Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive361

User:Mermaid99 reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: Page protected)

Page: Opera (web browser) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mermaid99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

1. The first good-faith edit
2. The first good-faith reversion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4] (The edit summary calls me a vandal just because I disagree)
4. [5]
   • [6] (Major changes, because I felt the last edit was an indication of wanting a way out of the dispute)
5. [7]
6. [8]
7. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warning by me
• Warning by another user

Both are reverted. Not that it is a problem on its own right.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Opera (web_browser)#Misrepresenting SlashGeek's opinion as a fact

Comments:

There are several grave problems with this editor:

• He reverts relexively. In addition to this edit-war, he made the 825339048 revision, I reverted, pointing out that there has been a talk page discussion against it, he countered and called me a liar. (There is indeed one in Talk:Opera_(web_browser)#POV.) Coupled with the fact that he has also reverted both warnings in his talk page, it appears this person simply loves the revert button.
• In the article talk page, I offered three reasons as to why the disputed attribution should stay, while he has exclusively resorted to personal attacks. (Not a single comment on the contents.) Every time I add a new reason, he perceives it as an act of deception on my part.
• His edit summaries are either rude or a distinct refusal to get the point.
• In the later revisions, he is engaged in removal contents without citing a policy in support. WP:VANDTYPES frowns on this action.

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This editor does not seem serious to me and has engaged in behaviour that can only be deliberate disruption. They want to ensure that the words "according to SlashGeek" appear in this article. Why? Who knows. Reasons they gave include:

• "Avoid stating opinions as facts"
• "Actually, I don't care if it is an opinion or not. I want to give due attribution, the way a good writer always does"
• "(If you have proof, in the form of other sources saying, please show us."

So, they do not really know why they are reverting. I know why I edited that sentence; it's because bibliographic information can be given in the citation, and this is not a circumstance in which it needs to appear inline.

Further, and worse, while rewriting that sentence, I also fixed an instance of an undefined abbreviation. User:Codename Lisa clearly does love reverting because they undid that too, but was confused while doing so and claimed "MOS:ACRONYM is being violated."[10]. To avoid conceding any kind of error they bizarrely claimed that they did this on purpose:"In one of my reversion, I tried to see if he is indeed careless or the carelessness is a pretense. I commited a deliberate violation of MOS:ACRONYM and stated the opposite."[11] An early teenager might concoct such a ridiculous excuse; no serious Wikipedia editor would (quite apart from it being a violation of WP:POINT even if it were not laughably false).

This morning, they undid my removal of the word "unique" from a sentence, claiming that there was "full fledged talk page discussion" supporting its inclusion. There is no such thing.

Thus, it is clear to me that this user is simply being disruptive. I want the article to be neutral and verifiable. They don't seem to care what state the article is in. Mermaid99 (talk) 08:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that in one edit summary, I suggested "apparent vandalism", after the user reverted my edit saying "reverted edit warrior". Would anyone claim that edit summary is not absurd? I interpreted it as deliberate trolling. Meanwhile, the user who objected to this suggestion has explicitly accused me of vandalism, when no changes I have made could possibly be interpreted as such. If you disagree, please indicate which ones. Mermaid99 (talk) 08:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Also please note than since 9th February, I have made 16 edits to the article. 4 have been simple reverts - 2 on 10th Feb, 2 this morning. User:Codename Lisa has made 14 edits in the same period, of which 8 have been simple reverts of my edits. Mermaid99 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Reverting alone isn't bad. But reverting and failing to participate in a discussion except for a personal attack is definitely edit warring. The MOS:ACRONYM stunt on Codename Lisa's part was either foolishness or dishonesty. But it was dissolved in the matter of one revision. Mermaid99's constant barrage of personal attacks (like "trolling" and "vandalism") and refusal to resort to WP:DR is far more disturbing. And judging by their contribution log, they are the kind of person who will get blocked in the future if not today, after causing much grief for Wikipedia. I see this kind of fight and flight behavior in other articles too. 72.52.125.45 (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Page protected The talk page posts of Mermaid99 are far from ideal. They are warned that further personal attacks may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • So the infantile disruption of User:Codename Lisa, and the remarkable appearance of two sockpuppets acting on their behalf didn't bother you then? Mermaid99 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You may also wish to note that "User:Codename Lisa" deleted comments of mine on the article talk page, in violation of guidelines and in a clear effort to provoke me. User:ScrapIronIV seems to be trolling also, deleting my comment while leaving me a silly message telling me not to delete other people's comments. I see some quite pathetic behaviour here and wonder why the administrator NeilN is encouraging it. Mermaid99 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Mermaid99 now blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian, User:AussieLegend reported by User:67.14.236.50 (Result: Nominator blocked 31 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2018 February (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AussieLegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), AlexTheWhovian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [17]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR vio, but these users have repeatedly reverted an edit I made to my own comment on a discussion page. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Admins, take a look at User talk:67.14.236.50#Editing posts. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Much of which irrelevantly pertains to my supposed editing of someone else’s comment. There is a rational objection to my failure to use <ins>...</ins> to mark up my late edit which I then rectified, but even that was reverted. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that the admins can determine for themselves whether it was you edit-warring or us, and whether your editing of another's quote was valid. Interesting how you didn't link it in the first place. -- Alex^TW 05:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This looks like 67.14.236.50 doesn't understand WP:REFACTOR and WP:STICK. Perhaps the IP would like to be awarded a genuine Wikipedia boomerang for their visit? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I would not. I simply would like others to stop removing content from my comments. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To expand on what Alex has said, although Chris troutman has hit the nail on the head, 67.14.236.50 has a history of "troublesome" editing, editing posts after they've been replied to, editing others posts and even changing the wording of an RM nomination long after the RM opened. He does not seem to want to understand WP:TPG. The issue that has resulted in this report has been misrepresented by 67.14.236.50. At this move review he quoted a post made by the original RM closer on that editor's talk page,[18] but then later decided to insert his own text into the post.[19] The IP is now treating the quoted text as "his post" and will not acknowledge that WP:TALKNO says to be precise when quoting others and does not seem to want to understand that we don't edit talk page content create by others without their permission, despite my attempts to explain that on his talk page. He actually demonstrates this failure above when he says Much of which irrelevantly pertains to my supposed editing of someone else’s comment. There is no supposed about it. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hours Modifying quotes. Really. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:69.71.194.34 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked)

Page: University of California, Berkeley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and University of California, Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.71.194.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

University of California, Berkeley Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]

University of California, Los Angeles Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:69.71.194.34 (not a diff; it's the only edit made to that Talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] and [30]

Comments:

Note that one of these article already has pending changes applied due to previous, unrelated vandalism. But the fact that this editor is edit warring over the same general content over two articles despite a warning and without discussion in Talk even though one article has pending changes applied indicates to me that blocking this editor is the best course of action to stop this behavior. ElKevbo (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dbhall2 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: No Action)

Page

Atkins diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dbhall2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Effectiveness */"
2. 10:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825608035 by Alexbrn (talk) please resolve in talk page. This is editorial, inaccurate, and not "plain language""
3. 10:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825606830 by Doc James (talk) non nuetral point of view (only), incorrect description of the control conditions (not dieting at all, vs. behavioral counseling for weight loss)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) to 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825603815 by Alexbrn (talk) editorial ("only") see WP:NOR; also, short term benefit is well evidenced (as discussed by the reference)"
   2. 10:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825603568 by Doc James (talk) not supported by reference."
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) to 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825415316 by Alexbrn (talk) very much relevant, as without it it implies inferiority to other commercial weight loss products"
   2. 22:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "Removed language incorrectly summarizing Gudzone review, including the odd and loaded way of characterizing the control condition (behavioral counseling for weight loss is not "even compared to not dieting at all")."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [31]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Summary of evidence */ r"

Comments:

User seems fixed on a certain wording and is warring to get it; not engaged on discussion on Talk page initiated by other users. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Learning to use talk. Have engaged. Reporting user is fixated on wording with a non-neutral point of view that is not supported by the cited references, as demonstrated in the talk page: "we need to be plain it's all a bit of fraud." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbhall2 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to re-iterate, the major change in the reverts I made were to remove obviously false summaries of the cited review (see the talk page for this topic).User:DBhall2

• Warned I did block, but then unblocked. User is engaging in talkpage, and blocks are preventative. Feel free to poke me if the edit warring continues. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Zewdeigebremedhin reported by User:32.218.40.132 (Result: No violation)

Page: Northridge Mall (Milwaukee) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zewdeigebremedhin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37], [38], [39]

Comments:

• Repeated addition of unsourced or copyrighted text. 32.218.40.132 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. That said, if copyright issues are readded at this point, I'd have no problem issuing a block for that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 17:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Draft:Relative cycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other pages

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825662431 by Legacypac (talk) I have moved the comment to the talk page"
2. 17:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825662100 by Legacypac (talk) then leave a comment without the AfC template"
3. 17:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825642391 by Legacypac (talk) not AfC"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Relative_cycle

Comments:

User continues to remove my comments at this draft, in MfD (link) and even off my own talk page. A short block is now warranted. Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) At MfD [40] and even my own comments off my own talk page [41] here [42]

The problem is that this is part of their attempt to build the case against me. I have stopped reverting. Please don’t enable them. — Taku (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a report of edit warring and repeatedly removing proper comments by another user. Don't do it. I warned you on User_talk:Primefac#For_your_consideration as well. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I counted wrong?? There were three reverts and I stopped. If this is not your stalking behavior, I don’t what it is. I have also initiated the thread in the talkpage. -— Taku (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

4 reverts are not required to be considered edit warring especially when you are reverting the same user on other pages in quick succession. Legacypac (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• This is not your standard report. I'm looking into it, but it'll take time as other factors are involved. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Not required but not needed since the talk was started by me. — Taku (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  About the removal of their comments: I removed some of their comments because I though their part of the continuing attack on me not realizing some of them not meant to personally. I can agree that I try not to misjudge that they are not meant personally. — Taku (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks For a multitude of reasons. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Wickfox reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wickfox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [45]

Comments:
Obvious SCW 1RR violation. I told the user to self-revert, but this is the response I got. The reverts are themselves disruptive for removing reliably sourced information. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Wickfox notified of general sanctions. Any more reverts will likely result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: just to clarify things, I already did warn him and told him to self-revert. Why should he be warned twice? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: 1) I tend to want to see the general sanctions template given to new editors before a block. 2) By the time I looked at this report they had already been re-reverted by a different editor. I was going to tell them to self-revert or be blocked but that was rendered moot. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks Neil! Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Zoupan & User:MneEdit - Multiple duplicates & Non-consensus (Result: No violation)

• Сonsensus
• Сonsensus
• Сonsensus.

• Non-consensus
• Non-consensus
• Non-consensus.

TaaniOk (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Multiple duplicates Montenegro attempted coup=Montenegrin coup plot => 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis#Alleged coup attempt.--TaaniOk (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:2015–16 Montenegrin crisis#Result.TaaniOk (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation @TaaniOk: 1) You're supposed to notify editors after you report them here. 2) Please read WP:3RR. There's a slow motion edit war that could use more discussion instead of admin action. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • NeilN, forgot! Non-consensus & this There was this: User talk:62.4.55.64#Non-consensus January 2018 & User talk:Axxxion#Non-consensus. 62.4.55.64 = Axxxion ? circumvention of rules WP:3RR. Multiple duplicates this is circumvention of rules WP:3RR--TaaniOk (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @TaaniOk: It seems that you are trying to get an admin to block the multiple editors who disagree with your edits. Stop this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

No

To the total :

It is requested that the page history of 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis be merged into the history of this page. This action must be performed by an administrator. [46]--TaaniOk (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@TaaniOk: This isn't the place to request a histmerge. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@TaaniOk: And stop edit warring on 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis before you are blocked instead, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment TaaniOk is obviously not familiar with guidelines, which he confusingly calls upon. He might be a troll, not sure. WP:NOTHERE? He did gave me a cute home-made warning. He boldly merges pages and edit-wars. There is a concensus to have the two articles separate for now. There is no request to merge the history of 2015–16 Montenegrin crisis to another, that is something he has confused himself with, since a section's history cannot be merged to another article. He simply copied my request to have Montenegrin coup plot and Montenegro attempted coup histmerged... --Zoupan 23:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

He clearly doesn't understand.--Zoupan 23:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Ptb011985 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: blocked 31 hours)

Page

Mitragyna speciosa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ptb011985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "broadening statement to an appropriate level, rather than reducing to be in conflict with multiple reliable sources; this should be an acceptable compromise"
2. 15:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825805936 by Alexbrn (talk) discussion is ongoing; and editors disagree; bullying your point in won't work"
3. 14:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "better wording for attribution"
4. 04:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "single source; no talk consensus to back non-atribution; multiple reliable sources dispute FDA claim; claim not consensus-representative since multiple-RS support not yet established"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */ c"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Suggestion to name FDA as source of information in lead */ Done here"

Comments:

User wants certain wording about the FDA in the article, and over several days has been repeatedly altering the article to get it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Editor is mischaracterizing edits. 'Better attribution' was a modification, not reversion, of an existing edit apparently in agreement with what that editor wanted, and the latest was new content and not a reversion to past content. So there have only been two genuine reversions in the last 24 hours. Meanwhile Alexbrn has already made three full reversions, including the latest which was mischaracterized as correcting a typo. There is an ongoing dispute on the talk page and edit history involving 10-15 editors, and rather than continue the discussion Alexbrn and 2-3 other editors have been zealously reverting edits (in a rotating fashion where they each are routinely nearing or reaching but not exceeding three reverts/day) with comments now as vague as 'good,' while refusing to continue the discussion.Ptb011985 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:144.82.9.5 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

Page: University College London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 144.82.9.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825625189 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Concise introduction"
2. 11:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825577151 by Robminchin ([[User talk:Robminchin|talk) That can be left for the ranking section. Not appropriate for the introduction.Needs to be a summary. This sentence is most neutral. No 'leading' ect"
3. 00:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825517019 by ScrapIronIV (talk) Restored to neutral and factual statement"
4. 21:05, 13 February 2018 (UTC) "There certainly seems to be disagreement by the Durham grad. Hence reverted to old statement that seemed to cause no major problem.Lets just leave it how it was then.I did feel the change earlier was more suitable&different.We should discuss more/notblock"

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 21:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on University College London. (TW)"

Comments:
IP reverting multiple editors, despite discussion on talk page, restoring Boosterism. Scr★pIron^IV 21:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)|uid=144.82.9.5}}

• And yet another revert after the filing of this report here. Scr★pIron^IV 13:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dert45 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked)

Page

Auschwitz concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dert45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dert45, a sporadically used account, was blocked for 36 hours on 11 February by Cyberpower678 following this EW report. The block was for repeatedly removing from the lead, since 2009, that Auschwitz was in Poland; sometimes he also added that it was in Gau Silesia (the Nazi German name for the area). The implication is that the area was really in Germany, not Poland, because Poland was occupied at the time.

