficulties in learning English. Both in the report are linguists! It makes sense if you are not the Indo-European one. Or you are obviously lying. 72.28.169.41 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are clearly someone who has an axe to grind against me for some reason, but doesn't have the balls to log in under their real name. Perhaps you have lost an argument to me at some point.  I don't really care about your opinion.  I at least work under my actual registered user name.  When I make a mistake I admit it, as here.  Is it possible for me to forget one of a thousand minute Wikipedia rules about everything from when to revert to when to use an en-dash rather than an em-dash?  Yes, it is.  You're from South Carolina, so you're not one of the participants in this discussion.  Perhaps you're just following me around out of a vendetta.  --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but Taivo's reverts cannot (and shouldn't) be interpreted in the narrow sense that he violated 3RR rules. The editor in question was simply defending the article from content that lacked any consensus, and was rammed repeatedly into it, which clearly goes against Wikipedia's practices and rules. In my opinion this user did not intend to violate 3RR and was simply trying to protect the article. The matter should be resolved in ways other than hammering the defender with blocks. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ &#124; contribs 📝) 01:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:219.79.126.173 reported by User:B dash (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported: ,


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Very strange IMO"
 * 2)  "/* Season summary */ responded"
 * 3)  "You have to consider those who are reading from computer and desktop"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Special:Diff/870368732


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Special:Diff/870335041


 * Comments:

Removing the image in the season summary, and the user can't provide any strong reason to remove it B dash (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Result: Page semiprotected two weeks by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Exergizer reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and again,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 48 hours. This could either be WP:CIR or a hoax: . This is his proposed addition to a physics article on potential energy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: see also . Very, very similar. - DVdm (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Fan4Life reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 870682055 by Leaton101 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 870681820 by Leaton101 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 870622231 by Livelikemusic (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 870622231 by Livelikemusic (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has a long-term history of violating the 3RR, and has received five separates blocks for edit warring. His reverts seem to also center around Ariana Grande and articles related to her; perhaps a topic ban might be in place to help avoid these issues, as well? User has received four warnings since June about this behaviour, two of which happened in the past month. Their last block, in August of 2017, also resulted in a case of Failure or refusal to "get the point" — as pointed out by administrator at the time.  livelikemusic    talk!  14:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Consecutive reverts in the same block count as one. -- slakr \ talk / 23:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Beall4 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff copying discussion from my talk page to the article talk page. 02:29, 19 November 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 01:56, 26 November 2018 restored them
 * 2) diff 02:19, 26 November 2018 restored them
 * 3) diff 16:55, 26 November 2018 restored them
 * 4) diff 17:31, 26 November 2018  restored some of them
 * 5) diff 21:14, 26 November 2018  restored them
 * 6) diff 21:42, 26 November 2018 yet again, just now

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: About the content, see [User_talk:Jytdog#Specific_Carbohydrate_Diet here]. About this copying my comments thing, see diff and these two comments, as well as comments at the article talk page.

Comments:

This silly thing on the talk page is about their very bad edits here and here, which were terrible. This person is unwilling to engage with MEDRS and seems to be abusing 3O to hunt for someone who will just say "yes" to their edits. Very strange. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * added yet another diff. This is so strange, and such a waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for talk page edit warring on Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet. EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Willwill0415 reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2018-11-21T22:07:10

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 2018-11-24T23:48:18, 4 consecutive edits
 * 2) diff 2018-11-25T07:45:51
 * 3) diff 2018-11-25T22:34:16
 * 4) diff 2018-11-26T20:20:35, 5 consecutive edits
 * 5) diff 2018-11-26T20:53:49

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

User:Willwill0415 has repeatedly injected PoV promotional language, falsified multiple references, removed reference, added undue attribution and used no or unrelated/unreliable sources for their changes. The user rejected community input and consensus-building process, and accused other editors on the page "POV warriors".

