Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive382

User:Colonestarrice reported by User:DrKay (Result: Advice)

Page: George III of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Colonestarrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5] undoing insertion of words "the United Kingdom of" between "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland"[6][7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9][10][11]

Comments:
How is that a revert? I did not reinstate anything from my previous version. On the contrary, I appreciated that @Surtsicna: understood the issue and tried to find a compromise and I participated in the search for a compromise. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Already explained above. DrKay (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Undoing insertion of words" is a very creative alternative for removed, and removing and adding things constitute the normal process of editing, which is not really the same as undoing. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor inserted some words. You removed them. That removal is a revert. See Help:Reverting. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"An editor inserted some words. You removed them." – actually I didn't. Surtsicna's revision stated: "King of (the United Kingdom of) Great Britain and Ireland". I changed this to: "King of Great Britain and Ireland / King of the United Kingdom". So regardless of the fact that I did not revert Surtsicna's version to any previous one, I didn't remove United Kingdom nor King of nor Great Britain and Ireland either, I just changed their order and the formatting. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor inserted the words "the United Kingdom of" between the words "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland". You removed them. That is a revert whether you simultaneous perform another edit or not. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. WP:3RR policy explains further. CBS527^Talk 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Colonestarrice is advised to wait for consensus. They seem to have broken the WP:3RR on 4 January at George III of the United Kingdom. There were four reverts starting with this edit. The dispute was about whether to describe George I as 'King of the United Kingdom' in the infobox. If Colonesstarrice intends to change the infobox again they are advised to get a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:4C4:4000:C420:110C:6C7C:E633:17DB reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Rangeblocked 1 month; page protected)

Page

Anchor Bay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:4C4:4000:C420:110C:6C7C:E633:17DB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "This is unfair! It was now Starz!"
2. 02:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Annoying lier who likes to think Anchor Bay is now Lionsgate!

NO! It’s now Starz Distribution!"

1. 02:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "This is WRONG! That’s it! Blocked from my channel forever!"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) to 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Removed: Starz

Rewritten: Lionsgate

This is Wrong! For the last time, Anchor Bay Entertainment was a home entertainment subsidiary of Starz Inc.! If I hear that it was subsidiaried by Lionsgate one more time, I will block you forever!"

1. 1. 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "And also it was NOT a production company!!! Stupid Lionsgate fantard!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (using Twinkle)"
2. 02:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (using Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• 2601:4c4:4000:c420::/64 Blocked – for a period of 1 month by Ad Orientem and Page protected by Scott Burley. Linguist111^{my talk page} 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:107.1.118.82 reported by User:Chiffre01 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lander, Wyoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.1.118.82 (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:

Blocked – 1 year for long-term vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Resnjari reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Page protected)

Page

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877146646 by Alexikoua (talk) no its not. The article only notes that Armenian was used by an educated class. Nothing about the frontier districts. So its not mentioned in the article. Please don't remove sourced material on a wp:idontlikeit basis. Thank you. Make use of the talkpage as well if there is something of an issue."
2. 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "precise. Harris notes Armenian and Slavic languages was being widely spoken, i.e in frontier districts. This is an important piece of information."
3. 01:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "ok fixed issues with the previous sentence and placed the correct page number. Made article sentence conform properly to convey the source. I placed an extra weblink within the ref to the scholarly source as its accessible, so i thought no quote would be needed. Can place one though."
4. 01:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877016670 by Khirurg (talk) no consensus for removal. Take to talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Breached 3RR before I became aware of it.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has re-instated the text " the Armenian and various Slavic languages were widely spoken, in particular within border districts" 4 times in the last 24 hours. In addition to a brightline 3RR violation, it's also a WP:CLOP violation. Khirurg (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Did you warn/remind Resnjari before reporting him? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No i was not warned or reminded by @Khirurg.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Khirurg also states that the content was CLOP yet they themselves added [17] the same content to the article. When i restored the content, i overall kept @Khirurg's phrasing and sentence structure [18] and no one brought up CLOP at that time.Resnjari (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Ktrimi991 is tagteaming with Resnjari edit-warring to restore a clear WP:CLOP violation to a featured article. I think he should be blocked as well. Please note also both Resnjari and Ktrimi991 are frequent edit-warriors and have been reported and warned at this noticeboard multiple times. In this case, edit-warring to restore CLOP in the article is a new low. By the way, CLOP is still in the article, after Ktrimi991 edit-warred it twice. For example, despite the clear warning in my edit-summary, he cluelessly reinstates it almost unchanged for the second time; the first time he also ignored my first CLOP warning. What concerns me also, is the ability of these editors to understand what WP:CLOP is, let alone not to tagteam to edit-war it into articles. Dr. K. 00:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Resnjari: Initially content on languages of the empire had been in the article for some time and was removed by @Khirurg [19]. Later it was reinserted by @Cinadon30 [20]. @Khirurg reverted [21] @Cinadon30 and wrote "rv (revenge revert?), this has nothing to do with nomenclature). I reverted @Khirurg [22] as the edit was something personal toward another editor and not about content, i asked the editor to use the talkpage. Then @Dr. K. reverted that edit on OR issues [23]. At further examination indeed there were OR issues and my next edit altered the sentence to reflect the source [24] and remove concerns. @Khirurg then deleted [25] the sentence stating that those things were covered in the article and then right after that readded [26] the content moving it to the language section. That's fine. Then @Alexikoua removed [27] the content stating it was covered in the article and i reverted [28] the editor and said it was not. @Alexikoua then reverted [29] by also additionally saying that it was "inappropriate generalisation". I reverted the editor as the reason was insufficient for removal of RS content [30] explaining in the edit summary that it was not covered in the article and invited @Alexikoua to discuss on the talkpage. Later @Dr. K. reverted [31] on CLOP grounds and notified me of a 3RR warning in their edit summary. After that as no one used the talkpage i opened up a thread on the issue [32] and invited @Dr. K. to take part. Through the whole process i forgot that there were multiple reverts until @Dr.K. reminded me in their edit summary. After that i no longer made edits and focused my attention toward the article talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing WP:CLOP from an article requires no discussion. This CLOP is self-evident and it still stands in the article. Your edit-warring partner mistakenly thinks he removed it. But it is still there. If you understand it is CLOP, then remove it. Otherwise, at a minimum, your partner should be blocked because he doesn't know what constitutes CLOP and, despite that, he reflexively edit-wars it into the article, going so far as to give edit-warring warnings to editors who explain to him what is CLOP and that he is adding the CLOP into the article. It is obvious he has no idea as to what constitutes CLOP. Dr. K. 03:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There was no engagement from your part in the talkpage at all, and i pinged you as well in good faith so you don't miss it. On the edit summary you first noted that the matter was about OR issues with the content [33]. I took those concerns seriously, found the book and located the page where the content was from. I provided a reference and proper attribution for it (previously missing) and adjusted the content accordingly [34]. The content is not plagerised and there is only so many words that can be substituted to write a sentence in ones own words while keeping with the source. The edit involves important information about the status of language among the commonfolk of the empire in the borderland districts, information that is glaringly lacking from the article. Also i do understand that it is a feature article however that too does not preclude further edits to a page, especially on the topic of the Byzantine empire where scholarship is massive and continuously published every year. The purpose of the edit is to make the article better and informative for a reader. And please don't call other people "my partner" and so on. If other people have edited the article or have it on their watchlist its their business. The article does not fall under WP:OWNERSHIP of any editor. Our contributions here are to the betterment of knowledge for this project, hopefully done in a respectful manner without mudslinging.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said in my previous reply to you, this CLOP is obvious, so no engagement is required from me on the talkpage. Your pinging was, threfore, useless. As far as partner, when one strikes 7 minutes after I reverted your CLOP and reinstates the CLOP, what do you call him? And then strikes again, after what 9-10 minutes. Partner is as good a name as any other. Buddy could also be used. But I digress. Dr. K. 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I reached out to you in good faith. How you interpret that is your business. How you view or refer to other editors is also your business, i guess. Looking at the page history the editor to whom you refer to has edited the article in the past. People have the article on their watchlist and is not under WP:OWNERSHIP.Resnjari (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't know what the reference to OWN is all about, but I still think the timing and frequency of the other editor's response to restore an identified CLOP was a bit too much of a coincidence and a lot out of line. Dr. K. 05:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the article is open to anyone to edit, provided the content of the edit is relevant to the topic. On the issue of CLOP. There is nothing in the article about language usage of the commonfolk of the borderland districts. A sizable part of the geopolitical history of the empire was shaped by events and populations of those districts. The sentence was written to convey the content of the source. The sentence is about language usage. There is only so many words that one can substitute for how it is written in the source while honouring the context of the scholarship. I ask how does one substitute words like Armenian without running into CLOP issues? Is there another way of saying Armenian? Hence my pinging you in the talkpage for further consultation and discussion.Resnjari (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I understand. But you cannot have a meaningful conversation when someone else insists on restoring the CLOP come hell or high water. First, CLOP gets removed, then CLOP gets discussed. Not the other way around. It isn't about the use of the language names. It is about the terminology and syntax of the CLOP'ed sentence. One has to alter it sufficiently so that it does not resemble the terminology and structure of the original. Dr. K. 06:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I wrote it as best i could. As i said there is only so many words that one could use in substitution while staying true to the source. Comparisons with the sentence i placed and the source itself shows this. Also after @Khirurg reinserted [35] the content back into the article i overall kept to that editor's phrasing and wording [36], [37]. On reverts, other editors themselves gave all sorts of reasons for removing the content with @Khirurg for example first removing and then placing it back. What is one to make of that apart from thinking what is going on with regards to that editor while with others is this about wp:idontlikeit. I did suggest multiple times in my edit summaries to use the talkpage and that was before CLOP was brought up as a reason.Resnjari (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll work on a CLOP-free formulation and will present it later today. Hopefully, and it's hard to have to say such obvious and commonsense thing, I won't see that atrocious CLOP sentence back in the article when I return. Dr. K. 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The sentence at the very least would need to incorporate context/information of the source on the matter. @Khirirg has expressed in an edit summary within the article that they are ok with the material [38] of the source.Resnjari (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Note to administrators: Though i don't know what will happen here with me, the original dispute over the sentence about languages and the commonfolk of the border districts has been resolved in the article via an addition by @Dr.K. [39].Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You broke 3RR and knowingly violated WP:CLOP at a Featured Article you have contributed nothing to, only chaos. You added material about Language into a section about Nomenclature. This is disruption and incompetence. Not only that, but about a month ago you said "lessons were learned" regarding your past blocks for edit-warring. I expressed skepticism at the time [40] and it looked like I was right. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is on my watchlist. That does not preclude any editor from editing the article. On nomenclature the initial content was there. I had no problem when you moved it to the language section [41] in the form that you wrote it. No one mentioned CLOP regarding your edit or the form of phrasing you had for the sentence. I kept that form and did not break from it.Resnjari (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't have access to the source at the time, and assumed good faith that it wasn't WP:CLOP. But you did have access to the source [42]. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually that does not suffice. In good faith when i readded the content [43] not only did i place a page number (previously missing), i also added a weblink to the reference for any editor to consult themselves as i wanted others to check too. In that same edit i also noted this in my edit summary. When you first deleted the content [44] and right after readded it [45] with the whole reference, it too included the weblink to the source. How can you say that there was no access?Resnjari (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg does not come here with clean hands as he breached en:BRD. At the top of that, his edit summary was irritating.[[46] Not respecting BRD and being aggressive in the edit-summaries, most often results in edit wars and accusations of pov-pushing. At the December 30th, Khirurg made a number of edits, I reverted one of them and he was fast to re-revert mentioning "revenge" by me (but very slow on taking it to the Talk Page to establish consensus). Khirurg and I share a different perspective on a number of topics, and this is the normal, obvious and expected cause of the reverts. Should I accuse him whenever I get reverted? This shows lack of WP:AGF. Worth noting that Resnjari did try to use the talk page (twice before he got a respond), so he is not a "revert"-maniac. Having said that, I believe that all involved users at the edit war (including me), we should all be warned against edit warring and follow a 1-revert rule for a week or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari recently displays stubborn wp:OWN (with BRD breaches and POV pushing) instant reverting in a variety of articles. Unfortunately talkpage participation to calm down this "enthousiasm" is not enough (he dismisses as "trolling" anything against his POV [[47]][[48]]). This 3rr violation is unacceptable for an editor that participates in this project for more than a couple of years. I believe that a short term block is warranted since it will calm down this enthousiasm and make him participate in correspondent discussions in a productive way.Alexikoua (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually no. On the Origins of the Albanians page two thirds of the recent edits that were done to the article were mine to begin with. After you removed images of Albanians from the page i asked you politely [49] in the talkpage to elaborate as to why. Your reasons were very concerning where race was used as a rationale (no other editor there said such things). The following comments of yours @Alexikoua speak for themselves:

• "They look like typical Caucasian people & nothing can be added without concensus" [50]
• "Images of typical Caucasian people prove nothing." [51]
• "It appears you misunderstood something: Caucasian is widely used as an alternative for white people." [52] -in that same edit to prove your point you included a map from the discredited work about races by Carleton Coon
• "Cartel Coon was born in 20th century (LOL). I assume you need to present a decent argument in this topic and to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics. Such pictures are unaccaptable in genetics section & non-Albanians can also raise Albanian flag or any other flag." [53]
• "Agree with Khirurg nothing useful from this recently added pictures. I have the feeling that the motive is somewhat racist here: genetically pure Albanians can raise the national flag, white race characteristics etc. etc." [54].
• "It's a good step we agree that typical white people in modern western style clothes are not helpful in an article about a specific ethinc group." [55]

Whatever disagreement about aesthetic issues one might hold over images in an article, using the reason of race is not cause for removal. Anyway as a discussion on the talkpage was had, editors noted to you [56] that the stable version was best until things were resolved. I did the responsible thing, reverted my edits and to do that was to go back to the stable version of the article of the time [57] until such time as a resolution could be found, which later happened. I have explained this to you over and over again (in some of the diffs you cite there show). What you took from that is your issue.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I am worried with Resnjari's tagteaming with Ktrimi that does not only damage the featured articles, but also is POV pushing in a number of articles with politically sensitive content in them. A blatant case of this is the Albania-Greece relations where Resnjari is not only accepting Ktrimi's POV demands, but also backing him unconditionally, causing the later to become more arrogant and stonewall talk page discussions. The admins are ought to do something about that. We had to even call for a RfC just to get ourselves unstuck from the stonewalling attempts of Resnjari and Ktrimi who are using WP:CONSENSUS in a very abusive WP:OWN way, which every time is used to block any content they don't like, from being added to the article, with the logic of: "If we don't agree, the content won't be added". Please someone do something about these editors. We have had it enough. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Its very disappointing that such a misrepresentation of talkpage discussions and the process of consensus on the Albania-Greece relations are used here. @Ktrimi991 was the one who got page protection from administrators [58], [59] after attempts to push POV by other editors into the article were made. Not only that it was an administrator who intervened [60] to stop unilateral POV additions of content to the article while complex discussions where being held in the talkpage. @Ktrimi991 was the one who also added a 3 option to the current RFC and it was you reported him at ANI [61] over that and later being advised over there [62] that nothing wrong was done and was part of usual practise in such things. As for the other things, words like "abusive" in no way go toward building good faith and is sad. What more can one say apart from its really disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't even try portray yourself and Ktrimi as being the victims and the ones who respect Wikipedia's rules. You both violated several other rules and before I intervened to the dispute. Have you forgotten how Ktrimi in fact broke the 3RR rule? Have you forgotten my warning to him on his talk page [63]? and article protection was raised by Admin EdJohnston [64] right after I messaged him [65] on his talk page. Not that it matters, but get your facts straight.

Thing here is, both of you aren't seem to be regretting anything about your attitude and actions. THIS is what is disappointing. The Admins can access the History log and make their own conclusions about your actions. Here I am merely pointing to the problems you have caused to other editors who tried to contribute to the articles without your constant reverts and stonewalling. You should be disappointed with yourself, not me.

You are noted as a capable editor, you have contributed to Wikipedia, and we appreciate your work on Balkan topic areas such as Bosnian, Macedonian and Albanian articles. But your attitude and behavior is what causing all this grievance to other editors. If you want to talk about disappointment, it is the fact that you aren't learning from your previous bans. Have you forgotten what the admins who banned you, have advised you??? You really should DROP this behavior. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no. @Ktrimi did it first in getting administrator protection and informed you [66] of that when you did so later yourself. Time differences in diffs draw that out. Its disappointing the language and tone you have used here. Please also avoid loaded language like "being the victims" etc. I nor @Ktrimi991 ever stated this. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has with certain editors. Indeed administrators can access the history log of any page and the edits speak for themselves. My attitude and behavior can be subject to interpretation as i see you have demonstrated, but wp:idontlikeit reasons of other people's edits do not suffice.Resnjari (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

It's suprising that the editor in question instead of offering a sencere apology is now "launching a full offensive" accusing dozens of editors. I doubt if this wall of text can turn him immune towards cryslat clear 3rr violations.Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As i said before this thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors. Misrepresenting my words as accusations against other editors and so on is disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

You are not immune against endless edit warring and especially 3rr violations. Experienced editors usually accept some responibility but it's really weird you believe that this pattern is constructive by bulding an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As i said previously and will reiterate to you again. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors.Resnjari (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This thread is filled because there is a violation Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule and the specific case is quite clear. Instant reverting inevitably lead you to such violations.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As i said previously and will reiterate again. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors.Resnjari (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – Five days. The alternative would be blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: No action)

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

Page: Persecution of Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]

Note tag-teaming with another user so he's AT 3 rather than over. Here's the other user's two reverts from today.

1. [71]
2. [72]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments:
I found out about the use of a WP:FRINGE source to state the assertion that Christians are currently being persecuted in Denmark from the fringe theories noticeboard; as I have past experience dealing with attempts to insert anti-islamic content into Wikipedia and experience with political WP:FRINGE articles I offered to help. After one revert, Dr.K. put up an editwarring notice on my talk page. They are at three reverts with two more from their partner in this tag-team action. Khirurg.

When I cautioned Dr.K. over edit warring they invited me to file this claim rather than self-reverting what amounts to a fifth revert between two users with a preferred version of the page which violates WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Simonm23 should be WP:BOOMERANGed for making unfounded accusations. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The diffs are right there. And both of you have past blocks for edit warring so I suspect you know that tag-teaming isn't allowed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

It's always a conspiracy when more than one user reverts you, isn't it? Khirurg (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Several people have told you at the fringe theories noticeboard to remove the disputed source. And yet, you throw around boomerang threats instead of reverting to a non-WP:FRINGE version. And frankly the battleground mentality of the two of you as suggested here when I was at ONE revert or here when Dr.K. had the temerity to call my action edit warring for a second time despite the fact I didn't go to a second revert or here where you called me an edit warrior for my one revert should be sufficient evidence of edit warring behaviour from you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Helpful advice: You actually have two reverts. This [75] is a revert, because you removed Dr.K.'s addition. Between yourself and Cinadon, you have 4 reverts. So, I can just as easily accuse you of tag-teaming with Cinadon36. After all, you both loudly declare the same POV on your user pages. Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have also warned earlier today Dr.K. about edit warring.[76] Even more disturbing than the edit warring is that he does not respect WP:BRD and does not try to establish consensus in the talk page. An example from the article: Dr.K added a text based on on a questionable source on January 6th .[77] I reverted him citing some of the problems of the Source and instead of going to Talk Page, he re-reverted again[78]. I was then forced to open a section in the Talk Page asking about Hudson Institude. Dr. K. replied "The Hudson Institute is a reliable source. If you disagree, ask about it at RSN" Maybe Dr.K.feels too certain that tag teaming with Khirurg will give him the upper hand and ultimate the win the edit warr. I have seen Khirurg and Dr.K. defend the same edits in other articles, far too often. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would caution you of making declarations about knowing what other users "feel". As far as tag-teaming, I could just as easily say the same thing about you and Simonm23. After all, both of you loudly declare the same POV on your respective user pages. Khirurg (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, I was referring to the strategy employed, not Dr.K's feelings. As for tag-teaming, it is obvious whataboutism. I wont bother answering any further. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the interaction history between me and Cinadon36 as you can see, excepting this conflict and a few high-traffic noticeboards we frequent, we almost never interact. Now this is the interaction kistory between Khirurg and Dr.K. - so when I suggest tag-teaming I don't do so lightly. Unlike Khirurg I'm not proposing these two tag-team because they're both any particular political ideology (believe it or not, not every Socialist knows every other Socialist) but rather because they're acting in concert on this page, as they have done on many other pages in the past. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit interaction tool is all you've got? Did you know that both me and Dr.K. have been editing for more than a decade? You're just block fishing and WP:BULLYing at this point. Khirurg (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure the accusations of tag teaming are valid, we often end up reverting an edit to someone esles preferred version. Dr.K. has reached 3RR, but we have all made that kind of mistake, But they have been blocked before (sorry did not see that). But I think this may be premature as they have not beached 3RR yet, might have been best to let them.Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And with this [[79]] I say they do need a sanction as clearly they do not see what this did as problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you believe someone should be sanctioned because you had a confrontational attitude on their talk page and they removed it? ~ GB fan 20:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Leave witchhunts for another day. Don't misrepresent my actions. You pompously came to my talkpage to tell me to read 3RR and then advised me to "think hard" about my course of action. Sorry, I don't accept fake crisis management advice delivered in a presumptuous manner. There is no crisis and I don't have to "think hard". I saw blanking of reliably-sourced information without discussion and with dismissive edit-summaries from the filer of this report who also engages in bad-faith accusations against me about tag-teaming and I reverted. I hate to disappoint you, but I did not breach 3RR, I do not intend to, neither did I make another revert after the whole section got removed. Dr. K. 20:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked you to read 3RR, and then said to think hard about what you were going to do next. You will note I even said above you had not beached 3RR, which is why I warned you to be careful. You did (however) do this [[80]], the very sort of thing I was talking about. That is what I was talking about, think carefully before doing anything that might be not viewed in a positive light. Ohh and you do not have to have breached 3RR to be seen as edit warring, that is just a bright line that means you have if you cross it. You can be sanctioned for edit warring if you have not beached 3RR if it is deemed your actions indicate you intended to (such ass making 3 reverts and then waiting 24 hours to make the fourth, and other dodges).Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Your answer still indicates to me at least, that you have not understood how you came across in your warnings on my talk, although I do not doubt your good faith given your reply. I also don't understand how you can lecture me about 3RR cf. Ohh and you do not have to have breached 3RR to be seen as edit warring, that is just a bright line ... after I told you above that I hate to disappoint you, but I did not breach 3RR, I do not intend to, neither did I make another revert after the whole section got removed.. Do you seriously think I'll be waiting 24 hours to do more reverts in the middle of so many discussions and edits? Obviously, you have no idea about me. So, please, no more of that. Dr. K. 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And, for the record, since you mentioned my block log for edit-warring, first, that was approximately ten and a half years ago; second, I was reverting an IP which was adding a hoax name at Greek name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IP was adding the name "Iasperos" as equivalent to Jasper. The problem is, there is no such name in Greek. It is a hoax and it is unattested by any reliable source. Dr. K. 06:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just a heads up. A thread on the Fringe Theories noticeboard [81] has been opened up on the matter and by the look of things the editors are noting that those sources appear to be fringe. Maybe that content based on those sources should not be in the article and is POV after all. The discussions though are ongoing.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Declined to take action. As there is now extensive talk page discussion with no further disruption from any of the three parties involved, blocking at this point would be punitive rather than preventive. Also it seems other editors have gotten involved in cleaning up the article after identifying sources as fringe, so full-protecting the article wouldn't be productive either at this point, although that still remains an option (and the venue for that is WP:RFPP, not here). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tantan08 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: blocked)