He has gone right back to making a similar edit. His latest, 18:17, 15 February, retains that the camp was in occupied Poland, but adds that it was in Nazi Germany and Gau Silesia.

• Changes "was a network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II" to
• "was a network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated in Nazi Germany in Gau Silesia in areas of occupied Poland during World War II."

SarahSV ^(talk) 18:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• 20:35, 15 February 2018: ditto, posted after he was told about this report.

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tritomex reported by User:Dr.Greyhawk (Result: No violation)

Page: Genetic studies on Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tritomex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 14:00, 13 February 2018
2. Revision as of 02:42, 15 February 2018
3. Latest revision as of 13:49, 15 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

I've already warned the user on his talk page and he deleted the warnings soon after. The user keeps introducing deliberate factual errors. Not only is his source unscientific but the statement is wrong and misleading according to even his own source; specifically the source says "Middle East" rather than "Levant" which the former implies a much larger region. He is also not the first user to keep reintroducing the same deliberate factual error as can be seen from the discussion on the talk page. Also, from the discussion page it is clear that the user is more interested in including "criticism" (commentary and opinions) rather than actual objective scientific studies and results which is equivalent to pushing a point of view WP:POV. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Uninvolved comment This one looks really murky to me. I lurk on this page time to time to but rarely make any edits to the main or talk page and I have watched this one unfold. Dr.Greyhawk himself has been edit warring: these reverts by him all happened in 24 hours [[48]] [[49]] [[50]]. As for his claim of POV pushing by Tritomex, I stalk pages not users, but on this one it seems that if there is POV pushing, Tritomex is no more guilty than Dr.Greyhawk himself, who appears to have spent his time trying to remove RS material that criticizes the Khazar theory (wildly fringe, by the way...) of Ashkenazi Jewish origins... which looks quite bad to me, to be honest. --Calthinus (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

How can I be pushing a POV when I am trying to be as objective as possible by including the most recent scientific studies and removing either factual errors and commentary/opinions/conjecture? By the way, on some of my early reverts I noted for people to see the discussion on the talk page but no one bothered. I this not Wikipedia? Or is factual objective information now secondary to opinions and feelings? Looks like you have your own narrative to push. If you have objective scientific studies which refute ElHaik's studies, which is not exactly "the Khazar theory," then go ahead and include it, otherwise keep opinions, commentary, unscientific criticism off of the page because any user can equally do the same with every single study cited on the page which will just transform the page into a book of subjective opinions and conjecture Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, yes Elhaik is effectively the Khazar theory, and you deleted nearly 6K of RS-backed material was (among other things) discrediting it[[51]]. You were reverted by two different editors but you persisted, reverting three times to delete material that was discrediting... a fringe theory. Looks bad man. As for your accusation on me, well, if I had my own narrative to push I would probably be editing that page. But I'm not. I'm just here, afar, watching this in dismay. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between "RS-backed" and "scientific sources;" you are trying to use non-scientific sources to discredit actual scientific research. I can find reliable sources that push my own narrative too but it has no place here. Anyways this report is not even specifically about that block of text you are talking about, you are deflecting from the actual subject. Tell me why is it that I have to remove this blatantly factually incorrect statement numerous times even after fully explaining the reason?

...with most in a community sharing significant ancestry and up to 75% Levantine genes.

At first it wasn't even sourced properly or verifiable, then eventually someone added a source and the source itself was unscientific and that source even said something that was different than the statement. Therefore the statement is still false yet it is still standing there after having been removed numerous times, explained in the discussion, and having users warned about it. How is that possible? Seems like someone is violating the rules and it isn't me. Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to what? No sir, I have never edited this page. I made a more detailed response here but I deleted it for fear of cluttering the page [[52]]. Look indepth at the sources taht were deleted (as this earlier post shows in a blockquote). They look like quite applicable sources to me -- looks a lot more like WP:JDLI. Anyhow, as I'm not actually involved in this, I'll bow out for now. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User Dr.Greyhawk opened his Wikipedia account only a week ago, and immediately went to the "Genetic origin of Jews" by removing RS backed criticism of controversial Elhaik papers and by adding more material in support of Elhaik claims (in support of Khazar theory of Ashenazi Jewish origin)-This was exactly the same pattern used by 7 previous scockpuppets of user [Historylover4] who all after creating their accounts immediately went to same article and did the same. They removed RS backed criticism and added more material in support of Elhaik theory. [53]. At least 6 SPI investigations were conducted and every time it came out that sockpupets of Historylover4 edited the same page, with same intention and in same manner (through edit warring). The blocked accounts are 1.User:Cityslicker4 [54], 2. User:Saruman38 [55],3. Youngdro2 [56], 4. User:Freudk [57] 5. User talk:Do not collect [58] 6. User Avrahambeneliezer [59] and now the same pattern is used now by Dr.Greyhawk. It could be argued that this topic is related to Arab-Israel conflict and therefore restricted accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure. However, even beside this I wish to say few words regarding the subject. The Khazar theory of AJ origin and the Slavic origin of Yiddish, as advocated by Elhaik, Wexler and Sand was rejected by virtually all historians, linguists and geneticists. Most of whom consider this theory as fringe. The article covers the Elhaik papers on multiple places, but it also presents the prevailing opinion and criticism from leading experts in this fields. As I have strong reasons to believe that we have here a newest case of sockpuppetry with same intention (to remove criticism of Elhaik) I am filing a new SPI report.Tritomex (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Your entire comment is completely subjective and evades the fact that even after being warned you are intentionally reintroducing factual errors that are not backed up even by your own sources or that you are filling the page with criticisms, opinions, and commentary to push a certain point of view.

1. I am not that user that you are speaking of. I looked up the sockpuppet investigation of the user you are talking about and his last appearance was 5 years ago, it also looks like you already falsely accused another user too. In fact I've never even created an account before this one. It looks like you are just accusing anyone who goes against your narrative as being a sockpuppet of a long gone user from 5 years ago.
2. If multiple users are making the same changes maybe it's because you are the one who is violating the rules and intentionally putting false information and pushing a point of view.
3. The page is not locked and is not directly related to Arab-Israeli conflict. If you think it is related, it's probably because you are the one who is using the page to push a certain narrative relevant to the conflict.
4. Half your comment is admitting to pushing a point of view. Whether you think the "Khazar theory" or the "Irano-Turko-Slavic theory" is right or wrong is irrelevant to the article itself. I am including the objective results of scientific studies while you are replacing that with subjective opinions, criticisms, and even intentional factual errors to try to discredit studies that you don't like. The problem is that you are trying to censor actual scientific genetic studies while replacing it with unscientific opinions and criticisms which support the narrative that you want.
5. You are still not addressing the actual reason for this report in the first place; the blatantly false statement which you keep reverting even after discussion and being warned Dr.Greyhawk (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Glucide reported by User:General Ization (Result:Blocked)

Page

Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:46, 16 February 2018‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 826061252 by General Ization (talk)"
2. 23:43, 16 February 2018‎ (UTC) ""
3. 23:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826059921 by General Ization (talk)"
4. 23:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Restoring reference and referenced info"
5. Consecutive edits made from 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) to 23:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
6. 23:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
7. 23:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""
8. 15:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Dominican Republic. (TW)"
2. 23:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dominican Republic. (TW)"
3. 23:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dominican Republic. (TW)"
4. 23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Domin. (TW)"
5. 23:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Pinging @C.Fred: and @BillCat: for any comment as they were among editors who reverted and were reverted during the EW. General Ization ^Talk 23:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Er, make that @BilCat. General Ization ^Talk 23:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• The user's edit history suggests an intent to edit this article. An edit-warring block might be the least of the sanctions that are justified here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

User:91.148.90.138 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: Both editors blocked for a period of 36 hours)

Page: Aleksa Šantić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.148.90.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64]
5. [65]
6. [66]
7. [67]
8. [68]
9. [69]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:
The user is refusing to reply on both his/her talk page and on the article talk page. He/she is obviously aware of how Wikipedia works (being able to cite sources using proper templates) but does not care to cooperate or acknowledge guidelines when presented with them. He/she also refuses to acknowledge the talk page consensus, for the most bizarre of all reasons, and refuses to use any talk page for any purpose. For what it's worth, this is a classic example of disruptive editing motivated by ethnic nationalism. Surtsicna (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

My kind requests that the IP user use the talk page[72][73][74][75] and respond to my comments there[76] have been duly noted but blankly refused[77]. The audacity is astonishing. Surtsicna (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours Vanjagenije (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(univolved user) Vanjagenije, could you please explain why Surtsicna was blocked in this case? --Marbe166 (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Marbe166: Becaouse of making 10 identical reverts at Aleksa Šantić in the time span of ~40 minutes. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Alhanathalas reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "you can read the books from Halil İnalcık, there aren't as many resources in english when it comes to early ottoman empire."
2. 21:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Educate yourself. Sufi islam and Anatolian Alevism are not the same and Alevism is regarded a Sect."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) to 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 801133382 by باسم (talk)"
   2. 18:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "ottoman sultans up until Selim I were alevis."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Orhan. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

funny how this guy changes history and i'm the guy who is being under the radar. as told before, there are not many resources on this subject in English, just ask any trained turkish historian and he'll tell you the facts, oh and this guy who is spreading lies is from lebanon, so chances are he does not know turkish. cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanathalas (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is only an example of the simultaneous edit wars being conducted by this editor. See the following articles:

• Bayezid II
• Mehmed the Conqueror
• Bayezid I
• Orhan
• Mehmed I
• Osman I

General Ization ^Talk 21:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TheTruthiness reported by User:Newimpartial (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: 01:06, 3 February 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:23, 16 February 2018
2. 23:02, 16 February 2018
3. 01:11, 17 February 2018
4. 04:57, 17 February 2018

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All edits by TheTruthiness were to remove content from an established consensus version. Invitation to discuss on Talk here: [79] New source added to meet TheTruthiness' concerns here: [80]

Comments:

The Truthiness is engaged in an edit war, using supposed BLP concerns as the basis for singlehandedly fighting consensus, ignoring the talk page, and repeatedly removing sources, all with the aim of "white washing" Faith Goldy, best known for her sympathetic coverage of the white supremacists at Charlottesville. Newimpartial (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protected At the time the BLP problems were valid. See my talk page for more. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ZH8000 reported by User:86.153.130.41 (Result: Declined No recent edits made to article)

Page: Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81] (Original edit - the 'B' in WP:BRD
2. [82] First revert
3. [83] Second revert
4. [84] Third Revert
5. [85] Fourth revert introducing a reference that does not support the edit but supports the edit replaced.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:: No link but user is clearly aware of edit warring rules because he posted a report linking myself and a French IP claiming violation of 3RR when none had actually taken place.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Not a violation of 3RR (in 24 hours), but a slow motion edit war with four reverts from ZH8000. For the avoidance of doubt, the French IP has made two reverts, and I have made two reverts (but not from the same IP - dynamic IP addressing). A straight resumption of edit warring to introduce his preferred measurement once the page protection expired.

ZH8000 has posted no discussion on the talk page other than a claim that some non English railway authorities use an obscure measurement of gradient. Whilst that may be true, the measurement is both obsolete and obscure in the English speaking world as was pointed out. The measure is easily mistaken (as I initially did, and apparently the French IP - his edit summary of "(50% max gradient??)" strongly suggests this) to indicate a railway with a 50% gradient (i.e 60 degrees incline!). Also posted a claim that it is not the editor who was bold (B) that made the edit who had to obtain consensus having been reverted, but the editor who reverted the bold claim (the 'R').

The page was protected following the above erroneous 3RR report declaring a content dispute with a declaration to resolve t.he dispute. ZH8000 has just returned to the edit war without any attempt to satisfy the 'D' part of WP:BRD (i.e. will not communicate).