The editor has previously disruptively edited gender-related topics and earned an indefinite topic ban.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Willwill0415 is not here to create an encyclopedia; they are here to push a right-wing agenda and to whitewash subject matter in this regards. They have frivolously opened ARBCOM cases and have earned an indef. topic ban for their editing style.--Jorm (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know if there's history between them but attacked Will on the talkpage He's a right-wing warrior and is probably heading for a topic ban. Arguing with him is probably not worth your time  then threatened him I know who you are, Will.  3RR is minor and Will should revert but threats and intimidation are serious. 2A01:4A0:4A:52:0:0:0:E2DA (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Those are comments on user conduct and hardly attacks. Will's edit history clearly suggests that they are not a left-wing activist as they claimed. This IP editor then disruptively removed Jorm's comments:, a violation WP:TPO.
 * Actually, seeing this IP coming right up whenever Willwill0415 got into disputes, I suggest we launch an sockpuppet investigation, if necessary. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, and I haven't really been following along at Talk:Gab (social network), but saying "I know who you are" after Will had just said "And no Jorm I'm not far-right, I've spent many year in left-wing activism" read more to me as Jorm saying "I know you are in fact far-right" and not a threat along the lines of "I know who you are offsite." GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant. He's transparent. I know who he is.--Jorm (talk) 03:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Per Jorm. Willwill0415 and I have clashed at the incel article, after which he accused both Jorm and I of ownership at an ArbCom case that was declined by all arbitrators who voted. Soon after the case was declined he turned up at ANI with the same complaint, and got the boomerang topic ban a few of us warned he might be walking into. Instead of learning what he did wrong, I see he's just moved to a different topic area and continued the same POV-pushing, edit-warring, and refusal to discuss changes or attempt to achieve consensus. I'd suggest a topic ban from contemporary American politics, but honestly at this point I don't think he can edit constructively anywhere on this project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support an indefinite topic ban on contemporary American politics for this editor. Should they continue the same behavior on any other topics or violate topic ban, I would suggest a permanent block once and for all to save everyone's time. It seems Will really worked hard to earn this. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * In addition, a topic ban is needed, since Willwill01415 appears to be jumping from one hot politics-related topic to another with accusations and edit-warring.   Acroterion   (talk)   02:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I've imposed a six-month topic ban, similar to those imposed under similar circumstances. If the topic ban is breached when this block expires, the next step would most likely be an indefinite block rather than a ban extension, unless Willwill0415 shows productive activity in some unrelated area of the encyclopedia.  Acroterion   (talk)  
 * While we're here can you take a look at that anon account posting above  - all the edits involve either trolling (for example ) or harassment and stalking (this is someone who posts on one of the reddit forums and neo-Nazi forums on voat).   Volunteer Marek   06:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you present evidence on the IP is a stalker from neo-Nazi forums? This would be necessary for us to discuss what actions we should take. Tsumikiria (T/C) 07:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd have to link to that crap which I'm not going to do. Regardless, their on wiki comments and edits are sufficient for a block.  Volunteer Marek   14:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * is involved in an edit war with the anon editor at Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, but it should be obvious that the anon editor's behavior is exclusively WP:BATTLEGROUND-oriented and they are a big net-negative here. I support an indef. Furthermore, the editor clearly began stalking VM at a contentious talk page a few days after their block had expired. This makes me suspect that they are doing the good hand–bad hand routine. w umbolo   ^^^  19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Indef net-negative. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) w umbolo   ^^^  10:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, willwill0415 showed up on -help and was very intent on making clear that he is not the neo-nazi from Voat. He doesn't mind being blocked for edit warring, but he insists that he's not the nazi. DS (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think that's willwill0415 either.  Volunteer Marek   20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Willwill0415 lied about being a left-wing activist. His contribs certainly doesn't quack like his statements. On his talk page he expressed intention to violate his TBAN at first opportunity. At this point an indefinite block would certainly save everyone's time, since this user clearly has no intention to build an encyclopedia.
 * And that IP. A separate EW report or ANI? Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