Page: Pinoy Big Brother: Otso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tantan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 03:34, December 31, 2018 - Oenix2nd changes article to implement a new infobox and moved the data from the old, now deleted infobox, to the Housemate table. (See these discussions for more info here for TfD and here for project discussion on suggested implementation
2. 19:57, January 5, 2019 - Oenix2nd reverts a series of edits back to a version that is similar to the above with one of the concerns raised that Tantan08's edits removed sources.
3. 10:50, January 6, 2019 - In an effort to resolve dispute I made a series of edits which restored all deleted sources while integrating contestant profile links into the table. I left out the "Origin" column of the "Housemate" table due to MOS:ICON. I consider this to be like a "reset" of the article to fix issues that were done by edit warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:25, December 31, 2018
2. 18:37, January 1, 2019
3. 21:52, January 5, 2019
4. 21:55, January 5, 2019
5. 23:55, January 5, 2019
6. 08:32, January 6, 2019 - First violation of WP:3RR see below
7. 17:52, January 7, 2019 - While not a violation of 3RR this starts essentially edit warring as the user has not responded to any dispute resolution methods used.
8. 07:55, January 8, 2019 - Un-involved IP reverted Tantan08 on 19:48, January 7, 2019 back to last stable version. Subsequently Tantan08 reverted this editor on 07:55, January 8, 2019.
9. 07:55, January 8, 2019 - Starting with this edit no one else has reverted Tantan08 edits but they keep inserting fake contestant profile links that they have been asked not to put into the article for security reasons (see below)
10. 16:34, January 8, 2019

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

1. [82] With this edit on 08:32, January 6, 2019 Tantan08 violated WP:3RR by reverting Oenix2nd's revert to disputed section (Housemate table) and deleted sources again. (3RR violation)
2. [83] Tantan08 ignores the fixes I put in place and ignores this message I left on his talk page that the links he is using for the contestant profiles that use the domain www.abscbn.tv are invalid since that is not an official domain used by the broadcaster ABS-CBN. When I clicked on one of those links it tried to install a browser hijacker that my anti-virus software caught and stopped. The correct domain for entertainment programs from the broadcaster is entertainment.abs-cbn.com. (By this point this is blatant edit warring and disruptive editing.)

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

1. 10:06, January 3, 2019 - User warned by Anonymuss User that their edits might not be constructive (user forgot to sign warning).
2. 19:49, January 5, 2019 - Oenix2nd leaves a message on the talk page without a warning inquiring about Tantan08's recent edits. Tantan08 doesn't reply to this.
3. 21:57, January 5, 2019 - Oenix2nd issues a Level 2 warning.
4. 00:17, January 6, 2019 - Oenix2nd issues a 3RR warning.
5. 00:45, January 6, 2019 - Oenix2nd started a RfC trying to resolve the dispute via community input because all other forms of trying to discuss the matter with Tantan08 has failed. As of this revision of 08:18, January 8, 2019 Tantan08 has made no attempt in responding on the article talk page. Looking at the user's contributions they have no intent of trying to resolve disputes by discussing them. Instead they insist on reinstating the info no matter what.
6. 10:18, January 6, 2019 - My note asking the user not to use links from www.abscbn.tv (see above).

Comments:

• There are way more edits prior to 03:34, December 31, 2018 but this is when the warnings started. Tantan08 is clearly not here to discuss issues/disputed edits with other editors. Their behavior is showing signs of WP:OWN in that they keep removing sources they feel don't belong, keep reinserting links claiming they are "contestant profiles" despite potential security concerns and reverting anyone who changes the "Housemate" table to a version they don't like. At this point we are way beyond 3RR here and are in edit warring/disruptive editing after multiple attempts have been made to reach out to the editor. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 08:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

No violation of 3RR yet I am convinced they are edit warring. Has never made a talk page post. Never used edit summaries. User needs to learn to edit collaboratively. Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:681:5000:3516:D80C:DB3E:7A88:1AEC reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

Geoffrey Chaucer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:681:5000:3516:D80C:DB3E:7A88:1AEC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Please keep it this way. It seems more normal. I don't think that I'm trying to hurt the England English people, but I think most people find it as a mistake."
2. 19:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "I made the word "recognised" the right spelling in U.S. language."
3. 19:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "I am not disrespecting the language, I just think people read it better that way."
4. 19:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "I am not disrespecting the language, I just think people read it better that way."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Geoffrey Chaucer. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article's under PCP, but this anon is still wasting (three) editors' time and energies. ——SerialNumber54129 20:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. It's not just 2601:681:5000:3516:d80c:db3e:7a88:1aec, but also 2601:681:5000:3516:9dc1:e740:a562:cd33 (same /64 range, same individual using it). I've blocked the 2601:681:5000:3516::/64 range for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

User:147.92.69.194 reported by User:Velella (Result: 3 months)

Page

Snow Golf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877634642 by Velella (talk) This is not a press release or an ad IT IS FACTUAL history. The history in the referenced article is the same history that is here. Hitting colored balls and playing a hockey with golf balls is not present day snow golf invented by Tina. THIS is NOT GERMANY and you are not NAZIs you are not allowed to rewrite history or BAN the truth with lies. DO NOT UNDO this or you will be charged."
2. 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877621800 by Velella (talk) https://www.toronto.com/community-story/6178-new-ideas-par-for-the-course-for-entrepreneur/ THIS IS HISTORY AND FACTUAL NOT PROMOTIONAL-STOP trying to rewrite history"
3. 20:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877614791 by Dorsetonian (talk) https://www.toronto.com/community-story/6178-new-ideas-par-for-the-course-for-entrepreneur/"
4. 20:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 754939231 by Velella (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Snow golf. using TW"
2. 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "edit warring"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

appears to be User:Snowgolf block evading. Same content, same pattern of arguments  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

user is also resorting to personal attacks in edit summaries [84] Dorsetonian (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months due to a history of several other recent blocks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyjukilo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 72h)

Page: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyjukilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-01-09T10:41:51

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2019-01-09T14:33:30
2. 2019-01-09T15:15:49

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2019-01-09T15:26:13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2019-01-05T07:43:39

Comments:

1RR violation. User previously warred for the same content and was given two warnings on the subject. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

See talk page Hyjukilo (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#%22extremely_remote%22_ancestry

Solved. The current version is fine! Hyjukilo (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that pretending to be an admin to 'close' a AN3 discussion is at best, trolling, aren't you? Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72h as an obvious 1RR violation, about which the editor was aware; this is the second EW violation inside four days, I suspect a third block may be significantly longer. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: at the least they should be given an AE topic ban. Doug Weller talk 08:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Lpouer4832xs reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: warned)

Page

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lpouer4832xs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* 116th Congress */ Her vote to fund ICE is notable, given that she has repeatedly spoken out in favor of abolishing the organization."
2. 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* 116th Congress */ She voted to fund ICE, but later said, "The president should not be asking for more money to an agency that has systematically violated human rights. The president should really be defending why we are funding such an agency at all. Because right now, what we are seeing is death. Right now, what we are seeing is the violation of human rights.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Dirt */ new section"
2. 03:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Dirt */ echo"

Comments:

Page under 1RR restrictions. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Ugh. What a silly move on Lpouer's part. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
• Lpouer4832xs is hereby warned (in case they did not know before) that this article and many others are subject to a WP:1RR restriction. Any further violations will result in a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:What doing reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: blocked)

Page

List of Doctor Who home video releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The Woman Who Fell to Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

What doing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

List of Doctor Who home video releases

1. 10:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
2. 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
3. 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
4. 10:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"

The Woman Who Fell to Earth

1. 10:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
2. 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Home media */"
3. 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
4. 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Home media */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* The Woman Who Fell to Earth */ new section"

Comments:

Continued unexplained removal of a specific home media entry from two pages, continuing despite being pinged in a discussion and warned for deleting without reason and not using edit summaries. The editor seems to show no intent to respond in any manner. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. 24 hours would be the standard duration for a first block, but they often don't log back in for a couple of days so it might go unnoticed. Blocked for 60 hours, but user can be unblocked as soon as they indicate a willingness to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: decline)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [86]
2. [87]

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

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

Comments:

The user has broken 1RR rule in the article Template:Syrian Civil War infobox which he knows is there.