The reality is that a 'per thousand' measure of gradient is both obscure and obsolete in the English speaking world (and this is the en: Wikipedia). Percent gradient is used for roads, but railways are actually measure using the old 'one in ...' system, but % is understood. It should be noted that 'per thousand' is so obscure that virtually no English character set supports the symbol, and it cannot be found on any keyboard. A search on Google suggests that the symbol ('‰' - copied it) is deprecated because of its potential for confusion with '%' (it is very similar). 86.153.130.41 (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

The admins may consider the following:

• The first "original edit" (18 May 2017) is almost one year old! Since then, nobody objected the way to express the data, until now.
• There is an established and a so far non-objected concensus among many railway articles, at least each Swiss railways articles are used to use the per mill sign for gradients of cohersion driven railway lines and tunnels. E.g. List of spiral tunnels and tunnels on a curved alignment (generally applied, not only to Swiss lines), Gotthard line, Gotthard Base Tunnel, Gotthard Tunnel, Simplon Tunnel, Lötschberg Base Tunnel, Lötschberg Tunnel, etc ... just to name a very few.
• There are strong indications, that all undos by any IP was always done by the very same person, despite different IPs by "SRF France" (Special:Contributions/109.26.169.68) and "Vodafone UK"/"BT UK":

• Special:Contributions/148.252.129.216
• Special:Contributions/85.255.237.126
• Special:Contributions/86.153.130.41
• Special:Contributions/85.255.237.171
• Special:Contributions/85.255.235.128
• Special:Contributions/85.255.235.164

The French IP did not contribute any comments anymore, since the English IP(s) stepped in (– until the English IP will have another business trip to France, probably).

• Both, the SRF France IP as well as the Vodafone UK IP already violated the three-revert-rule by themselves.
• Special:Contributions/85.255.235.164 got already blocked (85.255.235.0/24) by @Oshwah: Please check the obove mentioned IPs as well.
• Finally, let's go back to use our time for real work, please.

Thank you for your precious time! -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Declined No recent edits made to article ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Is the 16th and 17th of February 2018 not recent then? 86.174.153.3 (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no comments to make concerning the relative merits of this case but would make the following observations.

The articles concerned are very specialist articles and likely to have a very low footfall, so it is not that surprising that an edit goes unchallenged for several months.

The concept of the '‰' symbol is more correctly referred to as the 'promille' (olde English) or the 'permille' (later usage, from the same derivation as 'percent' for the '%' symbol). Both the symbol and the word used to describe it are considered archaic in English usage and I have certainly never seen any paper use it other than one on the discussion of the symbol itself. The terms are so archaic that no (paper) English dictionary published in the last 70 years or so even includes either word (or any variation of spelling). Some on-line dictionaries do include it but they do not appear to agree on the spelling, and is some cases the meaning. I note that the Wikipedia article on the subject notes this as well.

I do not understand the obsession with using an archaic method of expressing gradient when the universally understood '%' gradient precisely expresses the point attempting to be conveyed.

I apologise if this is not the correct venue for this post (I am a relative newcomer), but this is where I found the discussion. Please feel free to move it to a more appropriate page if this is deemed appropriate. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: Relevant part of above post copied to article talk page. 86.174.153.3 (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It is useful that a discussion has been started on the article talk, at Talk:Lauterbrunnen–Mürren Mountain Railway#Gradient. In my opinion, anyone who makes a further edit to the article which either *adds* or *removes* the per mill notation for the grade is risking a block, until such time as a consensus is found on its use. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. Let us hope that your faith is not misplaced. It would remiss not to point out that the article was protected with a note that protection would be removed if due consensus was achieved on the talk page. The central plank of this complaint was that ZH8000 had resumed the edit war without making a single contribution to the actual discussion of the edit after the protection was applied. 86.174.153.3 (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Pam-javelin reported by User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: HMS Ocean (L12) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pam-javelin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 4.2 edit summary: When an announcement by either the Royal Navy, British M.O.D or the British Government then it can not be confirmed and therefore the sale is "proposed" and not "confirmed".
2. 4.1
3. 3 edit summary: Response to Wolfchild's constant maritime corrections without fact (and with second minor edit) There has been no official announcement from the British Government who own the ship over the proposed sale
4. 2 edit summary: Unless you have official statement from the British Government then STOP REvERTING THE FACTS!
5. 1 edit summary: There has been NO official announcement of the sale by the Royal Navy The British Ministry of Defence or even the British Government - yet.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

This is their response to the 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90] After Pam-javelin was reverted, they were requested to discuss this on the article talk page, per WP:BRD, multiple times, (twice in edit summaries and again on their talk page) but they refused. I had to initiate the discussion. This is their response on the article talk page: [91] (same combative type response as on their talk page. This was posted after their 3rd revert. I replied, but instead of continuing the discussion, they instead reverted again, for a 4th time in 24 hours. )

Diff of 3RRNB notice on user's talk page: [92]

Comments:
The bulk of the content regarding the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil and the supporting refs was not added by me, but cumulatively by several regular editors. Pam-javelin seems to insist that only an announcement from the UK gov’t will confirm the sale. After the second revert, I added an additional source confirming the sale, from the Brazilian, gov’t & military and another source confirming the sale by the UK Defense Journal. This is in addition to the sources already in place. I have encouraged Pam-javelin to read up on Primary vs. Secondary vs. Tertiary sourcing, but they continually revert and/or change the content regarding the sale with POV-ish and WP:HOWEVER type additions putting the sale into doubt, and making the article look clunky.

They have been continually difficult to deal with. A couple weeks ago I tried to discuss an issue with on their talk page, but my comments were deleted with the edit summary: Narrow minded Sceptic's rubbish removed. This attitude makes it both difficult to try and have a civil dialogue with this user and, basically impossible to resolve issues. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 19:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Still awaiting a response, and in the meantime, the disruption to this page by this editor continues - ^theWOLFchild 21:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• FYI - I have just edited the disputed content. While this editor continually edit-warred, removing sourced content, changing the status of this ship, making more than half-dozen or so edits in the past 24 hrs, insisting that it could only be reported as sold if and when the UK gov't confirmed it as such, it turns our that s simple Google search shows they already have. Numerous sources confirming the announcement of the sale by the UK gov't & MoD. I have updated the page, including four new refs. So, in short, all this disruption was for nothing. This editor was edit-warring and arguing, just for the sake of arguing as they clearly didn't bother to confirm their position. I know several admins are reading this, I just thought you all should know. - ^theWOLFchild 01:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

While this report sits here, this editor has continued to disrupt this article with more edit-warring. A long-tern issue with this editor is they insist on going to various ship articles, and removing any feminine pronouns in reference to the ship. They have been advised to stop this before, as per WP:SHE4SHIPS. While they used to put "too much 'she'" in their edit summaries, they now use deceptive edit summaries. I asked them to stop these changes and especially to stop abusing edit summaries on their talk page here. There are diffs of their behavior included in that edit. (By the way, that is the edit they removed as "narrow minded skeptics rubbish")
Now on this article, they're at it again;

• changes "she" to "Ocean" edit summary: Repetition changed
  • reverted by me edit summary: i will again refer you to WP:SHE4SHIPS and again ask you to stop abusing the edit summary feature with deceptive summaries of your edits
• again changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Fixed grammar, The usual person that loves to add the word "she" to almost every sentence is back again - stop using repetitive wording. You know who you are!!!
  • reverted by user Nick Thorne edit summary: RV - misleading edit summary, no grammar error in referring to ships as "she".
• again changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Reached" is better than "Managed" as Ocean was a brand new ship at that point so she should not a been "Managing" anything
  • reverted by me edit summary: stop edit-warring - again - why is it you cant take issues to the talk page?)

They had previously changed this very same content before;

• changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Keep article neutral and factual
  • reverted by me edit summary: per MOS:SHIPS & WP:SHE4SHIP

And on other parts of the same article;

• changes "she" to "the ship" edit summary: Too much "she"
• changes "she" to "the ship" edit summary: Too much use of the word "she".

It's clear they intend to continue edit-warring, using false and deceptive edit-summaries, refusing to discuss on any talk page, whether it be article or user, and will continue to disrupt this article, articles like it and the project with their WP:IDHT, WP:IDLI and WP:BATTLE behaviour. As long as this report sits here unaddressed. - ^theWOLFchild 16:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

2nd 4RR vio in 2 days, same article

• again changes "she" to "Ocean", and also a "her" to "the" edit summary: Again, this ship was brand new on trials and the wording should at least be "achieved" instead of "managed" as that describes a ship struggling to reach her top speed

This is the 4th revert of the same content in about 8 hours. This is while there is an open 3RRNB report open, and after administrator NeilN warned them on their talk page to stop. They then continued with yet another change;

• changing "she" to "Ocean" edit summary: Ocean would not have been moored at Greenwich - the correct terminology would have been "positioned" as she was on active military service during the 2012 Games.
  

...with yet another totally deceptive edit summary. How long will this be allowed to continue?
And, should I file a new report for the separate 4RR violation? - ^theWOLFchild 20:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Garam reported by User:Zanhe (Result: Withdrawn - issue resolved)

Page

Paektu Mountain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "see Paektu Mountain#Names"
2. 04:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "clear"
3. 03:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 825565660 by Zanhe (talk): when? look like your edits is first. and please visit the talk page, not here."
4. 03:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "rv; no consensus the title."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ new section"
2. 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"

Note: I did not use the template to warn him because Garam is a long-term editor familiar with edit warring rules. He's been to ANI and this noticeboard before.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ new section"
2. 04:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"
3. 04:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Names in the lead */ re"

Comments:

Paektu Mountain is on the border of China and North Korea, and per WP:NEUTRALITY, such border features normally have native names of both countries in the lead (e.g. Mont Blanc). Yesterday I noticed that the Chinese name was missing so I added it to the lead. (Later I found out that it was silently removed 13 months ago by an IP). However, User:Garam reverted my edits three times, making the nonsensical claim that the IP removal represents "consensus" merely because it wasn't noticed at the time [93]. He refused to acknowledge Ngram evidence that shows the Chinese name is more commonly used than the Korean, using the ridiculous excuse that Ngram is too old because its most recent data is from 2008 (see Talk:Paektu Mountain/Archive 1#Names in the lead). When another user Koraskadi also added the Manchu name, Garam made his fourth revert within 24 hours, replacing both the Chinese and Manchu names with a second Korean spelling. His reverts are blatant violations of both 3RR and WP:NPOV. Zanhe (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• I’ll begin by talking about this. First, I want to revert to "previous edit from conflict" (I'm sorry, I don't know its correct name in English Wikipedia) becuase it is it will prevent more conflicts in article history. And before user Zanhe's edit, and to be exact, the title of article Paektu Mountain was "Paektu" and "Baekdu" since 223.53.16.20's edit in 2016. So, I think we made a sort of tacit consensus during this time. And I think this is what consensus say in Wikipedia:Consensus. Of course consensus can change, but it hasn’t changed yet in my opinion. So, I wanted to discuss this problem, and I tried to talk to user Zanhe in Talk:Paektu Mountain/Archive 1#Names in the lead (if you look at the talk page, user Zanhe hasn't responded yet.). And as mentioned in talk page, I want user Zanhe to present the references at the present (same reason as Talk:Sea of Japan/FAQ, and per previous discussions in talk page (e.g. Talk:Paektu Mountain#Names). But user Zanhe presented the Ngrams between from 1950 to 2008. So I think user Zanhe didn't provide enough references to support its opinion. Finally, only I thank Manchu language is virtually dead language, it was not one of title until now, and other names is found in Paektu Mountain#Names, for the same reason as first part of Sea of Japan. So if my this edit seems to you like it violates 3RR, really I am sorry I didn't mean that, and I didn't know this edit also violated 3RR. I really wish we could accommodate this problem. And thank you for reading this comments, although I'm not fluent in English. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
• I revert to my edit like Special:PermanentLink/756396030 in 2016. See special:diff/825765920. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As Garam has voluntarily reverted himself, I consider this issue resolved and would like to withdraw my complaint. -Zanhe (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Garam is a notorious disputer. [94] [95] [96] It will repeat again soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.62.216.170 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I wasn't aware of Garam's extensive block history outside English wiki. He did change his behaviour this time so I don't want to be vindictive. If he resumes edit warring and/or POV pushing again I'll bring him directly to WP:ANI, but I hope that won't be necessary. -Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: This IP (with special:diff/826113481 and special:diff/826107181 etc) is one of notorious puppet in Korean Wikipedia. And this IP is blocked IP in Korean Wikipedia because of vandalism and swear words. Please don't mind it. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That might be true, but it does not change the fact that you've been blocked on Korean wiki three times, for a total duration of more than a year. And I just saw that you've also been making tendentious arguments against multiple users on Talk:Chloe Kim and Talk:Korean fried chicken, the same way you did on Talk:Paektu Mountain. Are you trying to make trouble on English wiki after being kicked out of Korean wiki? -Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Perky28 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Being worked out on talk page)

Page: Near-death experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Perky28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 17:21, 16 February 2018
2. diff 17:35, 16 February 2018
3. diff 19:30, 16 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Near-death_experience#Computers

Comments:

User has an WP:APPARENTCOI and is aggressively editing to promote the publications/work of SL Thaler. Has not engaged on their talk page, and their comments at the article talk page are just abusive/personalized, which is typical of editors with advocacy/COI issues. (diff, diff, diff). The intention to keep trying to drive this into the article is very clear and I don't see them stopping to authentically work through the issues without a short block. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Defense:

Reversion 3 was simply the addition of relevant Wikipedia-compliant references and not an attempt to reinsert what Jytdog had rejected. To me, it seemed like a diplomatic compromise, but evidently not. I maintain that Jytdog is obliterating information extremely relevant to this article. His edits coincidentally follow after another editor's use of profanity against my contribution. With regard to COI, I know of Thaler's work and do object to Jytdog's obliteration of Wikipedia-compliant secondary sources quoting it.Perky28 (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Further, Jytdog is attacking credible references, for instance Scientific American and peer-reviewed papers published by Elsevier. Therefore comments such as, "not the kind of reference we look for" is very glib and indicates editorial bias.Perky28 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• This filing has apparently been sufficient to stop the edit warring; we will see if we can work things out on the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Being worked out on talk page NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Cherkash reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: No violation)