User:86.178.37.100 reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Sockblock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 871004921 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) fuck off"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871004685 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) you need to fuck your ass and fuck off"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 871004526 by FilmandTVFan28 (talk) as if"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 868930235 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:Tom and Jerry. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Restoring comments is not allowed."
 * 2)   "Reverted 1 edit by 86.178.37.100 (talk) to last revision by FilmandTVFan28. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Reverted 1 edit by 86.178.37.100 (talk): WATCH YOUR MOUTH!! (TW)"
 * 4)   "Reverted 1 edit by 86.178.37.100 (talk): I SAID WATCH YOUR MOUTH!!!! (TW)"

Blocked as a sock of LTA User:Iniced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:211.27.126.189 reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

After a previous block for similar ceaseless reverting User continues to revert despite discussion against the user's proposed change (namely option 2 regarding trivial framework). Combined with the competence issues as repeatedly raised by myself and Fbergo, I recommend a block through at least the year's end, when the World Rapid and Blitz Championship will be held in Moscow. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 20:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I don't see any edit warring. The user is participating in the discussions. How about a revert limit, like 1RR for chess articles? w umbolo   ^^^  21:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, how was I edit warring after my previous block?211.27.126.189 (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Why am I almost ready to be blocked again?211.27.126.189 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The IP is right on the edge of getting another block, but no diffs were provided in the report and there hasn't been enough disruption. The previous AN3 case was at this link. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:37.152.231.50 (Result: Tell you what, discuss it at the talk page, and if the disruption continues, then we can block someone)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt was made by the user to justify their edits. Their behaviour seems like simple trolling. Had they provided a single coherent edit summary we surely could have discussed something.

Comments:

I made a couple of edits to Apollo Command/Service Module to improve its appearance. The word "Apollo" was in bold face, separately from the text "Command/Service Module", and later in the intro, the words "Command Module" and "Service Module" were also in bold face. MOS:BOLD says that "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence" so I edited the article accordingly.

I did not expect anyone to object to this. What possible objection could there be? So I was surprised when the user reverted, with the edit summary "not necessarily". I reinstated my edit, with a link to the manual of style. The user reverted again, with the edit summary "obviously, it doesn't apply per WP:IAR". Now I think that's very clearly just simple trolling. They are at this point reverting for fun, with no serious intent to improve the article. I reinstated my edit, they re-reverted, yet again with no reason, and I reinstated it once more. A little over 24 hours later, the user reappeared and undid the edit once more. Their fourth revert came 26 hours and 9 minutes after their first. As it says on this page, "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation."