I have been talking with this user for the past week about the original content he's trying to place into Syrian Civil War infobox. He has opened a incident board for me to get some administration to intervene but no one has. The user has deliberately reverted anyway 2 times in the past 24hrs and has broken the 1RR rule of the article. Which he knows is there as per the discussion which took place with him. Jim7049 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I accidently violated the 1RR rule earlier today (I got the time zones wrong), but reverted my own edit right away as soon as I realized (in fact, I self-reverted within a minute). There was no intention on my part to violate the 1RR, and my self-revert should redeem this short-lived mistake. In any case, I guess we are both guilty of gaming the system by reverting each other just outside the 24 hour frame. May I suggest that more users get involved in the not-so ongoing discussion? Protecting the template might not be a horrible idea either. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This is still edit warring. Also you have reverted less than 24 hours after I reverted so it might still violate 1RR. Jim7049 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

As I explained, that was a mistake that I fixed right away. And if I'm edit warring, then you are too. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you reinserted the disputed change two hours later, rather suggests that the self-revert was not to correct your mistake but to further game the system. I am considering a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I suppose we've both been gaming the system by reverting each other just outside the 24-hour time frame, narrowly avoiding violating the 1RR. If anything we both deserve to be blocked for edit warring, though I would hope that wouldn't be necessary. How about I promise to refrain from further edit warring, with Jimbo or anyone else, with or without respecting the 1RR? I don't have a history of gaming the system, and this won't become a tradition either. Block or no block, I just might take a self-imposed break from anything relating to the Syrian Civil War, while hoping that the RfC runs its course. Come to think of it: since I already have your attention, couldn't you take a look at the talk page? I think me and Jimbo have both said everything we have to say on the subject, plus a lot more. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have decided not to block at this time, but I will watchlist the template and also monitor both of your contributions for a while. If any silliness recurs, then blocks will follow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:173.52.62.50 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: both blocked)

Page

Portal:Current events/2019 January 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877740328 by TomCat4680 (talk)clearly you hate President Trump and you never got over the fact that Hillary lost...but she did...lol... and soon she will be in Guantanamo where she will hang for her crimes...stop it"
2. 16:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877739574 by TomCat4680 (talk)you might not see how it is disrespectful but it is so stop it."
3. 15:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877736001 by TomCat4680 (talk) there is an article called "President Donald Trump" and you are being disrespectful to refer to him without the word "President" before his name...stop it."
4. 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC) ""
5. 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Both users blocked 24 hours for edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(For clarity, two editors are blocked: User:173.52.62.50 and User:TomCat4680, but not the person who filed this report, who was just a bystander). EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sricsi reported by User:IndianBio (Result: warned)

Page

Joanne (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877784358 by IndianBio (talk) I'm not a fan of edit waring, but I still don't see your reasons or any valid points, besides you not liking anybody else changing your arrangements of photos."
2. 21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877783991 by IndianBio (talk) I don't see any debate concerning the photos. Everyone has just as much right to change them as you. Feel free to start a debate, and I'm looking forward seeing your valid points on why should we use low quality photos."
3. 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877782109 by IndianBio (talk) Me uploading the photos has nothing to do with not using subpar, cropped photos of performances when we have clearly better options. Feel free to start a debate on the Talk page, as you reccommended to me for doing so."
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) to 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Update with greater quality photos of performances from the era"
   2. 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Performances */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Joanne (album). (TW)"
2. 21:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Image-related vandalism in articles on Joanne (album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Note to reviewing admin. User has started discussing in article talk page now with me and another user so please consider the edit warring report if it can be pardoned. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

This is not the first time the user has resorted to Edit warring and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. See Talk:Joanne_(album)#Image_edit_warring as well as this. Per WP:BRD it was explained to the user to raise discussion in the article's talk page and achieve consensus against changing images, but continued to do so even going as far as to comment "I'm not a fan of edit waring" and still warring. The images which the user is edit warring on were present in the article from the time it was nominated for GAN ie from June 2018. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is also not the first time User:IndianBio got involved in edit warring just as equally. Truthfully, I don't see a reason for starting a debate over replacing low quality photos, when my Edit summary clearly states my reasons in doing so. Moreover, if he has the right to change photos without starting a debate any time he decides to do so, why am I the one who is only allowed to do that with first opening a Talk page discussion, and why am I the one who gets warned by him with being blocked from editing? --Sricsi (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sricsi, simple reason is WP:BRD. You came out of nowhere (you had not even edited since Feb 2018) and changed a long-standing set of pictures present in the article (since it was GA nominated), and got reverted. The correct process for you was to discuss in the talk page and NOT edit war. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Why do you expect me to start a Talk page debate every time I change anything in the article? I don't expect you to do that, because I trust your skills, and you also use Edit summaries. You could have given your opinion in the Edit summary upon reverting, but besides your personal reasoning, you did not say a word about the quality of the photos, or what is your reason of reverting it back, besides not liking your previous arrangement. Instead of warning about blocking/reporting, you could have also used the time for opening a Talk page debate, if you really feel the need for that, and I would have given my opinion there instead of spending the time on talking here. --Sricsi (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sricsi, again read WP:BRD. You changed images to pictures uploaded by you, do you not think anyone would think that as a crappy reason? As I said before, long standing images (including infobox profile pics) are always required to be discussed. Its not as if anyone else had a problem or was subject of controversy. So pardon me, but onus in this case lies with you. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 22:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I really don't care if I uploaded a photo or anybody else, I only care about the quality. And like 80% of Gaga's photos are uploaded by me, so I already see them everywhere, but that doesn't mean I am not happy to see other photos uploaded by anybody else, if they are of quality. --Sricsi (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The "onus" is really on both editors to go to the talk page and lay out one's reasons for reverting. (WP:BRD-NOT: BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once.) The one who starts the discussion first is typically the one that gets the most sympathy by the admin that reviews an edit warring report. Since a discussion seems to be underway now at Talk:Joanne (album)#Images, I think blocks would be counterproductive, so I encourage both editors to continue discussing potential alternative images and make changes only after you both agree. If you don't agree, then the default is the status quo ante (i.e. the way it was before the dispute)—alternatively, try to seek a third opinion or outside dispute resolution. Commenting here not as an admin, but a fellow editor, since I've done work with IndianBio in the past. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

  Per comment above, this report is declined at this time, but both editors are warned not to edit-war in future. With thanks to Another Believer for diffusing the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Silbof reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [89]

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:
Blocked 24 hours. Has also been blocked on commons for bad behaviour there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Midwestman1986 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked)

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.

---

Cut and pasted from WP:ANI.

Midwestman1986 has only been on Wikipedia for a few weeks; now he's trying to take it over. He's been changing lead paragraphs on Kansas City TV station articles the way he sees fit. [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] I change them back and he keeps changing them back, saying they unsourced when they don't have to be sourced. He also keeps misspelling on edits and edit summaries. Now he has the nerve to cuss me out. I heard of "biting the newcomers"; this newcomer is biting me! He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It might help if you could show us a diff of him "cussing you out". Alephb (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Two edit summaries: [99] [100] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I started a section on the article's Talk page after reviewing each of your edits, you might want to discuss it there rather than here (since both of you were edit warring). Schazjmd (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I specifically left a reference showing the location of the TV station being in Fairway, Kansas. Yet he insists on leaving the location as Kansas City Missouri which was before 2005. it said it broadcasted to Kansas City Missouri and Kansas City kansas. I replaced that with Kansas City metropolitan area. Kansas City Kansas is smaller than cities like Overland Park, Kansas which also gets broadcasted by the news station too so I added Kansas City metropolitan area. Here is the link for its location in fairway, Kansas and phone number is (913) which is a Kansas area code. Most of this page is unsourced so I removed a few sentences and added sourced information. By all means I wouldn’t remove stuff if it was sourced. He keeps removing sourced information I added and just did it again. And now the location still says Kansas City Missouri, which is not correct At all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kansas City MO is KCTV's city of license; its studios were located there before moving across the state line in 1983. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would debate the notion that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Troublesome and most likely unaware of our policies and guidelines but I am assuming good faith at this stage. The user should be made aware of both our edit war and personal attack policies. In any case, this is more of a content dispute. IWI (chat) 01:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Now Midwestman1986 is ranting on his talk page, misspelling "Missouri" and making a certain Adam Sandler quote. [101] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC

No, you literally just logged out and put that message on my page, stop being a little liar and trying to frame me. I put on the KCTV page that it is located in fairway Kansas and liscensed by Kansas City , Missouri. I’m going to change it back in a day or so and you better leave it. Saying it’s location is in Kansas City Missouri is a lie. Why do you keep putting Kansas City, Kansas? It also serves Overland Park, Kansas, which has more people than Kansas City, Kansas. You’re clearly just doing what you want. Kansas City metropolitan area is much more accurate.

It wasn't me; I'm still logged in. I really thought you did it, and I'm sorry. As for KCTV, it's in Kansas City MO because it's their FCC-assigned city of license (not Fairway, not Overland Park). Their studios are in Fairway. Cities of license and studio locations are different. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure you didn’t do it... anyways I get that it’s liscensed in Kansas City, Missouri but that doesn’t change the location. That’s why I wrote” it is located in fairway, Kansas and liscnesed by Kansas City, Missouri. Their front office is in Fairway, Kansas, their phone number is a Kansas phone number, and their studios are in Kansas. They are in fairway Kansas and broadcast to the Kansas City metropolitan area. And they are liscnesed by Kansas City Mo. it’s that Simple I’m changing the location to fairway Kansas tommorow. It’s where it is, it’s what their phone number is and it’s where their office is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I warned you six days before that you're in the wrong place. This goes on 3RR if it had gotten out of control, not here, and all I'm seeing is you templating and being hostile to an editor because they don't know how WP:TVS edits articles and infoboxes, and not explaining anything. Once again, read the warnings listed above the edit box about what is appropriate to post on ANI. This certainly doesn't meet that. Learn to use user talk pages before wandering into WP: space.

Midwestman1986, we usually only list the major cities served that are part of a metro area's official name in the infobox from an official source, rather than suburbs that may be unfamiliar to a reader just coming in. I know there are definitely cases where...let's say Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, or Bloomington, Minnesota both have considerable populations in the Twin Cities. But we only usually list Minneapolis and St. Paul because a basic reader will know those are definitely the major cities in the Twin Cities. Here, yes, Overland Park is about a quarter larger in population than KCK, but it's mainly a suburb only known within the Kansas City area. People are more familiar with KCK and KCMO than they are Overland Park, which isn't really written about beyond the basic suburban sense as a suburb of the Kansas Cities. I know it's definitely a very annoying Rodney Dangerfield/"no respect" issue for Overland Park or Fairway, but in these articles, we can't overload an infobox with all of the largest cities a station serves or their studio location (which is best left in the lede, or top paragraph of the article), we have to list what's officially named to define a metro area, with the only leeway otherwise given for a city of license like KMCI's Lawrence, Kansas. I hope this explains a bit why the infoboxes and ledes are written the way they are, and I apologize if your introduction to editing wasn't positive. Nate • (chatter) 03:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, but Kansas City is different than any other city. Overland Park has almost 2 times as much population density and more business density than Kansas City, Missouri and more than Kansas City, Kansas. The most densely populated county is Johnson County, Kansas which has 600,000 people, which is more than Kansas City, Missouri and contains neither KCK nor KCMO but is still considered “Kansas City”. It’s all connected and indistinguishable unless you know on what streets city borders are. I really think you should make it Kansas City metropolitan area as most of the wealth and almost half the population is in Kansas. And so are the stations phone numbers, offices and boardcasting studio. Basically everything but liscnesing.