Page

2018 FIA Formula One World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "restored an unexplained removal of a passage supported by cited reference"
2. 13:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826319155 by Joseph2302 (talk) if it's the date formatting you care about it, then only change that!"
3. 12:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "undid the last 2 edits: if you feel it's vague, then please read the reference and feel free to clarify further based on the information there"
4. 09:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Calendar changes */ added the reason for moving Russian GP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2018 FIA Formula One World Championship. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Russia move */ reply"

Comments:

Editor adding and reverting back in changes against current talkpage consensus, and violation of MOS:DATE. This user needs to stop reverting and continue talking on talkpage. Instead they're using a questionable reference to insert rubbish text to the article Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Sounds like a nonsensical reporting by Joseph2302: in my original edit, I've added a clearly sourced statement. I've then reverted unexplained deletions of the same: the editors deleting the passage, "Prisonermonkeys" and "Joseph2302", didn't bother to state their reasons in their respective edit summaries – so it clearly looked to me like either vandalism or promoting of their own viewpoints in contradiction of the cited reliable source. In addition, neither of the two had bothered to even mention an ongoing discussion on the subject on the article's talk page (of which I was unaware until I saw the link above). So I would say this nomination is totally bogus, aimed at mostly promoting a specific viewpoint, and suppressing any dissent. cherkash (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• 4 reverts in a short period, and deliberately ignoring a talkpage discussion. Source isn't necessarily reliable, which is exactly what we're trying to gain a consensus on. Which is why your mindless reverting is disruptive. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You should provide the reason why the source isn't necessarily reliable and provide a more reliable source that refute the statement made by TASS. Other way it is just WP:DONTLIKEIT. Corvus tristis (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reason is explained in talkpage discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What is truly disruptive, Joseph2302 – is your mindless harassing me here: as I stated above, all my edits were done in good faith, and with cited reliable reference; so it was you along with Prisonermonkeys who initiated the "edit warring" and continued to engage in it without any reasonable explanation. It's your aggressive actions that are in bad faith here, not mine. You could simply leave a reasonable edit summary at least once (which you didn't ever do) – there was no mention of your reasons for your own reverts, nor of the allegedly ongoing discussion on the Talk page. All you did was "revert & report" – whereas you were the one aggressively reverting, not me. cherkash (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Result: All parties warned. Nobody broke 3RR yet, but if there are any more reverts some blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Wkretz86‎ reported by User:Calton (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Hate group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wkretz86‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and probable logged-out 108.193.192.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Initial edit-warring

1. [98] 03:49, February 6, 2018 Initial attempt to add ADL as a hate group.
2. [99] 04:13, February 6, 2018‎ (Attemping to make page factual, citing sources 1. (https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/09/29/anti-defamation-league-cited-for-backing-genocide/) and 2. (http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article197386094.html
3. [100] 04:45, February 11, 2018‎ (Added content)

Most recent edit-warring

1. [101] 01:37, February 19, 2018‎ (Fixed misleading information about a hate group pretending to fight against them.
2. [102] 01:44, February 19, 2018‎ (Fixed bias)
3. [103] 01:51, February 19, 2018‎ (Fixed bias)
4. [104] 01:57, February 19, 2018‎, by 108.193.192.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Unbiased information)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [105] 01:51:55
2. [106] 01:53:09

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Hate group#Is ADL a hate group?

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni reported by User:張泰銘 (Result: No violation)

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

Evidence is in the page history of the pointed to page. Content on this page is not supposed to be removed without discussion. Thanks.

• No violation As far as I can see TonyBallioni has only acted administratively at that page to enforce DS and start a discussion of what is clearly a controversial move. User:張泰銘, this change is not out of the question but you need to establish a consensus for it, especially now it's been challenged by multiple editors. GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dsteakley reported by User:Favonian (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/826304597

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/826377106
2. Special:Diff/826380829
3. Special:Diff/826381463
4. Special:Diff/826382166
5. Special:Diff/826384822

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/826382126

Comments:

• They have been reverted by many different people. They have been told to read the FAQ. Nothing seems to be getting through. I feel sorry for anybody who has been duped into pushing the line they are pushing, as they are often only unwitting stooges of the real propagandists seeking to change history. Nonetheless, this is highly disruptive to a very high importance article, and potentially damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia, so I would suggest a short block. Nothing too drastic at first. Maybe just long enough for them to go to a library, check out a reputable history book, and see what it actually says about the Nazis. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Editor has started using the talk page and I've asked them to stop reverting. [107] Holding a bit to see how they respond. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Warned Dsteakley is now using the talk page. Any more reverts against consensus may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Xerton reported by User:General Ization (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

Sally Yates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "laypersons will not understand this sentence without some clarification, which I have added."
2. 01:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826605826 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) please accept that consensus cannot trump what the actual RS primary sources say"
3. 01:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826582447 by JFG (talk) changing "tone" does not justify ignoring the primary sources which clearly state she was "fired""
4. 22:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "The very first link in this article is from CNN which says "fires"; also, a preponderance of Reliable Sources described this termination as "fired", "fires" - I have cited the sources - see Talk Page."
5. 11:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "utterly factual"
6. Consecutive edits made from 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC) to 04:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "concise and with "stated" as per talk"
   2. 04:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "the "Landler" NYT ref is misleading if it omits this - that article makes clear that insubordination was the reason for the dismissal"
7. Consecutive edits made from 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC) to 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 18:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "As per CNN - see talk page and link in article"
   2. 18:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "more accurate"
8. Consecutive edits made from 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) to 17:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "The CNN citation we're using for this clearly states "Trump fires acting AG after she declines to defend travel ban""
   2. 17:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "clarify"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sally Yates. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• [108],[109]

Comments:

Editor has grossly exceeded WP:3RR in a dispute over the use of the word "fired" versus the word "dismissed". General Ization ^Talk 03:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have stricken a few diffs which might reasonably be argued to be constructive edits of different content rather than repeated reversions. General Ization ^Talk 03:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:93.97.45.91 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

November 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Please, stop removing this. Future generations will thank you if you leave it there."
3. 13:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826685998 by Felida97 (talk)"
4. 13:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826684299 by 1997kB (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) to 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 13:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on November 11. (TW)"
2. 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 93.97.45.91 (talk) to last revision by 331dot. (TW)"
3. 14:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:93.97.45.91. (TW)"
4. 14:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */"
5. 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "/* February 2018 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continues to edit war and based on their replies does not seem interested in attempting to resolve this. Reverted by four different editors. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Now five different editors. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine, ban a college — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.45.91 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Роне reported by User:Jbhunley (Result:Article deleted, Роне blocked 48 hours)

Page

Rudanovsky Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 14:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 13:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 09:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. [110] - After report to ANEW

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Speedy Deletion Tag Removal */"
2. 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rudanovsky Foundation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tried explaining nicely about how to recreated AfD article here Jbh ^Talk 14:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Please delete the article and salt it. It is a {{db-g4}}. This editor's persistence, being an SPA for Rudanovsky and that the original Foundation article was created by another SPA it is likely it will simply be recreated. Jbh ^Talk 14:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and article deleted as a recreation of a substantially similar article that was previously deleted at AFD Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Salted too. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you both. Jbh ^Talk 15:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:Tony Fan123 (Result: Article protected)

Page: Trafford Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Davey2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
. This is really quite silly how this page keeps being reverted for no apparent reason when evidence and sources have been cited. Hope someone can help me, sorry about my misunderstanding of how to report this incident. Thankyou Dr.T.Fan, Earl of Clarence CBE 22:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Consensus back in 2014/2015 was to keep the title, You've been told to start an RM so why haven't you done so ? .... I would suggest you withdraw this and go to the talkpage and fire up an WP:RM. –Davey2010^Talk 22:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to note I went to RFPP about 10-15 minutes ago to have this move-protected so if someone could do the honours that'd be much appreciated, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 22:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely no need to. Why would I have do that, the evidence is clear: the name of the centre has OFFICIALLY changed. If the name had not offficially changed then we would not be having this discussion, stop being petty, if you don’t like the new name then I would suggest you complain to the owners of Intu Trafford Centre directly. Dr.T.Fan, Earl of Clarence CBE 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Protected. User:Tony Fan123, you clearly don't understand the nuances of article naming at Wikipedia; as Davey2010 suggests, you need to start a move request on the talk page. I do note that previous consensus appears to have been against any move to include the sponsor name, but consensus can change. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

References

User:Talksensenow reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Eleni Foureira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826770674 by IVORK (talk)"
2. 22:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826768992 by Jjj1238 (talk)"
3. 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826763260 by Jjj1238 (talk)"
4. 21:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eleni Foureira. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@Jjj1238: See above FYI — IVORK _Discuss 22:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:EzekielGolan reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 14:33, 20 February 2018
2. diff 15:17, 20 February 2018
3. diff 01:18, 21 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: /Talk:MEAI#so_many_things_wrong

Comments:

Username is same as a scientist cited in the patent and paper that is being cited in user's diffs. Obvious WP:SELFCITE and self-promotion. We had a lot of fuss over the subject when news it first broke back in the fall of 2016. Bunch of hype over potential small molecule replacement for alcohol. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:EtienneDolet reported by User:Seraphim System (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EtienneDolet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [111]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [112]
2. [113]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:
This article is under a 1RR restriction WP:GS/SCW. Etienne's first revert is part of a contintious series of edits that begins at 20:06. There are two intervening edits (20:46 and 21:27). Etienne resumes editing at 21:54 and replaces a Turkish news source Hurriyet with Reuters. The edit summary is Hurriyet is still not reliable due to strict “patriotic” media regulations in Turkey today - there is an open discussion about this linked above - there is currently no consensus for Etienne's position, with a majority of editors currently opposed. It was reverted here by Wickfox [115]. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The link to the talk discussion is here Talk:Turkish_military_operation_in_Afrin#Reliability. Due to the nature of the 1RR violation - a blatant disregard of an open consensus discussion - and the nature of the dispute supported by comments from numerous editors, I am only reporting because I think further disruptive editing is a practical certainty without some kind of intervention. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

How is this a revert? You'll have to elaborate with evidence how such a simple copy-edit is a restoration to which previous version of the article. It's a simple edit that merely replaces one source with one that is more reliable. I also want to add that this report appears highly reminiscent of WP:BATTLEGROUND by a user who is currently under a month long 1RR restriction ([116]) as a result of a report I filed a couple of weeks ago. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And just to be clear, the majority of users are not opposed to the fact that Turkish news outlets, under heavy regulations by Erdogan's government, are partial when it comes to sensitive matters like war crimes. On my count, there are several veteran third-party users ([117][118]) that have called that into question. There's no doubt in my mind that any user would rather have a neutral RS like Reuters instead of pro-Turkish/pro-Kurdish sources. But this matter shouldn't be discussed at WP:3RRN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Etienne's continuing to insist that his edits aren't reverts or are supported by consensus when they aren't is another reason I think the disruption on the article is likely to escalate without intervention. A revert is anything that undoes another editor's work in whole or part (just as Wickfox's restoration of the original source would count as a revert and not a "simple edit".) This is a dispute involving multiple editors who have objected and Etienne continues to say he merely replaced one source with another.

• Regarding the discussion, I largely agree with Calthinus I suppose, more in line with GGT's point: self-censorship does not automatically imply that what they do report is unreliable. this is very different from Etienne's position, and the content dispute shouldn't be an issue here, only the violaton of 1RR in the course of that content dispute. The fact that it was promptly reverted should be enough evidence that this was not only a revert, but a revert that was likely to escalate the dispute.Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, it was not a revert: neither in full, nor in part. In order for it to be considered a (semi-)revert, you need to show what previous version of the article it has been reverted to. However, no such version exists because all I did was replace a source with one that is more reliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes removal of a source is a revert. You removed content from the article that other editors want in the article. The article removed was published on February 18th. Before you reverted the source was available in the References section. After you reverted the link was no longer available in the article. Replacing it with a new source doesn't change that. Even if you are right, the edit summary does not provide any justification besides your own personal opinion - if you continue, this is going to escalate to back and forth reverts. And even if you are right, you should have waited 24 hours because you know the article is under a 1RR restriction and this source did not need to be removed tonight. Or you could have proposed on talk and maybe editors would have agreed to remove it per WP:NEWSORGS - you did none of things, you chose to edit war and escalate conflict on a controversial article. Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You're making this sound a lot more complicated than it should be. The definition of revert, per WP:REVERT, is pretty simple. A revert is an edit that reverts to a previous version of a page. So, I'm asking you once more, which version of the page did I revert to? All that I've done is place a new source into the page, and a much more reliable one in fact. Such edits are pretty common and occurs repeatedly throughout the project, yet they're never considered reverts. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Because of the complex nature of partial reverts and rapidly changing content on articles, there is no requirement to show a version that is exactly the same as the version that exists after the revert. This simply isn't possible, and I have never seen anyone demand it before as defense for violating 1RR. Simply put, for any removal of content, including a source or link, the "previous version" can be considered the version before that source or link was added. It's not a requirement that your new content be in the previous version, the removal is enough especially if it a controversial article with a 1RR restriction, and there is an open talk page discussion on the subject of replacing Turkish media sources and your revert is reasonably likely to be escalate an ongoing dispute.Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, I really don't see reverts to be that complicated and complex of an affair. However, if for any reason an admin sees that edit as a revert, I'd be more than willing to say that I won't be doing such an edit again. And if I had an opportunity to self-revert, I would have. However, like I said above, I didn't and still don't see that as a revert since for it to be considered a (semi-)revert, we must be able to demonstrate the previous version of the article it has been reverted to. This is impossible here since all I did was add a source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Adding a source would not be a revert, but removal of one is. It is also common sense to not do it while there is a discussion open on talk about whether Turkish sources should automatically be considered unreliable - it is one thing to say they are downplaying civilian casualities in Syria and maybe we need another source for these numbers, and another thing entirely to say they are running "fake" stories or as GGT said To say that amounts to saying that they might be producing pro-government fake news. That simply ain't true. - if you agree to continue discussing this on the talk page instead of just removing Turkish sources, I think that is a good step. Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• The article falls under SCW GS and is under 1RR. The first diff is clearly a revert but I'm struggling to see the second as one. Unless other admins object, I'm minded to close this as no violation. (The same user has another revert also falling within 24 hours, but claimed the copyvio exemption. The text reverted here is pretty generic and turns up so many hits from different sources on Google that I doubt it is copyrightable, but I think the exemption was claimed in good faith.) GoldenRing (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