To reiterate, this was a simple format fix, there was no possible reason to oppose the edit, there is no "content dispute" or anything - this is just User:BilCat, who I see has been blocked on a number of previous occasions, engaging in trolling. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I can see both points of view here. How about discussing it at the talk page instead? Because neither of you have tried that, have you? Then no-one will have to block anyone, and the world will be a happier place. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So on the one hand, you've got a simple style fix, and on the other, you've got a troll reverting it for no reason and gaming the system while doing so. And you can see both points of view??? Perhaps you can explain to me what points of view you see. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He's saying that the separate parts of the craft should be in bold face the first time they appear on their own (which isn't totally unreasonable, if a bit quirky), you don't agree. Personally I would agree with you, but there is room for discussion, which still hasn't started on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He has not said that anywhere. If I missed the bit where that was stated, in an edit summary or on a talk page, please give a link. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is already covered by guidelines, anyway. No big discussion, much less a slapping contest, is necessary. One of the major reasons we have a style guideline is to obviate the need to re-re-re-repeat tedious basic style discussions on an article-by-article basis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I did not report the user here for ignoring style guidelines, I reported them for breaking the 3RR. I'm surprised that you and others approve of their conduct, and attack me for reporting it. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDSYN. We only apply boldface, ever, for very specific reasons. Redundantly highlighting the name of something is not one of them. "Service Module" and "Command Module" are already bolded in the lead, per BOLDSYN, and they already have their own headings (which are already huge and bold), so bolding them yet again at first occurrence in the text under these sections is pointless. BilCat's rationale (trying to "even out" things from a visual stylization/balance perspective) isn't applicable on Wikipedia (though perhaps is an understandable initial impulse). We are not boldfacing these to them as "significant" or "famous", or make them "pop" from a designerly point of view, or because it looks nifty to someone subjectively (e.g., because they're used to a different style like the boldfacing of entry cross-references in field guides, or whatever).  We're doing it for one, codified reason only: because the term in question redirects there as a major subtopic or synonym. If it already has BOLDSYN treatment in the lead and has its own heading, this purpose has already been served.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC) PS: I don't always agree with BilCat, but he's clearly not a troll. Inappropriately calling people trolls or vandals (terms with very specific, narrow meanings on Wikipedia) – especially doing at a WP:Noticeboard – has a tendency to be interpreted as a WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA violation and to result in a WP:BOOMERANG block, thus it is ill-advised. See also WP:HOTHEADS for how to stay out of trouble yourself when dealing with editors you think are troublesome.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Who called anyone a vandal? And how do you know what "BilCat's rationale" was? Where was it expressed? 37.152.231.50 (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * @SMcCandlish - I don't understand some of your points here. The article was long-term stable with the component names bolded in the lead. Your own comments at MOS support this. The IP began by removing it. Bill has done nothing novel here. Nor has he bolded any of the occurrences other than the first appearance in the lead. I cannot speak to his rationale for this (let alone for something he doesn't appear to have done) and I can't see where he has stated any of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the record, I was responding to the thread about this at WT:MOS, in which it was asked whether these names should also be boldfaced at first occurrence in their sections. I had not pored over diffs sufficiently to realize was only himself arguing for bold in the lead anyway. (Yes, I'm adding this after closure, because it's worth clarifying that I imply no actual wrongdoing on Bil's part.) The anon's interpretation of BOLDSYN is simply incorrect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This IP's first edit was at 00:25, 23 November 2018, and here we are. I don't believe that he's a new editor. He knows too much about Wiki policies and procedures. And, his edit pattern and comments indicate he's looking for a fight. Therefore, PER BOOMERANG BLOCK IP 37.152.231.50.--RAF910 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Incredible! When reporting a clear violation of the rules, I expected that someone would warn the rule breaker not to behave in that way. Instead, several people have attacked me, and now someone says I should be blocked because I "know too much about Wiki policies and procedures"!!! 37.152.231.50 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

So, a clear violation of the rules resulted in not a single word said to the rule violator, but a series of attacks on the violation reporter, culminating in that astonishing call to be blocked for knowing the rules. The rule violator had clearly been previously emboldened, judging by their conspicuous total absence from this discussion, and their edit summary when removing my notification from their talk page. So, the result here is clearly a common one, and we can predict with a high level of confidence that User:BilCat will behave in the same way in the future. I, on the other hand, will not bother to report anything else here. Everybody happy with this outcome, I trust. 37.152.231.50 (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, you're making the same disruptive edits here. Guidelines are just that, and the one you're attempting to enforce is mostly ignored, rendering it moot per WP:IAR, as I explained in my first revert. You're response was an insult, so I didn't pursue further discussion on the article's talk page for that reason, and have since treated your edits as disruptive, which they are. As I subsequently explained, I was willing to discuss this issue civilly with you on the article's talk page, but instead you came here. As you've also been told, Beware the Boomerang. - BilCat (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * applying a guideline is not disruptive. Breaking the 3RR is disruptive. You did that, not me.
 * the guideline I applied is not mostly ignored. About 99% of articles comply with it.
 * even if you weren't lying about that, it would not give you the right to break the 3RR
 * IAR does not support any aspect of your behaviour.
 * Despite all of that, it's unfortunately clear that you have some kind of protection from certain administrators. Clearly you expected that I would be attacked for reporting your violation of the rules and indeed that was the case. Nevertheless, your 3RR violation and your inability to comprehend a very simple guideline are permanently recorded. 46.208.152.45 (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:94.193.245.74 reported by User:Pkbwcgs (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 871095889 by Bellezzasolo (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 871095745 by Bellezzasolo (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 871095621 by Bellezzasolo (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 871092445 by Bellezzasolo (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 871088228 by Tide rolls (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Winsford, Somerset. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP is edit warring on multiple different pages. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * BLOCK HIM--RAF910 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked as sock of .  Tide  rolls  22:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Sushar1 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 870658900 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 870657106 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Films */"
 * 1)  "/* Films */"
 * 1)  "/* Films */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Films in filmography tables */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Filmography tables should not include films that are yet to begin shooting. But he keeps adding Thalapathy 63, a film which begins shooting only the coming January. My attempts to revert his edits are always undone. He even reverted my advice on his talkpage. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  15:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:12302burn reported by User:Iffy (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/870732747