• Result: User:Midwestman1986 was blocked by User:Berean Hunter for abusing multiple accounts per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Midwestman1986. This complaint was originally at WP:ANI but it got moved here by the filer. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

References

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:195.32.87.171 reported by User:INeedSupport (Result: Blocked)

Page

Evanescence discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878049904 by Ss112 (talk) In the past, streaming did not exist, so SNEP = Lescharts.com"
   2. 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878049859 by Ss112 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878048282 by Ss112 (talk)"
   2. 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878048025 by Ss112 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878044891 by Ss112 (talk)"
   2. 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878044603 by Ss112 (talk) SNEP chart is sales+streaming. Lescharts.com is sales only."
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 875216631 by 2804:14C:5F80:9C19:F8CC:28C6:407E:4AF6 (talk)"
   2. 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 875216308 by 2804:14C:5F80:9C19:F8CC:28C6:407E:4AF6 (talk)"
   3. 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 856041657 by Ss112 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
2. 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Warning made by @Ss112: before my warning.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Content Dispute */ new section"

Comments:

I don't think this IP editor is going to see reason nor engage in discussion. They didn't heed the warnings I issued before INeedSupport, nor what I said in my notes to the article. I reported them at WP:ANV as it was becoming purely disruptive (and my several reverts did nothing to curb their behaviour), and I also noted at WP:RFPP that I'm quite sure I've seen this user both on Evanescence discography before and other Evanescence articles, where they have also extensively reverted in the belief that they are always right. There's really just no getting through to disruptive editors. Ss112 18:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours (as a result of an AIV report). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Result: decline)

Page: Friendship paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Current talk about article cleanup: linkcurrent version where David Eppstein is missing in action.

Comments:
User David Eppstein keeps reverting the entire cleanup of the article because they doesn't like a few lines of prose. Will not discuss it on the talk page, doesn't want to fix problems themselves, keeps reverting leaving messages in the edit summary diffdiffdiff. Has not bothered to participated in talk about cleanup problems noted by another editor link and just keeps reverting the entire cleanup including edits unrelated to what ever is bugging them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• The OP has repeatedly added completely unreadable text to the article and was rightly reverted each time. EEng 02:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, "will not discuss...has not bothered to participate in talk" is (deliberately?) misleading. I have provided clear edit summaries, have discussed these edits on my own talk page, and have participated in multiple past discussions on the article talk page in which Fountains of Bryn Mawr attempted to remove the same material that their present edits are mangling and minimizing, and in which multiple other editors objected to FoBW's opinions. Note also that FoBW escalated the same edits to this board and to WP:NOR/N simultaneously, a clear case of forum shopping. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I also just discovered that, in the process of complaining on my talk page about the same issues, Fountains of Bryn Mawr reverted to a significantly older version of the talk page, undoing both my archiving of old discussions and several recent additions by other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Just some points: This board is not a forum, its for reporting specific instances of edit warring, so not "forum shopping". DE talk page error was explained. Several points of agreement were reached (as in they were not challenged) at Talk:Friendship paradox including Z/J is "an application", "need a "third-party" source", (Note: David Eppstein added 3 third-party sources confirming Z/J is Illusory superiority), "The lead doesn't fit the article/ suggests an alternative conclusion" --- leading to my edit to move all applications off to "Applications" and summarizing in the lead. DE is saying "I participated in talk but I didn't intend it to reach a conclusion I didn't want"? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

What? EEng 16:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• David Eppstein has performed three reverts within 24 hours but has not exceeded 3RR. He is also participating in discussion on talk pages. This report is declined. Fountains of Bryn Mawr: the advice given to you was sound. "Try breaking your changes into smaller less controversial pieces." Then it would not be necessary for editors to revert all of your changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Leitmotiv reported by User:Basilosauridae (Result: Warned)

Page: Pikmin 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leitmotiv (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877126739
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877141828
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877144909
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pikmin_2#Underground_Cave

Comments:
Continual edit warring from Leitmotiv. Has been told multiple times over multiple months to reach consensus and not just reassert their edit. This reporting template is a little confusing, sorry if there are any errors. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm within the 3RR. Also a reminder to Basilosauridae, that not following her own advice and blind reverting is also edit warring. I can't edit war with myself. You are also an implied party. The difference between my edits and yours, is that I supplied new evidence for my new edits (which was a suggestion from the previous thread last year), which you seem to summarily disregard. I'm simply following Wikipedia's WP:BOLD policy, for which there does not need to be a consensus previously reached. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't provide new evidence. Saying you reviewed it is not presenting evidence. Your WP:BOLD argument has already been addressed on the talk page. If you think you have evidence to support your edit, present it on the talk page for evaluation. You know that there is a talk page discussion where multiple people objected to your edit, but you are choosing to ignore that discussion and make your edit. This is edit warring. Your edit was made three times despite reverts and requests to discuss on talk page, to my understanding that violates 3RR. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I did. Clearly you didn't see it in the talk page and not doing your due diligence that you require of me. Can't have it one way. As for my bold argument, I won that one by the way, so it was addressed in my favor since no one had a rebuttal nor provided any new insight to Wikipedia's own policies. The only one ignoring anything, appears to be you. This latest comment by you is evidence of that suggesting I should post evidence in the talk page, when I have already done so. Ouch... you're failing hard. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Per Bradv's own comments "be bold, revert, discuss" is exactly what I did, and you did not. You are the implied edit warring person here that goes beyond my edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to direct me to where those things happened, because I don't see where any of that occurred and view your statements here as a misrepresentation of events. In the absence of that, I will wait for admin to evaluate and respond. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to read my comment on my own supplied evidence, clearly you are not up to the task of reviewing anything I supply. I've read the entire discussion prior to my edits, and you should have as well. You've pretty much disregarded everything and flushed the due diligence required of you. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking you to summarize your evidence or at least point out to me where it is. Not sure why this is egregious to you. If you think you're right, provide the evidence. Saying you reviewed something and have reached the conclusion that it is how you say it is isn't evidence. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It's egregrious because you require that of me, but you can't bring yourself to do it. I've supplied exactly what you've demanded and you continue to blind revert. Read the article in question's talk page and you'll finally be up to speed. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

lol ok. This isn’t how a discussion works. I have read the page and don’t see anything that constitutes as your evidence. I won’t engage with you further as you have expressed an unwillingness to have a constructive discussion. Will wait for admin comment. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You're only laughing at yourself. Also for the admin involved, here is the evidence I supplied in the talk page. This is not intended to help Basilosauridae, but the admin reviewing this case. Basilosauridae should have identified this long ago. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

as you can see, nobody agreed that what you are referring to was a valid reason to make your edit, so you’re just providing proof that you are edit warring without reaching consensus. I thought you meant new, undisputed evidence. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to reach consensus for new evidence (and yes I'm claiming new, undisputed evidence as contrasted with Tantamount's original revert - are you sure you're reading the talk page? Certainly not responding to it). I'm acting on Bold policies as stated before. You are going in circles now. The only person not discussing in the talk page is you, which you clearly have demonstrated an interest in doing so, but have refrained from. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

you don’t have new evidence, you linked to evidence that was already discussed and disregarded by everyone else in the discussion as an invalid reason. I’m clearly on the talk page then and on the talk page now, I don’t think misrepresenting events that are clearly viewable by everyone here will help you in any way. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No one supplied evidence like I did in the original conversation last year - but I have done it today. And you claiming you are a part of a new discussion, regarding new evidence, is a bold faced lie. The last time you talked in there regarding the actual dispute was half a year ago. You're not actively following your own advice today. Posting about edit warring is not participation in the discussion at hand, no matter what delusions you want to believe. You're the one misrepresenting your current participation on the matter. All you've done is blind revert and discuss edit warring. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed I was in a new discussion about new evidence; I am in a new discussion requesting you to present your "new" evidence, which you have not done. You have just rehashed old, already disputed evidence. The conversation took place half a year ago, so your critique on that is invalid; your actions today resurrected that discussion. I asked you to discuss today's edit on the talk page. Burden is on you to post your "new" evidence on the talk page, as you are aware that editors don't agree with your edit. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh it was implied. Don't fool yourself. Discussions are on talk pages, not in blind reverts by yourself. You haven't been actively participating per your own advice. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Summary of the scenario that lead us here today:

• 1. I find evidence of the type of cave in the Dream Den portion of the game in a video. I make an edit based on that - no I did not supply the source of my edit in the notation, though I should have.
• 2. Blind revert by Basil citing need to discuss on talk page first (this goes against WP:BOLD)
• 3. I put my findings on the talk page with a link to the video that is behind my edits (something that is missed by Basil until later; only after she reads it does she misrepresent my post and say it's nothing new, but it is entirely new to the previous discussion from a year ago in which NO evidence was supplied)
• 4. I revert based on my participation on the talk page and revert per WP:BOLD because of her blind revert.
• 5. Basil blind reverts stating something about "my reasoning doesn't negate the need for consensus" which is flies in the face of WP:BOLD
• 6. I revert because I have taken it to the talk page and she isn't discussing it there like I am. As of this post, she has not shown a willingness to engage on the talk page. A discussion about edit warring is not at all related to the edits about the cave being underground. That is not participation, that is avoidance.

Final remark for now: The original edits 6 months ago all hinged on Tantamounts perception that this particular cave in the game needed to be distinguished as "underground" because in his words "they may be in hills [too]". After reviewing the video, the cave is not in a hill, therefore Tantamounts' original post is no longer valid, because it is indeed in the ground, therefore a need to distinguish the cave from other types, is no longer a valid argument. In the discussion there was emphasis on needing to distinguish the type of cave - I posted that evidence today. It's a cave - caves are in the ground. "Underground cave" is redundant no matter how you slice it. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your summary is not accurate, but obviously there is a record of everything that has occurred. To say today that you have new evidence that your edit is correct, and then to state above that your new evidence is the same that has already been disputed and state that it was "entirely new to the previous conversation" somehow makes it new evidence today is absurd. The bottom line to this issue is that you failed to reach consensus on this exact issue in the summer, and are attempting to assert it again without discussion. As you have already been told, WP:BOLD doesn't state that you get to add whatever you want without consensus or discussion. Your bold edit is being contested. Deal with it in the appropriate manner, which is to discuss or open an RfC. To say you brought this edit to the talk page today is absolutely inaccurate, as clearly I started the conversation today after you began edit warring. Again, because you knew that this same edit was contested in the summer and consensus was that your edit was not appropriate, the burden is on you to present an argument for your edits today and attempt to reach a consensus when the edit is contested by another editor. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh it's new evidence. No one in the previous discussion even thought about looking at what the cave looked like in the game. Only I did that today. It's new whether you like it or not. I've done all that you stated here, and more than you since you haven't discussed it on the talk page. Your claim that you "started the conversation today" is patently false. There is no record of you discussing anything yet - sorry edit warring doesn't count. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Leitmotiv is warned for long term edit warring at Pikmin 2. They have removed the word 'underground' a total of seven times since June, against the opposition of other editors. They are risking a block the next time they revert unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston You do see that the edit is not just blindly redoing what was done 6 months ago? I found new evidence to support my edit (posted it) and am following WP:Bold. Why is consensus needed when evidence has been supplied and I'm following wiki policy? Leitmotiv (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, [103] less than two days later. czar 01:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Less than two days later I also edited the proper way which you are overlooking Czar, and by omission, misrepresenting the entirety of my actions. Underwurlde was a case of Czar blinding reverting, stating an insincere case for a need in distinguishing; implying the cave ascends/descends somewhere above ground. After reviewing evidence of the game map, it was established that the cave does not do what he claimed, so I reverted feeling his claim was insincere, also hoping that my supplied evidence would make him "see the light" (sometimes you need a light when you're stuck in a Platonic cave). He reverted again (breadking BRD), and I did not revert again and took it to the talk page. As you can see on the page List of show caves in Germany, my edits were outright rebuffed, and in my opinion it was a sincere edit, so I didn't instantly revert, I took it to the talk page. I think I may be somewhat confused as a veteran editor of 10 years. My personal experience has been to edit, revert if their revert was in error or lack sufficient data to back up their claim and basically operating on 3RR. Somewhere in the past year or two, it seems that this procedure is no longer valid, but BRD has leapfrogged to the front. In that case, I stand corrected and informed and I'm not sure why 3RR is even a thing anymore, especially if you see my reverts were trying to do the right thing by supplying evidence and not intentionally trying to be disruptive. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