GoldenRing I don't think it requires a sanction at this point since Etienne has re-engaged at the talk page, but I think a warning should be issued to Etienne about editing collaboratively with editors who don't share his opinion and engaging with talk page discussions. I don't think it sets a good precedent to say this is not a violation, because removal of sources often leads to edit wars, and there is no revert exception for replacing one source with one that you consider more reliable - ultimately, it was added by another editor, and is the work of another editor, and any alteration or removal of another editors work is a revert.Seraphim System ^(talk) 10:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

For example right now I want to remove a citation to NewsMax because I think it is not a reliable source. It's editor was a contributor to the Trump campaign and I don't think it's a neutral source. The statement in the article is sourced to two other sources, but one is a conservative think tank that wasn't attributed in the article, and I want to remove that one too. The third source is Neue Zürcher Zeitung which seems pretty reliable to me. Two questions: 1) If I remove the two sources I don't like and leave the statement sourced to Neue Zürcher Zeitung would that be a revert? 2) If I remove the two sources I don't like and replace them with other sources I like more, would that be a revert? Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: WP:REVERT is an essay. WP:3RR, which is policy, states, "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." In your examples, I would look to see when the original sources were added. If they've been in the article for some time, I would consider your edits "normal editing" and not reverts (if' there wasn't a past or existing dispute about the sources). If they were added recently, I would consider your edits reverts. Different admins may have different perspectives, however. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Would you mind taking a look at the second diff in this report? It's replacing a source whose neutrality is disputed with a Reuters source. There has been a bit of back-and-forth over use of this source here and while it might have been better to leave both sources in, I'm not minded to consider it a problem. Sorry, I did find where the source was last added earlier today but don't have time to dig it out again. GoldenRing (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: It's a revert - added here. Changing sources in this case is edit warring as it advocates a source is unreliable (which may be disputed) and so can't be used for other content either. I would go with Seraphim System's suggestion and issue a warning. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned EtienneDolet warned to be more careful with their reverts (as defined by WP:3RR). NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Dingruogu reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Page protected)

Page

J. J. Redick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826907986 by JesseRafe (talk) Please WP:AGF and don't cite [[[WP:3RR]] - I know the policies. I will explain later in the talk page and please don't post at my talk page."
2. 17:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Racist remarks */ formatted the Deadspin source in a edit conflict. keep it for now and will talk later."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC) to 17:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 17:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826881192 by JesseRafe (talk) - changed to more reliable sources and more accurate section heading"
   2. 17:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Racist remarks */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on J. J. Redick. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unconstructive and combative edits, also objectively poor English (e.g. "His word of gross insult has aroused strong antipathy from Chinese"). These edits were taken down by me and another editor citing Undue, NNPOV, and NotNews, but restored without full explanation. The editor was asked to take it to the talk page, which per BRD must be done rather than reverting again, which they are ignoring. Seems very agenda-specific with keeping this item on the page, to say nothing to the tone and poor phrasing. Also very likely to have been copied from elsewhere considering the text introduces the subject of the page as if it weren't already on the Redick page. Maybe a sock of the other Chinese-character named editor, word-for-word same edits. JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you request for CU too.--Did you know... that you can talk to Dingruogu? 18:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 days by User:Dlohcierekim. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:PM800 reported by User:Karl.i.biased (Result: Warned)

Page

Figure skating at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PM800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "rv"
2. 15:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826889072 by Karl.i.biased (talk) rvv"
3. 15:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "cleanup"
4. 11:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "cleanup"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:Karl.i.biased. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Broke the 3-revert rule despite being warned on his talk page and in edit summaries. Refused to either explain his position or cooperate on a consensus version of the sentences despite being repeatedly asked in edit summaries and on his talk page. 0 communication overall Karl.i.biased (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Karl.i.biased was adding back incorrect information about placements and starting times in the article, so I just wanted to fix that. - PM800 (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:PM800 is warned for edit warring. Speaking of communication, neither the filer nor the reported editor have posted anything yet on the article talk page. The filer, User:Karl.i.biased has recently come back from a one-month edit warring block so they should consider being cautious whenever they encounter a dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

User:JoeyofthePriuses reported by User:Wicka wicka (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2018 IndyCar Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JoeyofthePriuses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:JoeyofthePriuses#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2018_IndyCar_Series#Why_the_horrible_prefixes_in_parentheses_for_the_different_types_of_tracks?

Comments:
The IndyCar Series races on two different types of race tracks: ovals and road courses. In the past we used a blue background on rows the season schedule to easily differentiate the latter from the former. A few months ago a user went through the pages and removed all the background colors, claiming that it was not allowed per WP:Color, and replaced it with bold letters noting the different type of each track. This change was raised again recently, so I went back to read WP:Color, and noted that it only said that colors should not be "the only method used to convey important information." I then re-added the colors, along with the letters, as I felt it was a good compromise and satisfied WP:Color. No other users complained, but JoeyofthePriuses has continually reverted this change, continues to incorrectly quote WP:Color, and has so far refused to discuss on the talk page. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

JoeyofthePriuses, you stated, "We already had plenty of discussions about this in the other IndyCar pages as well and the compromise is that we're only using the letters." I'd like to see links to these conversations, please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

They were in the edit pages of the 2017 IndyCar article a few months ago. I don't feel like going searching through months of edits. JoeyofthePriuses (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing on Talk:2017 IndyCar Series so I strongly suggest you make an effort to find these "plenty of discussions". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I looked for these conversations and couldn't find them. The 2017 IndyCar Series page had a color-coded schedule until some point last year, but there's no discussion on that talk page regarding it. Also, I am more than willing to put in the work to make the matching changes on other pages, I just want to be sure it won't be reverted after I do it. Wicka wicka (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned JoeyofthePriuses has continued to edit without responding here and providing links to these "plenty of discussions". They are warned that any further reverts may result in a block. Furthermore, asserting that they have consensus for their reverts without providing links to where consensus was formed when asked may also result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Attic Salt reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: No violation)

Page: Astrophysical plasma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Attic Salt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [123]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [124]
2. [125]
3. [126]
4. [127]
5. [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130][131][132][]

Comments:
All reasonable attempts to resolve this have just been ignored. Dispute on wording issue. Avoiding consensus and changing to promote / continue own POV. Used unbinding suggestion from WP:3O to justify edits. Last revision plainly states "This is getting tedious." Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I do not see a 3RR violation, but this is a pretty strong case for a WP:BOOMERANG given the poster's history of lawyering, personal attacks, badgering, and frivolous noticeboard postings such as this and [133] against this particular user. VQuakr (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I do caution you here. How does third this apply to Astrophysical plasma edits? How does suspicion of a sock translate into WP:3RR? No one agreed. Nothing happened. Now for for saying: "lawyering, personal attacks, badgering, and frivolous noticeboard postings", I assume you motive just want an Admin just to look deeper than this allegation? Between the time I posted this ANI and your response was just 9 minutes. Evidence suggests this is only opinion, based on the canvassing by Attic Salt made here.[134] Considering this request [135] perhaps I'm starting to see WP:Harassment. Further evidence from this[136] suggests something else. WP:BOOMERANG may apply to you when saying given the poster's history. In any ANI, that is not actually smart. Please address this issue here. Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume you motive just want an Admin just to look deeper than this allegation? In a nutshell, yes. This is AN3 not ANI; any admin can confirm your behavior by checking the interaction report. VQuakr (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

No violation – Consecutive edits count as at most one revert for 3RR purposes. Even so, I recommend following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. An RfC can bring in people new to the issue. You could also ask User:VQuakr for advice, since they are an experienced editor and have already been active on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Niranjanvivek reported by User:Adamstraw99 (Result: Warned)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]
4. [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Garautha]]

Comments:

Result: Warned for edit warring and for adding original research. Niranjanvivek broke 3RR but nobody has yet given them a warning about the 3RR rule or a link to this report. They also did a self revert which might indicate awareness of the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:RajOldman21 reported by User:PersianFire (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Tawakalna ala Allah Operations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RajOldman21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tawakalna_ala_Allah_Operations&diff=826002746&oldid=825694206
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

• (Non-administrator comment) It's true that User:RajOldman21 only created an account five days ago in order to continue an edit war they had been in as an IP; and whilst User:PersianFire's reverts were in no way exempted under WP:3RRNO, it does seem as if RO21's edits were blatantly POV-pushing pro-Iraqi, anti-Iranian. But PF, your ten reverts over a week may have been a slow-burning edit war; but unfortunately it was still edit-warring. You should've come here much sooner—be mindful! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Heliotom reported by User:69.176.70.106 (Result: Page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [142]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [143]
2. [144]
3. [145]
4. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: so many reverts in such a short time that there was no possibility to discuss anything.

Comments:

"He is the UK parliament's best known naturist" falls hilariously below the standards Wikipedia aims for, so when I encountered this nonsense in an article about a politician, I removed it. Unfortunately, I have encountered one of a particular type of editor, who just loves reverting. This one has made 121 edits since registering an account just six days ago. Of those, an astonishing 68 have been reverts, 24 have been "warnings" left for other users, and 4 have been "reports" of other users. That's nearly 80% of their edits accounted for, so they seem to have negligible interest in articles but a very great interest in pestering other users. In this case, they reverted my edit 4 times in 25 minutes, left two template messages "warning" me, then filed a spurious claim of vandalism against me.

I have encountered people like this editor before, recently registered users who have no interest in articles and are just here to revert and pester. It could even be the same person that I've encountered before. 69.176.70.106 (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• • The material is sourced on the BBC and the Guardian. You removed it and the references, and have made no attempt to discuss on talk. I fail to see how using the recent pages to revert vandalism is a problem.Heliotom (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • If you don't know what vandalism is, then it is obviously a problem. And "sourced" is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The set of things you can find in sources that are not encyclopaedic is far bigger than the set of things in sources that are encyclopaedic. This is why we have editors. 69.176.70.106 (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      • (Non-administrator comment) @Heliotom:’s edits were not vandalism. Please don’t accuse people of sockpuppetry without proof. Please get concensus first before removing content bext time.  Anchorvale ^{T@lk | Contributions}  06:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
        • And how would one get "proof", when one is an anonymous editor? I didn't "accuse"; I pointed out that I have seen such behaviour before. I don't think you understand the situation if you think that is somehow unacceptable. And I see that you're not at all bothered by the user's false claims of vandalism against me, but very upset by my suggestion that their 80% revert/pester rate is deliberate disruption. Why is that? 69.176.70.106 (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I see this user has just five months of editing history, has had several articles deleted because of copyright violations, and amusingly enough, has been criticised for warning users about non-existent vandalism. I consider their input here intentionally unhelpful and suggest they remove it. 69.176.70.106 (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I hope a calmer tone can prevail here. We have both stopped reverting. The is section on the article talk page if you'd like to discuss the changes further. I'm sure consensus can be reached. Thanks.Heliotom (talk) 07:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

That's pretty disgusting really. There is the clearest violation you could have of the 3RR, by a user who does little other than revert edits - 80% of their edits are reverts or template messages, and their account is just one week old. That is very clearly a problem user, and yet you have given the violator no warning, no action, no hint of a suggestion that their behaviour was wrong. Instead, you've harmed me by preventing me from editing the article, while the edit warrior still can. Why is that? 69.176.70.106 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In reference to the above it's worth pointing out that the block also prevents me from editing. Rightly since we were both in beach of 3RR.

On reverts. These need to happen to prevent vandalism. Recent changes patrolling is a thing. The are different ways of contributing to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You broke the 3RR. I did not. 69.176.70.106 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This user is showing no understanding of their violation of the rules. Why were they not blocked for as clear a violation of the 3RR as you can get? 69.176.70.106 (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

You equally broke 3rr. But this is not constructive and the matter has been resolved. Checking out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not, and the matter has not been resolved. Clearly, you have no understanding of the problematic nature of your editing. 69.176.70.106 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's breakfast time in California right. Go have some coffee and some fresh air — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliotom (talk • contribs) 19:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Why is nothing being done about this obviously problematic user, who seems determined to troll? 69.176.70.106 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The IP editor has been blocked for reasons unrelated to this report. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Kekmon (Result: Reporter blocked after continuing to edit-war)

Page: The Camp of the Saints (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Camp_of_the_Saints&oldid=826073989

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Camp_of_the_Saints&oldid=827053339
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Camp_of_the_Saints&oldid=827089326
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Camp_of_the_Saints&oldid=827091076

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Camp_of_the_Saints&oldid=826075347

Comments:

This has happened before on same exact page. Then Voluenteer Marek gamed the system as I didn't know of 3RR rules and he didn't inform me at all about anything like more experienced users are supposed to, leading me to being temp blocked from editing, which was clearly intentional. He also has no intention to discuss properly or approve any other edits from me either. Kekmon (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This is funny. Kek-mon says that he was blocked before for edit warring on this very page (and that was supposedly my fault because I "didn't inform" him, even though I actually [148]), and now he comes here and basically says "hey guys! I've started edit warring again, can you block the OTHER guy?". Lol.