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/870942798
 * 2) Special:Diff/870950910
 * 3) Special:Diff/870953221
 * 4) Special:Diff/871056913
 * 5) Special:Diff/871094622
 * 6) Special:Diff/871096737

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/870952029 Special:Diff/870954651 Special:Diff/871096243

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: RFC where consensus was established here

Comments: User has been edit warring against the consensus established in an RFC to add their preferred description of Naomi Osaka's heritage in the lead, and shows no sign of stopping. Iffy★Chat -- 22:20, 28 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Blocked 48 hours.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Durrani khurasan reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) User's first controversial edits:
 * 2) First correction:
 * 3) User reverts to disputed version (#1):
 * 4) Second correction (different editor):
 * 5) User reverts (#2):
 * 6) Third correction (by me):
 * 7) User reverts (#3):
 * 8) Fourth correction (by me):
 * 9) User reverts (#4):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

added the following comment to WT:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I've moved the comment here to keep a centralized discussion: WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Durrani khurasan has a history elsewhere of editing under the "I just know these things" banner. (See user's contributions and edit summaries.) WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User has continued disruption even after receiving notice of this discussion. Page protection?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User has begun to engage in discussion on the matter (although somewhat belligerently). WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:WikiDan61 he edit wrong information he get jealous of true information he abuse another user work Durrani khurasan (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question of right or wrong. It's a question of providing sources for your changes, and (specifically in this venue) continuing to revert the article to your preferred version when now SEVEN other editors have intervened and reverted your unsourced changes. If you are going to insist on your version, you're going to have to give us more verification than "I know this is true and I'm smarter than everyone else." WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Saundra4you reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result:Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Undid revision 871223898 by Serial Number 54129 (talk) Some of the sources from tabloid journalist. Sources not verifiable. Court Cases not verifiable. Removing unverifiable source 18:36, 29 November 2018
 * 2) Undid revision 871218587 by Snooganssnoogans (talk) Some of the sources from tabloid journalist. Sources not verifiable. Court Cases not verifiable. Removing unverifiable sources 18:33, 29 November 2018
 * 3) (Undid revision 871220256 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)) 17:56, 29 November 2018
 * 4) ‎ (Undid revision 871217217 by Snooganssnoogans (talk)) 17:51, 29 November 2018
 * 5) 7:45, 29 November 2018 17:45, 29 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Couldn't get twinkle to load this, so apologies in advance if it's all over the place. Not sure why it isn't showing, but warned them for edit-warring here. In any case, they were blocked last March for a couple of days for edit warring n the same article. No communication; no indication they intend to do anything other than what they are doing now. Their edit-summary, Sources not verifiable. Court Cases not verifiable. Removing unverifiable sources only applies to material which I have already removed on similar grounds (primary sources being used in a BLP); what they have removed since is sourced to (e.g.) the New York Times and Business Insider. —— SerialNumber  54129  18:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef by with whom I edit conflicted when attempting to block as well.--  Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. this report took 20 bloomin' minutes to create and then it's dealt with in 2!  ——  SerialNumber  54129  19:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ponyo. Now that I know you're here, I can go home. ;) Drmies (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait...going home is an option, ? You must have signed up for the All Access admin pass. I, unfortunately, appear to have agreed to the "Hotel California" package.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)