If you revert after someone has reverted your bold edit and before a clear consensus has been established via discussion, you're no longer on the BRD pathway, and you broke BRD. If the person reverts you again, they've also broke BRD. And both of you are clearly edit warring. These have always been the case. If someone starts a discussion and they are mistaken, the best solution is generally to politely explain why they appear to be wrong and give time for them to reply. This is far more likely to win over an, editor, and the community at large, then getting into an edit war. It's even worse if you fail to assume good faith and instead think the editor is insincere simply because they may have misunderstood something or made a mistake. Again none of this is new, it's been that way for at least 10 years. This doesn't meant it's completely unacceptable and always blockable to make a second revert. In fact, in a few limited cases especially where significant BLP concerns arise it may even been preferable. But it's also never been part of BRD nor the generally recommended behaviour. As people like to say, it's BRD. Not BRRRRRRD nor BRDRDRD. Nil Einne (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify I'm not saying you're right about the other editor being wrong. I'm simply saying even if they are wrong, it's far better to AGF about it rather than to decide they are being insincere. Obviously if you are wrong or it's debatable, things are even worse for you. Hence why it's far better to discuss then edit war.. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne Thanks for the thoughtful response. Any thoughts on why 3RR still exists when it seems BRD is the way to go? They don't seem to be in harmony with each other. Czar basically said that my 10 years here on Wikipedia should have instructed me, but honestly it hasn't. It may be 10 years, but it's not a billion edits like some folks. In the past when I got into mucky waters, the warnings were always 3RR. I cannot even recall when, or even if, BRD was brought up... crap, maybe I'm getting old. But that's really how I remember it. Either way this has been instructive. Leitmotiv (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2401:4900:30CB:CCCA:F224:8AC9:7BC7:C9C4 reported by User:കാവിന്പുറം (Result: Blocked)

Page: Razorpay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2401:4900:30CB:CCCA:F224:8AC9:7BC7:C9C4 (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.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878342110
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878342553
3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878342736
4. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878342860
5. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/878342980

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2401:4900:30CB:CCCA:F224:8AC9:7BC7:C9C4

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

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2401:4900:30CB:CCCA:F224:8AC9:7BC7:C9C4

Comments:
Multiple edits on Page: Razorpay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by User:2401:4900:30CB:CCCA:F224:8AC9:7BC7:C9C4 in abusive language. User is repeating the behavior even after multiple warnings on User Talk page.

• Already blocked. Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Pharos reported by User:AndInFirstPlace (Result: No action )

Page: 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pharos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Seems like User: Pharos is really set against a helpful change on an important article. Hope there’s a way we can ensure he still gets a chance to edit Wikipedia but does so in a thoughtful way. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

Closed with no action as no evidence provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:69.131.230.248 reported by User:SounderBruce (Result: Semi)

Page

Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Options and political debate */Added content"
2. 02:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Options and political debate */Added context"
3. 01:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Options and political debate */Added context"
4. 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Options and political debate */Added context"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement tunnel. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content and no attempt at initiating discussion. SounderBruce 04:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected 3 weeks by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Vif12vf reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Blocked)

Page: Awami League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vif12vf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [] - an attempt to resolve the matter was made at User talk:Vif12vf#Instead of edit warring as an extension to the standard edit warring warning linked above.

Comments:

Vif12vf continues to revert an infobox to say that a political party's official abbreviation is BAL instead of AL (full disclosure: one of the four edits they have reverted was mine).

Vif12vf's explanation in edit summaries has been "Not for the full official name!" and "The abbreviation is for the full name, which according to their own website is the Bangladesh Awami League." The party's full official name is not in dispute, but it does not follow that the party's official abbreviation is the initialism of their full name (the official abbreviation for Republican Party (United States) being GOP is a counterexample). Vif12vf has been offered a scholarly source for the party being abbreviated AL, and has not provided a source for it being BAL, despite being asked for one on their talk page. Instead Vif12vf wrote there, "I have never seen anything claiming they acctually [sic] use an abbreviation at all!", which doesn't explain why they keep reverting to abbreviation BAL.

Their reverts have been spread over several days, so do not violate 3RR, but they are edit warring, are without foundation, and are disruptive. A short block would be in order to remind them to collaborate with other editors, follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and not revert simply because they think they're right. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It supprises me that this comes today and not yesterday. I dont believe i have made this kind of revert since then. While edit-warring is indeed bad, i dont think it is acceptable to enforce some kind of change when there is conflict. The IP's carrying out these changes are clearly not willing to discuss the matter, something i am more than willing to! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I also hope you will address this/these IP's as well considering this/these IP's havent done much in the way of justifying their edits, nor have tried to create discussion on the matter. Im not saying i dont have any guilt, just that assuming i alone are guilty for edit-warring in regards to the abbreviation in this article is wrong, something which is fairly obvious when you look at the IP/IP's editing without edit-explanation. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

accused user has long history of edit warring with several editors without merit and constantly violetting 3RR, removing sourced edits (shows the correct abbriviation used by all medias around the world) - is wiki became a hell or he must be banned for bangladesh related topic-Barind (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

"Long history of edit-warring", you havent exactly used much wording in edit-summaries that may be assumed as good faith. Besides, i recently came with a proposition to include about 2-4 of the sources you recently added as sources for the abbreviation, but moving them to the abbreviation-space in the infobox. 12 sources however is over-excessive! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. Long term warring to insist on the 'BAL' abbreviation for the Awami League, rather than AL. While insisting on their version, over several days Vif12vf has been reverted by about five different people. As a by-product of the edit war, the article is now over-stuffed with references that support the 'AL' abbreviation, which the editor still won't accept. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:WesleyFricks reported by User:Moxy (Result:Article protected and WesleyFricks warned )

Page

Ty Cobb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

A few edits have taken place since report filled Example

1. 14:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC) to 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 13:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878171973 by WilliamJE (talk)"
   2. 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878172347 by WesleyFricks (talk)"
   3. 13:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878174295 by WesleyFricks (talk)"
3. 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878128172 by WilliamJE (talk)"
4. 04:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878122589 by Ebyabe (talk)"
5. 04:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878081001 by Sangdeboeuf (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 17:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 17:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 17:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 17:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC) ""
7. 11:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "This is the official biography of Ty Cobb" this edit removed all information and added copyrighted material.
8. 10:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "This is the official biography of Ty Cobb " this edit removed all information and added copyrighted material.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• no one involved is talking

Note by filer

• as the filer I'm not involved in any way but would like to point out that this new editor has not received a welcome.... and in my view simply needs to be educated.--Moxy (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

WesleyFricks (talk · contribs) has reverted edits to Ty Cobb here[110], here[111], here[112], and here[113] in the last 24 hours....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Respondent's reply from Wesley Fricks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold Note:

As the entrustee of the Ty Cobb Legacy, I cannot allow inaccurate, degrading or non factual material that we consider inappropriate or damaging to his legacy to be actively made available for public view. Ty Cobb's official lifetime batting average recognized by Major League Baseball, Ty Cobb and Elias Sports Bureau, the official statistician for Major League Baseball, is in fact .367 and NOT .366. His lifetime total of hits is as it has always been at 4,191 and not 4,189.

SARB, or Society For American Baseball Research is in no capacity what-so-ever an entity of Major League Baseball and do NOT have the authority to change the rulings of officials of Major League Baseball. They brought their claim before the MLB's Official Records Committee on Saturday April 13, 1981 and their claim failed to meet the requirements necessary to convince MLB to change the records, but yet, they continue to present the inaccurate stats and records in a rogue and unauthorized capacity. We will not allow this assault on Ty Cobb's legacy - period! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyFricks (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and say WP:COI, as Mr. Fricks is the executive director of the Ty Cobb Museum in Georgia. @Moxy I think he's more than educated enough on the topic. [114] Highresheadphones (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh god... I ment educated in the wiki ways.--Moxy (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Article protected and User:WesleyFricks warned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Unitedphoenix reported by User:Shoy (Result:Blocked account for 72 hours )

Page

Rajmohan Pillai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878391474 by Shoy (talk)"
2. 15:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878388949 by Shoy (talk)"
3. 15:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878387649 by Phil Bridger (talk)"
4. 15:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878361205 by Dorsetonian (talk) - enough citation available. Only facts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit war */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring to include overly WP:NPOV/promotional language. No attempt to engage on article talk or user talk page. shoy (reactions) 16:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring. May also need a SPI together with User:Geethusivakumar1995. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:37.152.231.125 reported by User:Doc James (Result: Semi)

Page: Streptomycin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.152.231.125 (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. [115]
2. [116]
3. [117]
4. [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:
Dishonest report: the user has reported my initial edit as a revert, which it clearly was not. Meanwhile here are their reverts on two different articles:37.152.231.125 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re%27s_disease&diff=878188768&oldid=878157428
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re%27s_disease&diff=878190521&oldid=878189761
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M%C3%A9ni%C3%A8re%27s_disease&diff=878190996&oldid=878190701
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streptomycin&diff=878104289&oldid=878098847
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streptomycin&diff=878187688&oldid=878148831
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streptomycin&diff=878190542&oldid=878189731

The first change counts. Otherwise one could edit war any new text they want into an article with the claim that the first change does not count. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. With my first edit, what previous edit did I negate the effect of? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James in regards to Streptomycin article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

This page is about edit warring. Comments about the article content are not relevant or useful here. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

no the comments Im referring to are the pattern of edits, consensus should be sought on the talk page, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Looking into the article history, I find that since December 2017, six previous editors have made the change that I made.[121][122][123][124][125][126] Every time, it has been reverted by one user, User:Doc James.[127][128][129][130][131][132] It's clear that User:Doc James is editing disruptively at this article and apparently feels that his opinion trumps all others. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

well I just reverted you[133] b/c I agree with a different editor(Doc James)?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you unhelpfully decided to revert against consensus without any discussion. What's your point? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