Anyway, there's no 3RR violation here, although there is some incivility from Kek [149] and I want to note that I'm not the only one who undid Kekmon's edits [150] [151].Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• While I don't think any admin needs me to explain that three reverts is not a 3RR violation, I think it's worth pointing out that Kekmon's username and editing history are both strongly indicative of an editor who is here to push a right-wing agenda, and not one who is here to contribute productively to this project. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What's this about my username? Anyways, you should look at the reasons why I don't accept what Marek is attempting to push while he is consistently declining to talk of it constructively (hint: because I am correct and he knows it). Any agenda pushing accusations do not invalidate valid edits, but they do tell a lot of the accuser. Kekmon (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you hail from Kekistan? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regardless of anything else, I'm closing this as No Violation. Kekmon, please don't remove sourced material from articles in future without discussing first (and please note that material in the lead paragraph that is discussed - and sourced - later in the article does not necessarily need inline citations). Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me what? The whole point is that the claim in leader paragraph is not sourced. It is unbased. It's in discussion. Just because it has link behind it doesn't mean it is in any way factual claim. That is the whole issue here. Kekmon (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

• It's not unsourced. It's sourced (from multiple sources) in the "Reception" paragraph. If you want to duplicate the sources in the lead, well fine, but don't remove that sentence again. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• I have blocked Kekmon after he immediately removed the section again. Black Kite (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • And after discussion at WP:ANI, Drmies upgraded it to an indef block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz reported by User:2600:1001:b115:27e0:c77f:82d0:ff78:c664 (Result: No violation)

Page: Anti-Polish sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Polish_sentiment&oldid=827025369 Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary Warn the user if you have not already done so. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:Malik Shabazz] (User locked talk page, preventing communication)

Comments:
Malik Shabazz is reverting editors good faith edits and useful information on the page Anti-Polish sentiment. He reverts and undoes edits as he sees fit despite sources information and multiple editors engaging and adding on to the topic. He then attempts to use dubious warnings towards other users to attempt to have the moral ground and revert to what he sees fit. Not to mention, he has blocked users from communication on his talk page as he has locked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:b115:27e0:c77f:82d0:ff78:c664 (talk • contribs)

Minimal work was done to fix your malformed report. The substantial content has not been changed. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Also, Malik has really only reverted twice. Sequential edits are counted as chucks when counting reverts. However, given that you're IP hopping, I do think it might be necessary to protect the page to force you to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If you have legitimate material that is properly sourced, and you engage in a civil manner with the assumption of good faith, I'm quite certain that Malik Shabazz will be willing to add the material for you. If he's not willing to, you seriously need to consider the prospect that there's a problem with your material (which he can calmly explain for you). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TIVJHDURKF reported by User:ScrapIronIV & User:Thewolfchild (Result: Blocked indef)

Page

List of current ships of the United States Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827221940 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
2. 13:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827219601 by Thewolfchild (talk)"
3. 13:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827218155 by Thewolfchild (talk), update dates and article structure."
4. 13:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827217401 by Thewolfchild (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

User warned here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156]

Diff of 3RRNB notice to their TIVJHDURKF's talk page: [157]

Comments:

New editor reverting multiple editors, removing sourced content. Refuses to engage in dialogue. Scr★pIron^IV 13:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Following my last edit, this made a series of edits, the last of which is listed as #1 above. They state they left the article in can only be described as vandalism. Mass removal of content, changes without sources (and contrary to current attached sources), leaving content with factual errors (deliberate or otherwise) and the layout of the page, which contain several tables and images has been left in an unsuitable state. These edits are similar to a recently banned user who also disrupted this same page in similar fashion, using the accounts; User:RJDVZYR and User:RJDZVYR, so this is a possible ban evasion as well. They show no intention of stopping their edit-warring, nor discussing on the article talk page, or their user talk page, despite my repeatedly encouraging them to do so here and here. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 13:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note: ScrapIron and I filed reports about the same user, same article, at virtually the same time. When I noticed this, I combined the 2 reports together. - ^theWOLFchild 14:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely Sock. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

User:OntarioLibertarian reported by User:HamOntPoliFiend (Result: Blocked 1 week)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2018&direction=prev&oldid=827104005 [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2018&oldid=827129402
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2018&oldid=827162524
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2018&oldid=827311759
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election,_2018&oldid=827316870

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ontario_general_election,_2018#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_Infobox [diff]

Comments:
This User continues to make unilateral decisions on the inclusion of a particular political party, adding the party's leader and candidates to the election page and reporting any individual who attempts to contact them about this. After posting a comment about their edits on their talk page: [[158]], they opted to 'warn' me against making edits: [[159]]. This editor is bordering on abusive. Apologies if this form was filled out incorrectly, this is my first attempt at using it. Thanks! HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Evasion of block just placed on their IP for WP:3RR. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:6C56:7180:1A85:1110:6C33:5559:5814 reported by User:Aprisosi (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Joseph Kahn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:6C56:7180:1A85:1110:6C33:5559:5814 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [160]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [161]
2. [162]
3. [163]
4. [164]
5. [165]

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

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

Comments:
The user has been editing a biographical article with a dubious leading claim for over a month. Steps to engage into a discussion about the claim has been taken in the spirit of good faith and consensus, however the attempt has been ignored. The user's latest edit adds another dubious claim that goes against Wikipedia's editorial and encyclopedia standards. Just a note, I also believe a certain part of the introduction of the article should be changed and I've addressed that in the article's talk page hoping for feedback about my own edit. Aprisosi (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Rangeblocked 2600:6c56:7180:1a85::/64 NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:Wicka wicka (Result: No violation, engage in dispute resolution)

Closed by NeilN as no violation. Please use the article talk page and the dispute resolution process to continue discussion on this content questions. This isn't the place to discuss content changes. Prodego ^talk 19:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Page: 2018 IndyCar Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [168]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [169]
2. [170]
3. [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Tvx1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2018_IndyCar_Series#Why_the_horrible_prefixes_in_parentheses_for_the_different_types_of_tracks?

Comments:
The IndyCar Series races on two different types of race tracks: ovals and road courses. In the past we used a blue background on rows the season schedule to easily differentiate the latter from the former. A few months ago Tvx1 went through the pages and removed all the background colors, claiming that it was not allowed per WP:Color, and replaced it with bold letters noting the different type of each track. This change was raised again recently, so I went back to read WP:Color, and noted that it only said that colors should not be "the only method used to convey important information." I then re-added the colors, along with the letters, as I felt it was a good compromise and satisfied WP:Color. No other users complained, but JoeyofthePriuses continually reverted the page, and refused to discuss the changes further. That dispute was settle in a previous edit warring report, but now Tvx1 has returned and himself violated 3RR. He continues to claim that "guidelines" require consensus to overturn, even though no guidelines prevent the use of colors. He has complained about the specific choice of color, but instead of suggesting a better color, removes them entirely. He repeatedly accuses me of violating WP:OWN and WP:I just don't like it, even though he clearly violated WP:OWN by making the change to begin with, and his entire stance amounts to "I don't like it."

Frankly, I am at my wits end here. These articles included color coding for many years, and one use came along all by himself and changed that, without discussing the change with anyone, and continues to refuse to even consider gaining consensus. I have tried my very best to work with him, I have already made compromises and suggested additional ones, and he steadfastly refuses to consider anything less than exactly what he wants. I do not know how to deal with this situation. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Strongly suggesting a WP:BOOMERANG here. I did not violate WP:3RR. I have not made more than three reverts on that article during the last 24 hours. This user has actually tried the same tactic to silence another user on the same article a few days ago. It's clear that Wicka Wicka is causing the disruption here. They just don't want to accept anything else than there preferred version. The claims I refuse to dicuss are blatantly untrue. I have engaged in the talk page discussion. I have listed my good faith reservations and have even suggested a compromise. This user simply doesn't not bother to reply other users' entire replies. My original edits were questioned at WP:ANI and the administrators unanimously supported my actions. I don't what more I have to do to demonstrate my good intentions.Tvx1 18:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What compromises have you proposed? Please lay off the personal attacks as well, I am obviously not trying to silence anyone. Both of you are refusing to gain community consensus for your changes. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also a blatant lie to suggest I "don't want to accept anything less than my preferred version"", when I have already changed my preferred version, and have offered to do so even further. You are the one who refuses to consider the slightest possibility of keeping colors, and refuses to given even one reason why. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you still insist that I did not suggest any compromise shows that you still haven't bothered to read the entire lengthy reply I posted on the article's talk page. And then you have the nerve tho suggest that I'm the one unwilling to discuss. The suggestion is there for everyone to see though.Tvx1 18:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka and Tvx1: This affects multiple articles, right? Why not hold a WP:RFC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My edits stood uncontested since last June and were supported by administrators. I just didn't think they were controversial. Even now the only person fighting against them has been reverted by multiple editors.Tvx1 18:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1 and Wicka wicka: I want to make two things clear. First, admins don't decide or "support" content outside of narrowly defined policy (e.g., WP:BLP). If they comment on content they do so as editors. Second, the ownership accusations are unhelpful. Each of you wants the info displayed in a certain way. This is not claiming "ownership" of the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll rephrase then. My edits received near-unanimous support from the editors involved in the ANI discussion.Tvx1 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: That ANI thread focused mainly on behavior and what is consensus, rather than actual content. I will be closing this report with a recommendation that all editors engage in dispute resolution (e.g., open a RFC). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Why does Tvx1 escape punishment for obviously violating 3RR? Wicka wicka (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Additionally, I do not believe an RFC is a valuable use of anyone's time. It would be incredibly simple to just return the page to the way it was before Tvx1 made his unilateral changes, then discuss removing the colors on the associated talk page. There's no reason to make this any more complicated than that. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: Count the reverts. You need four to violate 3RR. And unilaterally reverting to your preferred version is also not on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• No violation Each editor is at three reverts. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: It's not my preferred version of the page, it's the page before Tvx1 unilaterally changed it. It's the way EVERYONE agreed the page would be before he made his changes, not just me. Do not buy into his accusations. I am NOT asking for what I want. I am asking that we return the page to its original state and then open the floor for discussion, which Tvx1 never did. If we gain consensus to remove the colors entirely, so be it, I am not opposed to that. But he should not get to bulldoze his changes through and refuse to listen to any other editors. That's exactly what he's doing today.

And frankly, my preferred version is not the version I am proposing. I would prefer to distinguish the rows with only blue backgrounds, and without text. Tvx1 strongly disagrees with that, and I am willing to compromise by choosing a different color and using both colors and text. He refuses to acknowledge this compromise and has suggested no compromise of his own. Please, I am sincerely begging you, just let us re-add the colors and discuss this as it should have been discussed. Wicka wicka (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: There is no policy or guideline that says every change to an article must be discussed beforehand. Most article edits are so-called unilateral edits. If you don't like one, you can revert, minding WP:EW, but you cannot demand an article be restored to a previous version (ignoring the inapplicable discretionary sanctions regime). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Then what I am supposed to do here? I revert, he reverts back, he refuses to discuss or propose any compromise other than his own. He does this precisely because he knows that most users don't want to deal with an RFC (I sure don't) and that he'll get his way in the end. All that needs to happen is for you, an admin, to tell him he needs to discuss and gain consensus before removing the colors again. We'd solve this right here and right now. It'd be incredibly easy. Otherwise, I simply might as well stop contributing to this site. It's 1% editing and 99% dealing with folks like Tvx1.

The most fascinating part of this conversation, which you may or may not have noticed, is how quickly he vanished once you said you wouldn't take action. He immediately stopped responding to me on the talk page. I assure you, he will never engage in any discussion unless he is told to do so, and again, it would incredibly easy for you to do that. I am BEGGING you, just help me force this guy to come to the table. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I take that back - he HAS replied, but only to continue to lie and say that he previously proposed a compromise, but refuses to explain what that compromise was. It is the most childish behavior I have ever seen - and YOU have the power to stop it. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And for some reason I still believe you have the power to READ. I have made a suggestion in the first lengthy reply I posted today and it's there for every one to see. I cannot understand why you refuse to acknowledge that. I will again strongly suggest a WP:BOOMERANG. It's clear that the disruption and unnecessary aggression is coming from Wicka Wicka, not me. I have provided my arguments on the talk page. This has never been about getting things my way. These countless accusations of bad faith are completely unwarranted. In case anyone clearly why I apparently "vanished". I left my computer temporarily to have dinner. It was dinnertime after all in here in Belgium. I sincerely hope that I'm not expected to be in front of my computer the entire time in order to be able to reply instantaneously everytime Wicka Wiska posts something here or on the talk page.Tvx1 19:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wicka wicka: You're supposed to engage in dispute resolution. If you don't want to "deal" with that, then you'll have to leave those edits alone. I note that JoeyofthePriuses, even though his edit summaries were misleading, also disagreed with your edits. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: You simply do not understand what it's like dealing with this user. You could solve this problem very easily, and I don't understand why you refuse to. Go look at the talk page for this article now. He's obviously just trolling. You know what happens if we go to dispute resolution? He puts on a smile and acts super nice and probably gets his way. He should not be rewarded for his actions, and yet that's exactly what you're doing. I am not here just to get my way. As I have made clear many times, I only ask that the article be returned to its previous state, and for a reasonable discussion to be opened. If Tvx1 and Joey and the majority of others disagree with me, fine! Then the process will have worked. All I ask of you is that you allow the process to occur, without tilting it in Tvx1's favor. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: Why are you still unable to tell me what your proposal is? You keep saying "it's there!" but I certainly don't see anything. If I am missing it, I apologize, all I ask is that you TELL ME WHAT IT IS. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Sigh, it's really that much to ask to read this post entirely? I'm starting to wonder why I even bothered to type it.Tvx1 19:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely no compromise suggestion in that post. I have read it many times. You suggest nothing but the exact changes you continue to try to shove down our throats.