My edits are in fact supported by WP:MEDMOS

This is a perfect example of why the simplified wording is important[134][135] A few editors have used a term that was not a synonym. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Seven different people over the course of a year have all removed the execrable phrase "Common side effects include feeling like the world is spinning". As you reverted any attempt to replace it with the easily understood "vertigo", they tried something else. Your obstinate rejection of that alternative too does not in any way suggest that your preferred wording is best. Your repeated edit warring, refusal to listen to other people, and filing of this dishonest report, all suggest to me a very disruptive editor. 37.152.231.125 (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two weeks. The IP broke 3RR but the other party did not. Whether to gloss 'vertigo' with a description of a spinning world has been discussed before, for example at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 10#Not writing for patients or professionals. The argument for spelling it out is that a member of the public might associate 'vertigo' with fear of heights, which is not what the medical term refers to. If the issue is important, consider opening a WP:RFC either at Talk:Streptomycin or at WT:MEDMOS. Vertigo was previously discussed at Talk:Streptomycin#Vertigo in December 2017, a thread in which Doc James participated. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not break the 3RR. Why lie? And why specifically prevent me from editing the article while the disruptive editor is free to do as they please? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your edit at Streptomycin at 00:44 on 13 January shows you undoing a 'spinning world' change done by Doc James in July, 2018. Beginning with that one, I get a total of four reverts of that article on 13 January You have also made three reverts of the same thing on 13 January at Menière's disease. If you are unhappy with Doc James' effort to reduce the grade level of the ledes of medical articles, why not participate in discussions, or open an WP:RFC? EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

No, my first edit was not a revert. It was my first edit to the article and of course I did not check whether someone had made a similar edit six months ago. Again, why lie? And again, why take action specifically designed to harm me, and favour the person who thinks they own the article? 37.152.231.125 (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Aykhan Zayedzadeh reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Protected for 72 hours. Talk page needs to be used.)

Page: History of Alam Aray Abbasi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aykhan Zayedzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [136]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [137]
2. [138]
3. [139]
4. [140]
5. [141]
6. [142]
7. [143]
8. [144]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

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

Comments:

This user has made 8 reverts within few days and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page when i asked him to do so. He has been warned by another user for personal attacks months ago. Persistent edit warrior, refusing to dsicuss his changes. I would welcome an admin's eye here. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

1. The discussion for the page was finished, and ended in my favour. Black Kite can confirm. This user accuses me of not wanting to discuss my edits, while he's known for doing the same (he also labeled my discussion request as "troll edit"). Also, I've always insited on discussing my edits. Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 19:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't see how "the discussion was made" while the article's talk page is empty : Talk:History of Alam Aray Abbasi ... Also, you need to read WP:OWNTALK i think. You have been reverted on my talk page by user serial number for this reason too. Your above comment does not justify your edit warrior behaviour and refusal to discuss anyways.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay there is zero discussion here Talk:History_of_Alam_Aray_Abbasi? I have reverted the page to the last stable version and protected the article for 72 hours. You both need to use the talk page and determine what references support what version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine for me, cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:RhinoMind reported by User:Ewen Douglas (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [146]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [147]
2. [148]
3. [149]
4. [150]
5. [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments:
Attempts to remove unsourced original research were met with a straight revert with no discussion. Edit summaries included "no it's not" and when pointed out that "no it's not" is not a valid reason for reversion, next edit summary was "yes it is, because what you say is obviously wrong". I then attempted a compromise edit (here), which was also reverted with simply "stop edit warring". I feel attempts to compromise have failed, and User:RhinoMind also appears to have some WP:OWN issues, as he asked me on my talk page "what your background is in relation to the Jutland subject? Do you have any knowledge of the subject?" He also stated "You are being pretty annoying" after I simply was trying to remove original research for which I saw no source; I saw that as a personal attack. Ewen Douglas (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Reported user's comment

Whoever reads this report, please take some time to go through the actual edits on the Jutland page. And please notice the edit summaries. Thank you.

I don't want to escalate the wild accusations by the reporter, as this whole issue is already "way out there". I do have a need, however, to state that I feel hurt as an editor. RhinoMind (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The actual edits and edit summaries are exactly as I have stated they are. My attempt at a compromise was met with a straight revert again. That's why I came here. Ewen Douglas (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

User:RhinoMind seems to have broken WP:3RR and is risking a block. They might avoid this if they will agree to make no further edits until consensus is reached on the talk page. Please note that mentioning that someone is a living person does not give you license to revert unsourced content back into the article. The question was whether someone spoke with a particular accent, an item that needs a source. Other Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources ("You can read his wiki-article"), you need a reference. Per WP:V "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see that the Niels Hausgaard article lacks good proper refs, I recognise that. Do take note that the Talk on TalkPage was initiated by User:Ewen Douglas, AFTER all his deletions and unconstructive behaviour. I find this whole circus absurd and a waste of peoples time.

Anyway, I'll add all the sources needed in the article soon, no problem. They are not hard to find. RhinoMind (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even sure that WP:WEIGHT is being followed here, as in, I don't know that two musicians from the region are so hugely notable that they need to be mentioned on the main Jutland page. The Jutlandic dialect article seems like it would be a more appropriate place for the whole sentence. But this is a content point, better debated on the article talk page. Ewen Douglas (talk) 00:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It looks like the previous problems aren't continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sakura6977 reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Nizam of Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sakura6977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [154]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first attempt to delete unwanted content on 16 December 2018 and 17 December 2018
2. then attempting to water it down by adding cherry-picked evidence 27 December 2018
3. again on 29 December 2018
4. then again on 11 January 2019
5. finally today.
6. Another editor Crusader90 also helped him with a revert.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

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

Comments: The editor has edit-warred over certain well-sourced religious community discussion in the article for a long time. What makes today's revert egregious is that the editor has apparently read the talk page discussion and archived it. The time lag between the revert and the archiving event was 15 minutes!

The editor has also archived the edit-warring notice and the DS alert on his user talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. It looks like people disagree, but the talk page isn't being used effectively. Question 1: Which sources about the life of the last Nizam should be considered reliable? Question 2: How should we report on the various rumors as to his number of children? Question 3: What is the best way to summarize the Hindu vs. Muslim differences which affected the government? If necessary RfCs could be opened for these questions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Moylesy98 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4767 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moylesy98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moylesy98 is an editor who edits within the area of British steam railway locomotives. They have one-by-one exhausted the patience of all the other editors working in that field, with a series of edits that are usually relentlessly trivial trainspottering and show no regard whatsoever for most WP policies, such as WP:UNDUE or WP:V. They have been repeatedly reverted and admonished for this. Today they exhausted my patience too.

WP:REDLINK is there to encourage the growth of the encyclopedia. Double chimney is a redlink to an obviously WP:Notable topic for an article which we need, and which we might get if only the likely editors for it weren't wasting their time here. Today's edit-warring is to 4RR remove that redlink as "Removal of link to page that doesnt exist", including edits that do nothing but.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]
5. [161] Still at it, 13 January 2019
6. [162] same link, another article
7. [163] and again, once the block was lifted

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

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

• User talk:Andy_Dingley#4767 page link that doesnt exist
• User talk:Redrose64#Double chimney link on 4767 article

Comments:

• I was all up for blocking and then I noticed that you are both edit warring and this report is a blatant attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute. I suggest you with draw it before you're both blocked. Guy (Help!) 01:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This sort of nonsense, Guy (just one example), (Personal attack removed). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The edit summary may be found relevant [164]SovalValtos (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. There was a previous comment by User:JzG which we should take into account when closing, but Moylesy98 continued to remove the 'double chimney' link after JzG's comment and while the report was still open. A review of User talk:Moylesy98 shows warnings from four different people already in 2019. Moylesy98 should consider taking account of some of the feedback they have been getting. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

[165] Clearly no change. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Yellow Man 1000 reported by User:TJRC (Result: Warned)

Page

Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Yellow Man 1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878563105 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Already)"
2. 15:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878498778 by Moxy (talk) Was reverted action vs Wikipedia (user removed relevant info). He did it discreetly. Instead of clicking UNDO, he did otherwise. If this will be repeated, the trouble will be subject of attention of administrators or even Jimmy Wales. I got advice."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John Lennon. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user's talk page has two additional warnings on edit-warring in the last several weeks, on this page and on John Lennon; one from me and one from another editor; a total of four warnings. His response has been to blank the page.

See lengthy discussion on Talk:John Lennon ("Right of Kolya Vasin for tribute"). TJRC (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Yellow Man 1000 is warned they may be blocked if they again restore the claim that Vladimir Putin is a Beatles fan unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Manboobies (Result: No violation)

Page: On the Jewish Question (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&oldid=878645237 (this is my version initially that he reverted).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878645471&oldid=878645237

After he first reverted my changes and demanded I go through each one of them and justify them to him one by one, I listened to feedback from another editor and removed “citation needed”s from the intro that I added (and uncited text not justified in the body). He then reverted this version made based on feedback:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878650309&oldid=878647424

Because he said he didn’t understand it. It’s surely not my onus to explain Marxism and citations to him?

He suggested I was refusing to discuss this with him. I simply said it was not in fact policy that I had to justify every single one of my edits to him. He then reverted me again:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878650892&oldid=878650654

In response I posted a summary of my changes to the article with him, however I think it’s totally unacceptable for him to Gaslight me suggesting that I’m refusing to cooperate with things that aren’t even policies and trying to force consensus when it’s only him that’s complaining. Since I’ve posted a summary of my changes he’s not even replied. I looked at his talk page and he brags of being known for being argumentative and unhelpful.--Manboobies (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABeyond_My_Ken&type=revision&diff=878655506&oldid=878114467

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOn_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878652605&oldid=878651258

Comments:

Please see my comments above. Additionally I find it very annoying to try and genuinely make Wikipedia better and more sourced, only for someone with a political agenda to revert out the changes and then go silent when I offer to discuss the changes. At any rate he has made 3 reverts with no differences and should be blocked. Manboobies (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Only two of those are reverts. Per WP:BRD, since you made the initial WP:BOLD edit, it was then up to you to start a discussion per the "R" in BRD once you were reverted by another user. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

1.

There are 3 reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878645471&oldid=878645237

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878650309&oldid=878647424

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=On_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878650892&oldid=878650654

2. BRD is not policy. I have however started a dialogue and he has gone silent. He is only looking to be beaurocratic and argumentative. He brags of it on his page. Manboobies (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Editor made extensive changes to article, [166] I reverted [167] because I felt that such extensive changes needed to be discussed, and opened a discussion on the talk page. [168] The editor partly reverted, [169] and, at first, refused to participate in the discussion. They also insisted that they had to approve of all changes. (See edit summary here) The editor then, under duress, posted a comment, but said that they would restore the edits in 1 day if a consensus wasn't reached. [170] I responded to this unreasonable and non-policy-based stance. [171]. At some point, the editor (who has recently returned from a two-year period of no edits whatsoever) filed this report.