If you have an actual compromise, now is the time. DO NOT link to another post. DO NOT tell me to read it. Just say it here, in plain English, how you propose we compromise. This should not be hard. Wicka wicka (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Now I really think you either cannot read or refuse to accept the possibility of a compromise. My suggestion is right at the end of the post I linked to. Everyone can see it.Tvx1 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I am assuming it's, "you can always use the system used to denoted the rookies in the results tables". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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

User:Tibatto reported by User:Agricolae (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Version before the latest set of edits: [172]
Editor's initial insertion of novel content: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [174] (full revert)
2. [175] (full revert)
3. [176] (full revert, plus added a related line elsewhere in article)
4. [177] (full revert)
5. [178] (full revert after a modified version of text was in turn deemed inappropriate, or at least premature)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:
I did not violate the 3RR. I first added my contribution, then Agricolae undid it two times, i restored it myself two times, and finally Agricolae undid my contribution for the third time. Also, i tried to discuss with him on both my page and "Talk:Franks", listened to his complains, and modified my contribution, but he insists that the primary source that i use was invented by me, at first he said that it was "one obscure primary source" but now he claims that "you added to the page stuff you made up". To be clear, my primary source is not obscure at all, it was done on behalf of the Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed(Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands) and is in fact hosted on its website : https://cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/default/files/publications/lauwerier_2014_ram_222_merovingers_in_een_villa_2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibatto (talk • contribs) 01:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tibatto: Reverts: [181], [182], [183], [184], [185]. Are you going to self-revert? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:2018 Winter Olympics Calendar (Result: Rolapib warned)

Despite advice at the help desk and a direct request on the article talk page, two editors are continuing to edit war at Template:2018 Winter Olympics Calendar. I suggest that the page be locked for 24 hours.

...After writing the above I returned to the page to see that Juve2000 had taken the advice, and so I left another message on the talk page and decided not to post this. However, there has still been no discussion and having looked at their contributions, including this post on Rolapib's talk page, I have returned the template to its original state (before the warring). I'll let more experienced editors decide whether it would be worth locking the page at this point. I'm off to do something else. nagualdesign 21:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Result: User:Rolapib is warned. If they revert the template again without getting a prior consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. It doesn't appear that User:Juve2000 is continuing to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:TucsonDavid reported by User:Karl.i.biased (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page

Alina Zagitova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "i have reverted edits of biased user"
2. 06:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827528818 by Karl.i.biased (talk) STOP YOUR EDIT WARRING"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC) to 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 06:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Karl.i.biased (talk) to last version by TucsonDavid"
   2. 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "I have reinstated my edit with a reference from the New York stateing Times The International Olympic Committee Has ruled that athletes from Russia only be recognised a athletes are only recognised as Olympic athletes from Russia"
4. 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "The Olympic Committee isn’t recognising athletes as representing Russia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on Alina Zagitova. (TW)"
2. 06:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Alina Zagitova. (TW)"
3. 07:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Alina Zagitova. (TW)"
4. 07:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Adding deliberately wrong information to the champion's infobox. I explained to him several times that her infobox isn't her olympic profile. That the olympic profile is only a part of the infobox down blow where it's correctly stated that she represented OAR at the olympics. I gave him examples that she didn't participated in all other tournaments representing Russia, not the OAR. I did it all on his talk page, in the edit summaries, yet he refuses to listen and even gave me a warning for vandalism. Please intervene.

Also, he added the same deliberaly wrong info on Evgenia Medvedeva where he, thankfully, didn't start an edit war after I reverted his edit. Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:THEKEVINBRAND reported by User:Disembodied Soul (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]
5. [191]
6. [192]
7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disembodied Soul (talk • contribs) 20:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments:
User is edit warring without communicating with other users. Disembodied Soul (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours, and page semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Какелуш reported by User:Bes-ART (Result: Warned user(s))

Pages: Brajše (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Krute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Какелуш (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:
[195]
[196]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Krute

1. [197]
2. [198]
3. [199]
4. [200]
5. [201]

• Brajše

1. [202]
2. [203]
3. [204]
4. [205]
5. [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207] So many reverts in such a short time that there was no possibility to discuss anything. The editor was noticed for the non concensus in his talpage
Comments:

Many of Montenegrin articles are vandalized by this user. The above two articles are edited by him as long as the previous version is restored. As commonly used in wikipedia, in municipalities that have a mixed population domage, the name of the country is mentioned in the language that makes up the majority of the population, in this case the Albanian language. (Bes-ARTTalk 11:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC))

• Warned @Bes-ART: Какелуш has been notified that discretionary sanctions apply in this area. Any more undiscussed reverts/changes may result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The two articles still being vandalized by Special:Contributions/91.148.96.150. Please take restrictions or block the IPs (Bes-ARTTalk 21:50, 25 February 2018 (UTC))

User:76.168.99.248 reported by User:Calthinus (Result: Semi)

Page: Circassian genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.168.99.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [[208]]
Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [[209]], a revert of these edits [[210]]
2. [[211]], reverting this [[212]]
3. [[213]] same deal, reverting this [[214]]
4. [[215]], reverts another editor [[216]]
5. [[217]], and then reverting me [[218]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[219]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[220]]
Comments:

I tried to resolve this on the talk page with the user. Two other users objected to his edits besides myself, and my actions to contain his edits received a "thanks" from a third editor. Now, discussion has broken down as the IP has accused me of "censorship", used all sorts of strawman arguments, and has been soapboxing about how supposedly biased and reliable academia in the "Anglosphere" is. Looking at this [IP's history], it seems to consist entirely of using almost exclusively Russian sources to either mitigate past episodes of mistreatment of minorities by Russia or blame the victims: namely, on the pages Circassian genocide, anti-Semitism in Russia and Deportation of the Crimean Tatars. Every time, the IP faced pushback from other editors, and edit warred to return the page to his preferred version. Interestingly also, despite showing no visible older history, the IP occasionally displays an expert usage of in-wiki linking, citation styles even in the bibliography and whatnot, which are typically skills acquired by older, registered editors (example: [[221]]). Cheers all, --Calthinus (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I said to the IP in question 5 times [222], [223], [224], [225], [226] to take their concerns to the talkpage and it took a while before that happened with the IP pursuing its edits first as shown above before changing course. That said, the IP keeps making comments that the article is "biased" and these kinds of comments like "Russia has produced beautiful architecture like Saint Basil's Cathedral, art, ballet, music like Shostakovich and scientists like Lomonosov. Moscow and Petersburg in 1864 were thriving, beautiful cities – what did the Circassians produce at the time? It was not till 1940 when Adyghe State University was established by those evil, hateful, genocidal Russians [sarcasm]" [227] on a talkpage meant for discussion around article issues on the Circassian Genocide. The IP's comments on the talkpage either fall on wp:idontlikeit side or the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months, due to the IP 3RR violation. Semi might be lifted if the user will agree to wait for consensus before making further reverts. The user might have genuine points to make regarding the content but this doesn't give them a license to revert. The treatment of the Circassians falls under WP:ARBEE since these events took place in the territory of the Soviet Union. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Diak4 reported by User:Etzedek24 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Giovanni Gentile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Diak4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

[228]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 826990323 by Etzedek24 (talk) Checked the noticeboard and that is untrue."
2. [229]
3. [230]
4. [231]
5. [232]
6. [233]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Giovanni Gentile. (TW)"
2. 06:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[234]

Comments:

User has refused to hear consensus and restores version of page with unreliably sourced material. User has completely ignored attempts to resolve issue on talk page, and read links to RSN on said talk page. Only one revert grabbable through Twinkle due to reversions appearing once every few days. Etzedek24 ^{(Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?)} 06:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for long term edit warring since 8 February. The usability of World Net Daily as a source has been previously discussed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Acyclic reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 03:08, 20 February 2018, reverting User:Shaded0
2. diff 13:34, 22 February 2018‎ reverting me
3. diff 13:34, 22 February 2018, reverting me
4. diff 02:52, 26 February 2018 reverting Zefr

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rutin#Failing_MEDRS

Comments:

User has a history of pushing poorly sourced content hyping health benefits of alt med / dietary supplements. See their TP here before they cleared it and also here. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

‣ This is essentially about PMID 19005980. You yourself had effectively noted that it's okay. You had already edited the section and previously chosen to not remove the reference. Now you say it's not okay. This is your change of opinion, not mine. If you change your mind like you change your clothes, how is that my fault. I actually don't even disagree with the current state of the article.

‣ You were also extremely negligent in the removal of PMID 26664449 even though it's a valid reference, but why wouldn't you only see errors in other people.

‣ What you are doing in your complain above is creatively weaving together disconnected threads, one having to do with a broad removal started by Shaded0, and the other having to do with specific edits made by Zefr. This doesn't work; your corruptness is obvious. Essentially, the third and fourth edits in your list have no relation to the first and second. You even logged an incorrect timestamp for the third edit. You are effectively attempting to troll the administrators with your post.

--Acyclic (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Page protected Six days is a bit of a stretch to violate 3RR and would also mean that Jytdog had violated 3RR as well. Protected so as to give you both time to work out a consensus version on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:186.77.203.145 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Protected)

Page

Soy Luna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827603983 by Philip J Fry (talk)Not"
2. 18:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827601149 by Philip J Fry (talk)Yes, show de member of the cast, whats is the problem"
3. 17:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827498454 by Philip J Fry (talk)Necesary"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC) "←Created page with '== Soy Luna cast == You must follow the instructions that say here.--Philip J Fry / talk 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)'"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user persists in adding a badly organized and unnecessary table to the article, I have asked him to cease, but he does not want to. Philip J Fry / talk 18:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Page protected Not quite breaking 3RR so semi-protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Targatron reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [235] (most recent "compromise" version (preferred))

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3
4. diff4
5. diff5
6. diff6
7. diff7
8. diff8

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236] (at article Talk, not User Talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Just see – Talk:Nina Dobrev#Nationality and WP:BLPLEAD

Comments:

While possibly not a technical WP:3RR violation, it is definitely a violation of the spirit of Edit warring and has been going on for weeks. At this point, this is basically WP:POV-pushing by a virtual WP:SPA at Nina Dobrev (user is question has edited no other article over this time period...). A compromise version of the lede, which even includes the material in question has been devised, and even that isn't enough. And has now been reverted by three different editors. Needs to be blocked for edit warring and disruption, at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Make that four editors who have undone Targatron. There are multiple references in the article that she is considered Canadian. And per Canadians this identity is not solely dependent on having Canadian citizenship, and in fact, Canadian citizenship is not even a requirement to be considered Canadian. Meters (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

And Targatron has just reverted again: [237]. Can we please get a block now – this editor's actions at Nina Dobrev have been the opposite of constructive, and are straight-up edit-warring. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours for long term warring on her nationality. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

EdJohnston. Looks like I blocked then came here. Will return and re-block for 31 hours. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:ProfessorIronMan and User:Mikeruggiero reported by User:CASSIOPEIA (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Bill Duke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProfessorIronMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Mikeruggiero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [238]
2. [239]
3. [240]
4. [241]
5. [242]
6. [243]
7. [244]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [245], [246] and [247]

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

Comments:
I did not involve in the editing at all but notice the incidents while dong vandalism work on Huggle and notified both parties of their actions . thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 20:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned @ProfessorIronMan and Mikeruggiero: You are both warned to stop silently reverting and to use the article's talk page to discuss. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Oleola reported by User:2A02:27B0:4C00:5080:8505:B54D:9EC9:6D (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249]
2. [250]
3. [251]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [252]

Comments:

• No violation Three consecutive edits in last month. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• And if you're reading this IP, stop with the personal attacks or you're the one winding up getting blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This IP user is actually already blocked, and now is evading the block, using the advantage of his dynamic IP. He is User:HankMoodyTZ, behavioral evidence was given here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HankMoodyTZ/Archive#07_February_2018.--Oleola (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Adamgerber80 reported by User:39.57.152.98 (Result: Trout)

Page: Raheel Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adamgerber80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [254]
2. [255]
3. [256]
4. [diff]

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

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

Diff of 3RRNB notice posted to Adamgerber80's talk page: [257] (wolf 07:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC))

Comments:
I don't know how to post warnings so I didn't. In fact the user involved was posting the warnings on my talk instead. I don't see the point of discussing clear cut WP:COPYVIO on article talk page with someone who is edit warring to restore something that needs to be suppressed. 39.57.152.98 (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Adamgerber80 trouted. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

NeilN I am confused. Can you please clarify which source that content was COPYVIO from. I double checked the source and the content before reverting the edits and even asked the editor to take it to the talk page since I did not see where it was. I have been careful about this and even left a message recently on another editor's talk page [(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harsh7422#Edits_on_DRDO_Rustom)] regarding a completely distinct incident. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Explained on Adamgerber80's talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:204.153.155.151 reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: Protected)

Page: Life Is Strange (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.153.155.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 740607944

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 827919199
2. 827918899
3. 827918311
4. 827908544

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: N/A

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, as I am not involved, ask User:Lordtobi

Comments:

• Page protected Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Theboo77 reported by User:pipicacalol69 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: People's Alliance of New Brunswick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Theboo77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [258]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 [259]
2. 2 [260]
3. 3 [261]
4. 4 [262]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [263]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [264]

Comments: Looks likes it could also be an apparent conflict of interest (this user seemingly works for the political party the page is about).

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:31, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Talksensenow reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Eleni Foureira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827902054 by Alexikoua (talk)"
2. 18:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827780493 by Alexikoua (talk)"
3. 18:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 16:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• Blocked on 20 February 2018 for edit-warring on the same article. Please see previous 3RRN report:

User:Talksensenow reported by User:IVORK (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Talkpage discussion

Comments:

Longterm edit-warring at article. Started edit-warring immediately after article's protection expired. Does not participate on talk. Started edit-warring since 11 February using IP socks. Dr. K. 16:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:GabuchoWindowsLive reported by User:FilmandTVFan28 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page

Dan Vs. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 22:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 22:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 22:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
5. 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 22:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC) to 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 22:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 22:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dan Vs.. (TW)"
2. 22:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dan Vs.. (TW)"
3. 22:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dan Vs.. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Elektricity reported by User:MapSGV (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Tourism in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elektricity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [266] 06:44, 27 February 2018 (restored Copyvio and false stats on lead)
2. [267] 07:55, 27 February 2018 (restored Copyvio and false stats on lead)
3. [268] 08:05, 27 February 2018 (restored Copyvio even after acknowledging it and also restored false stats)
4. [269] 08:19, 27 February 2018‎ (restored misrepresentation of stats on lead, and added a book without providing a page number)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [271]

Diff of 3RRNB notice placed on User:Elektricity's talk page: [272] - (wolf) 09:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I had notified earlier[273] but didn't know a new section was needed. — MapSGV (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I looked but didn't notice it, so I added one. There's a chance he'd miss it too the way you added it. We usually use the notice template (((subst:an3-notice)) ````) in the big red box at the top of this page, but it's not mandatory. (wolf) 09:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments:
WP:WIKIHOUNDING my contributions because I argued for the deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAW activities in Pakistan, a POVFORK he wants to keep. He never edited this Tourism in India article before and he came here only to fight with me.[274]

His edits are clearly agenda-driven edits. Made no attempt to discuss content and when I made the attempt to discuss content he totally disregarded the objections as "personal attack", while accepting that the content he restored was WP:COPYVIO[275] and went again to restore them and in his fourth revert, he added his own opinion by providing a near identical book, but didn't provided the page number, which looks like WP:GAMING. In his most latest edit, he is using self published sources like Gyan Publishing that copies from online forums and Wikipedia.[276] This looks like a clear case of WP:INCOMPETENCE. MapSGV (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Another editor has now reverted Elektricity. MapSGV (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

defence The copyright violation does not show up in the tools I am using, but as the nom wanted it removed I reworded the two lines that he commented on. As the concern was removed I added the text back. The edit summaries given in brackets are not mine. The nom could have read my edit summaries and but did not. I clearly stated in my third revert that I acknowledge the concern and am reverting to merely get back the text and I will remove the copy vio in the next edit; which I did. Adding back text which is not copyright violation should not be a concern. I think the Indo pak articles need a look see by an admin as a number of sleeper-esque accounts have made their presence felt lately. Elektricity (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• Warned Elektricity, please note you are editing in an area covered by discretionary sanctions. Future edit warring like this will probably result in a block. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Masterpha reported by User:Saqib (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Opinion polling for the Pakistani general election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "It is a perfectly acceptable source as it is from a page with a verified voting methodology and is just as reliable as any other polling company. Leave it at that."
2. Consecutive edits made from 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC) to 07:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
   1. 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827702238 by Saqib (talk)"
   2. 07:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 827702078 by Saqib (talk)"
   3. 07:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC) "/* Nationwide voting intention */Perfectly reliable, just because it is from facebook does not mean it is unreliable. They even have their own weighting system and have perfectly reliable polls"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user citing clearly unreliable source (a Facebook page) to cite something sensitive. I've tried to explain in my edit summaries that FB is not reliable but despite that he's reverted me edits. I do not want to involve in edit warring therefore reporting it. Saqib (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

defence Why not? Explain to me as to why Facebook is unreliable when it comes from a page with a perfectly reasonable opinion poll methodology? Masterpha (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2018 (GMT)

defence Also, the page is for opinion polls in general, doesn’t matter if they are reliable or not. Look at the Turkish presidential election, 2014#Opinion polls page where they acknowledge that some polls will be unreliable. Masterpha (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2018 (GMT)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Continued reverting after this report was opened. NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:EncycloPetey (Result: Declined)

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

Version prior to edit warring / removal of cited statements: [277]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [278]
2. [279]
3. [280]
4. [281]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [282]
2. [283]
3. [284]
4. [285]
5. [286] Best summary of issue
6. [287]

Comments:

I have tried to explain to User:Jytdog that his changes to the article are not supported by the cited source. The source says that Habakkuk is the author of the Book of Habakkuk. But Jytdog continues to alter that statement in the article's summary to say that Habakkuk is "described in the" Book, which the cited source does not say. Jytdog has also repeatedly failed to supply a citation to back his claim. At this point I am not sure whether this repeated removal of cited content is better described as an edit war or simply as vandalism. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes we are having a difficult dispute here. It is unfortunate the Petey is trying to turn this into a behavioral matter. To follow him there, as you can see from the edit stats on the page, Petey has more or less OWNed it, and is trying forcefully to maintain a somewhat literalist, and unsupported by modern scholarship, notion of "authorship". It is too bad he has resorted to this instead of DR, as I have been trying to steer him toward, on the TP for example here, where I tried to define the dispute and started moving toward DR. (In my view The dispute is whether it is accepted knowledge that Habakkuk "authored this book"). I asked Petey to define it, and you can see Petey's response here which is kind of a conversation stopper. I suggest the page be protected while we try to pursue DR. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you did not supply a citation, as I requested, is the only reason the conversation stopped. The challenge is to cite what you have been claiming. Thus far, you have changed the subject each time you have been tasked with supporting your alterations. And you have not answered the point I raised that you are changing the content, yet leaving the original citation, which does not make the claim you keep adding. And again, you have thus far failed to supply a citation supporting your claim, while removing the cited one. The diffs will show this. The issue is not "accepted knowledge" but what sources actually state about the issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not the place to work out the content dispute, Petey. Let us in any case pursue some form of DR, shall we? The dispute is not going away regardless of the outcome here. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the place to resolve the issue of repeatedly removing cited content and replacing it with uncited content. This is the place to deal with the fact that you repeatedly reverted to uncited additions you made and broken templates. This is the place to deal with edit warring behavior. I am sorry to hear that you feel the outcome here will not resolve the dispute. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Both of you are edit warring equally so what do you expect to happen here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have restored cited material that was deleted / altered, and repaired templates. I have pointed this out. So how is repair [288] and accommodating the other editor [289] and requesting a source for a change [290] equal to "nope" [291] and "nope" [292].

The concern here is that cited content is being replaced by uncited content, yet Jytdog leaves the original citation in place. This is effectively lying about the sources. Is restoring the cited material now "equal" to restoring the false statements about the cited material? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

• Declined The dispute here is about sourcing. Dispute resolution needs to be pursued. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Arminden reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: One week editing restriction)

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

Previous version reverted to: [293]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 27 February 2018
2. 27 February 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not necessary. The article is under heavy ARBCOM sanctions. Any user editing it is directed to a big red saying it's 1RR restricted and under ARBCOM sanctions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [294]

Comments:
It's an unusually clear case. Israel is under heavy ARBCOM sanctions and any violation of the 1RR rule there leads to an automatic block. Arminden was explicitly told not to revert and to gain consensus [295], but kept edit warring anyway. Jeppiz (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Arminden is a long-term very valuable editor; one of the most stable and balanced in the I-P area. In this case, Arminden responded incorrectly to a group of editors who kept reverting Arminden's text without attempting to fix it. Of course Arminden was not permitted to violate 1RR in the process, but I urge leniency. Zero^talk 00:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from Arminden. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Zero, nobody is recommending six months or one month. However, a user who first inserts a text in an area under ARBCOM sanctions, then reverts back, and then still reverts back again, despite several warnings, is not necessarily "the most balanced". Arminden kept edit warring despite knowing perfectly well that there was opposition from several users. And any long-term user in the I-P area is well aware of the 1RR put in place by ARBCOM, so personally I find it worse than if an inexperienced user would do it. If "leniency" means a block of only 24h or 48h, then by all means. If "leniency" means to look away when experienced users deliberately violate ARBCOM rules, then I disagree. Jeppiz (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Arminden was reported at AE in March 2016 for 1RR at the Daniel Seaman article per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189#Arminden though no action was taken that time. (Both sides appeared to be warring). I think this might be closed with no action if Arminden will agree to take a break from the Israel article. As Zero0000 states, Arminden does have some good reputation but their talk page shows that they do get into disputes from time to time. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Folks, thanks for caring. All I do care for is WP to remain useful. Neither biased and a battleground for people clearly taking sides in never-ending conflicts, nor a bureaucratic nightmare, with endless discussions in the background and no results showing in the articles. Apart from that, I'll leave it to you to do what you feel you have to (and find the time for). I am not going to go back to the topic in case, I got the stone rolling, now I leave it to the usual "warring factions" :) Just please don't let it be swept under the carpet. Israeli Arabs constitute 1 in 5 of all Israeli citizens, when one travels through their areas the difference in infrastructure and urban development as compared to their Jewish and mixed-ethnicity neighbours is all to obvious, and the reasons are multiple. I guess some of these to be the lower local (Ottoman) pre-1918 standards, as opposed to those of the incoming European Jews; traditional reasons (of the Bedouin for instance); the understandable inclination of most Jewish leaders to work mainly for their own communities; and yes, the years following the civil war and the Arab-Israeli war, during which Israeli Arab towns and villages, in large parts yesterday's enemies, were under military rule. No polemic attempt here, fears of a "fifth column" were normal and real, the liberal thought of integrating through equal rights was as present as hatred and lack of trust, etc. It will take time to get a balanced presentation. But this was a major aspect of almost two decades of life in Israel, with visible repercussions until today, and not just a "last remark" in the war section. OK, that was it. Back to real life. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not because your edit would be right or wrong that I brought the case here, it's because you violated 1RR (again). Jeppiz (talk) 10:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, his edits were actually superbly sourced, as we have come to expect, and the main one was edited out with those indisputably strong sources, rather than being finessed by Icewhiz, who reverts too much. Jeppiz is correct, and the infraction beyond dispute. But Arminden is a very good, collaborative wikipedian - I don't even think he can be said to have a sided POV, someone ready to do a lot of legwork for his contributions, and it is unfortunate his sense of remonstration at subjective excisions had him brought here. No doubt a rap on the knuckles is due, but it would be disappointing to mar his record by having him stay away from any article.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I was mentioned - I reverted this precisely once - Revision as of 11:32, 21 February 2018 both on NPOV concerns (highly polemic sources and UNDUE) and a few factual errors (which I discussed in the talk page). I did improve - Revision as of 16:58, 27 February 2018 - a subsequent small addition (I added a source and number (substantial number->156,000) of Arabs remaining as citizens + moved to what I thought was a more appropriate location). I did place a friendly heads up to Arminden to self-revert due to 1RR, but I didn't do anything beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

In lieu of a block, and as they have stated they are not going back to the topic, Arminden is restricted from editing the article for one week (they may use the talk page). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Beshogur reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: )

Page: Turkish military operation in Afrin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beshogur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [296] (revert of this)
2. [297] (revert of this)
3. [298] (revert of this)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: User has been warned several times: [299] and [300] and has been blocked very recently (by admin Coffee) for making the similar 1RR violations at SCW articles. And that is not his only block for 1RR at SCW articles, as his block log shows. He was also blocked by Kuru for violating the same rule.

Comments:
I find the edit-summary of this revert quite disruptive. The user removes material he doesn't like that's found in the lead just because it's also mentioned in the body.

I'm not edit warring. First information about HTS is totally made up and unrelated with the events in Afrin. I'm sorry about this, if you used talk page and explained my why this information should stay, instead of reporting me here all the time, I would do self revert. Third information is totally needless. As I said, same information is mentioned here. Beshogur (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Update I have added the version Beshogur has reverted to in order for it to be easier for those reviewing this case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:FrankP (Result: Warned)

Page: Nathan Bedford Forrest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [301]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [302]
2. [303]
3. [304]
4. [305]
5. [306]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [307]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [308]

Comments:

• Result: User:Joefromrandb is warned from breaking 3RR on 24 February. There appears to be a long-running dispute on whether certain negative information about Forrest (regarding the degree of his leadership in the KKK and his responsibility for the death of Union soldiers at Fort Pillow) and Joefromrandb has been attempting to ensure what he sees as historical accuracy. If there is a question of the usage of an opinion piece from the New York Times, this might be raised at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The issues you mention and others connected with these reverts are now the subject of a POV discussion on the article. FrankP (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

An update - Joefromrandb yesterday removed the POV tag [309] with edit summary "Rv nonsense tag". An active discussion is under way on the Talk page, involving several editors who are expressing different opinions, i.e. no consensus as yet. The discussion is proceeding in a civil and constructive way. It would be most helpful if the POV tag remained in place while this discussion is ongoing. FrankP (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

User:1256wiki reported by User:DerekELee (Result: Are you having a ....)

Page: Giraffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1256wiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [310]
2. [311]
3. [312]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [313]

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Also, there is no talk page discussion from either side. (A couple of "stop edit warring" notices on a user talk page doesn't cut it). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)