In short, my actions were to

• (1) Revert edits that I disputed
• (2) Call for discussion
• (3) Open a discussion
• (4) Inform the editor on their talk page about the discussion [172]
• (5) Uphold WP:STATUSQUO

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Editor says he posted a comment, and I "went silent".

• He posted his comment from 23:00 to 23:07 [173]
• I did not edit between 22:56 and 23:43. [174]
• When I returned, I checked by watchlist, made one short edit, and then responded to their comment. [175]
• The editor seems to feel that things must be done on their timetable, and that they can set deadlines for other editors to come up with a consensus.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

How long I have been absent from editing is irrelevant. Despite an opportunity to discuss the issue, you still have not. Only now you are reported are you discussing properly. You have done 3 reverts and should be banned. You are creating drama and stopping me from improving a terrible, unsourced article. Frankly you make no decent contributions and seem to make reverting others your day job. I looked at your contributions. Do you even work?Manboobies (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:NPA sometime, you might find it interesting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

“They also insisted that they' had to approve of all changes. (See edit summary)”

That’s not true. I said “Please discuss with me before making significant changes based on a lack of understanding”

That doesn’t say I have to approve. It says please discuss with me. Please don’t gaslight. It’s quite clear you’re looking to wind me up and then get the upper hand to manipulate the situation, rather than improve the article. I have been editing that article for years and I am the only reason it has references like it does.Manboobies (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

as for your comments about forcing things on my timetable - are you suggested we wait weeks on a unpopular, poorly written article, for a few people to post things? There’s nothing stopping anyone editing the article to improve or add more. You are stopping me making improvements - quotations, improving the body of the article to make it clear it lacks citations. Pulling technical publishing history down so it doesn’t obscure anti Semitic criticism of Marx. Or is that the issue? Do you have a problem with criticism of anti Semitism? Manboobies (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"Or is that the issue? Do you have a problem with criticism of anti Semitism?" Real subtle, and boy, are you barking up the wrong tree, friend. In fact, you;re not even in the right forest. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If a consensus takes weeks, then, yes, we wait for weeks. There is nothing I can see in your edits that requires immmediate changing. The article has been in the state it is in for quite a while, and the world has yet to end. There are no BLP or COPYVIO issue. Please see WP:NODEADLINE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not how BRD works. And no, it is not optional, as people have been blocked for violating it. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I am going to hold off any further on commenting until an admin posts. He has broken the 3 revert rule, he is manipulating what I am saying, and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOn_the_Jewish_Question&type=revision&diff=878656233&oldid=878652605 he has made no attempt to discuss the changes I have made, only arguing with timetabling. I’m not surprised close friends including admins left Wikipedia if this is what is happening. It’s actially crazy. Furthermore he suggested I deleted sourced information which is a bold faced lie. I’ve only deleted conclusions made from source material. We’re not here to interpret sources, Wikipedia is not an essay.Manboobies (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

My gosh, everything has to be done immediately for you. As a matter of fact, I was writing and posting a comment while you were writng and posting the comment above. [176] Chill out, please. If your edits are improvements, they'll get into the article, don't worry, although it may not happen as quickly as you'd like. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

"We’re not here to interpret sources, Wikipedia is not an essay." Yes, that's absolutely correct, we don't interpret sources, analyze and give opinions, but if subject experts do, and their work is published in reliable sources, then we absolutely do include their opinions, analyses and interpretations in the article. We are not subject experts, and neither are the vast majority of our readers, do the views of real subject experts is vital in understanding a subject. Replacing the work of experts with long passages from the subject of the article is not an improvement to the article, it actually decreases its usefulness to our readers, who, if they want to, can find the entire text for free online. What they need is more than that, and removing expert opinions will not help them to find it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No violation – It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:154.119.79.254 reported by User:SummerPhDv2.0 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gangs in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Added sources. I placed a source last time or can't you look. Again why is Big Circle Gang in the see also contents?. WP:3RR warning on IP's talk page SummerPhDv2.0s page."
2. 03:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Added a source. SummerPhDv2.0 you did an undo and you leave ol' Big Circle Gang in the see also content of the page. Helping? I don't think you are."
3. 03:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Redo, don't need a source for this."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on People Nation. (TW)"
2. 03:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gangs in the United States. (TW)"
3. 05:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gangs in Australia. (TW)"
4. 22:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Issues regarding your edits */ new section"
5. 22:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "ow, including recent 3RR warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 months Bbb23 blocked 154.x for proxying and disruption. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tantan08 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Pinoy Big Brother: Otso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tantan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. 01:51, January 12, 2019 - Stable version of the article

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:59, January 13, 2019
2. 17:19, January 14, 2019
3. 07:05, January 15, 2019

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

1. 21:58, January 11, 2019 User issued a Level 3 warning by Oenix2nd
2. 08:54, January 13, 2019 User issued a Level 4 (last warning) by myself

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

1. See "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" of previous report over same issue
2. 08:54, January 13, 2019 - In my last warning I specifically ask the editor to stop the behavior in question and discuss it on the talk page.

Comments:

• After Tantan08 came off their 24 hour block the user resumed the same edit behavior that lead to the ban in the first place. I linked the previous report in the section above instead of reposting the many times the user was asked to discuss disputed edits on the article talk page. This is clear edit warring and disruptive editing especially when the user removes sources and other editors even IPs are restoring them. It doesn't seem like the user's behavior is going to change. They will keep reverting the changes back to what they think the article should look like, remove all valid sources and keep adding fake sources (from www.abscbn.tv that pose a security risk. (When I clicked on a link from this domain it tried to install a browser hijacker posing as a security checker.) Despite various times asking the user to go to the talk page of the article the user doesn't do so. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 days. Long term pattern of edit warring on the same article which continued after a previous block on 9 January. The user has over 200 edits of this article and seems to have no other interests on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:WikiInspector42 reported by User:Lasunncty (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of countries and dependencies by area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiInspector42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [178]
2. [179] (This one reverted an edit from 29 Dec.)
3. [180]
4. [181]
5. [182]
6. [183]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [185]

Comments:

Not all of WikiInspector42's edits have been disruptive, but most within the last few days have been. I was not involved in the discussion or warning process, but I didn't feel it was necessary to repeat what other users had already done in that regard. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I first became aware of WikiInspector42's edit-warring at List of countries and dependencies by area after he made a rather peculiar edit at Australia. My understanding is that he had made a number of edits, including addition of the content that prompted this report, and some of his edits were opposed by Subtropical-man who was subsequently and inappropriately referred to as a vandal by WikiInspector42, something for which I had to warn him. Before I arrived though, Escape Orbit warned both editors on the talk page about edit-warring. While Subtropical-man stepped away, WikiInspector42 continued edit warring, twice since reverting Lasunncty's edits without discussion. At Australia, he replaced the infobox image showing Australia and the Australian Antarctic Territory (AAT) with the edit summary "not serious claim", which was a rather silly thing to say given that Australia's claim to the AAT is obviously quite genuine. When his change was reverted he simply reverted that without any attempt at justification, instead simply claiming "unjustified".[186] When he was again reverted, he reverted again and tried to argue on the talk page that he didn't need to discuss the edit. I left a second-edit warring warning on his talk page, which I later expanded. While WikiInspector42 hasn't breached 3RR at either page, he has been edit-warring despite warnings and my advice about how to act when edits are contested. I don't think he gets the point, or doesn't want to. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• This user does not respect the rules and guelines of the Wikipedia. If he thinks something and if he wants something, the whole Wikipedia must to adapt. For him, there is no discussion or consensus. He used several personal attacks lately. He is still conducting editing wars in many articles. He removed templates like {disputed} or {fact} from articles (without improving problems or consensus). He inserted lying content into articles, including inserted contents without sources. The warnings on the user talk page does not help (also as "last warning"). Unreformable user. As I see the actions of this new user, I have the impression that the account was created for edit-warring. I recommend blocking for a longer period of time or indefinite. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. Long term pattern of edit warring at List of countries and dependencies by area. If the testimony above is accurate, the user doesn't have much interest in negotiation. Perhaps User:WikiInspector42 could have said something in his own defence but he has not chosen to respond to this complaint. Recently he has twice removed a POV template from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Number 57 reported by User:Lmmnhn (Result: Filer warned)

Page: 2016 Taiwan general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [188] [189] [190]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [191]

Comments: He has been reverting the "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" in election pages from 1978 all the way to 2020 (for example 2016 Taiwan general election in which he has already violated the Wikipedia:Three revert rule). The official name of the government that administrates NOT only Taiwan but also Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu is called the Republic of China and the president of that government is called the President of the Republic of China. When swearing in to office, the President swears in as the President of the Republic of China not the President of Taiwan. Reverting without discussion with several threats to block me (see user talk:lmmnhn) is intimidating and unacceptable. The wikipedia does not belong to one user or one perspective. I hereby request the temporary block of the mentioned user. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly I haven't violated 3RR as I've only reverted three times. And that reverting was of POV/disruptive edits by Lmmnhn, who has attempted to change "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" on several election articles, despite the community deeming Taiwan to be the appropriate title for the country and election articles (see latest discussion specifically on election articles here). Unfortunately they continued to revert on a couple of articles after being warned,[192] although they seem to have stopped after a second warning.[193] If any actions is required here, it's probably a WP:BOOMERANG. Number 57 12:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

As for as I concern, I was not been included the mentioned "community" which included no more than 12 users in the discussion to address my point of view and the so called "consensus". Second of all, I have not changed the titles of the those article as I am well aware of the Taiwan is more common to describe the country and it can be justified as the "presidential elections in Taiwan". I was merely changing the header of the election infobox as to the "Republic of China presidential elections", which is a factual and official title of the election. That has not violated the "consensus" of the so-called "community". Please refer to the Chinese wikipedia, which they uses the "Republic of China" to address the presidential election titles but not "Taiwan". Lmmnhn (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The infobox heading is supposed to match the article title, so changing it is disruptive. And this is not Chinese Wikipedia, so any consensus there does not apply here. Number 57 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, How many users were involved in the so-called "consensus" of the so-called community you hold so tight on again? Why should a consensus with such a small number of users participated with insufficient discussion involved and with controversies remaining be held as the absolute policy and cannot be questioned? Secondly, what kind of "consensus" suggest that the infobox heading is supposed to match the article title? Thirdly, how is an official name of that country inappropriate to mentioned in the article's infobox? Fourthly, how is an edit to the name "Taiwan", not the official name but rather a POV pushed by the supporters for the Taiwan independence not a POV/disruptive edit while a edit to the "Republic of China" the legal and official name is only considered to be POV/disruptive? The Chinese wikipedia is a good reference to show certain users here that not only one kind of perspective is there while the others is necessarily to be seen as disruptive. Lmmnhn (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many users participated; the discussion was closed with a certain outcome and you have to respect it. If you have a problem with the outcome, you're expected to start a new discussion. The fact that you're claiming Taiwan is "a POV pushed by the supporters for the Taiwan independence" suggests you might have a problem with recognising WP:NPOV. The last move discussion on Taiwan → Republic of China was unanimously rejected by all participating editors. Number 57 14:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact you don't directly respond to my question show how you are not willing to participate in the discussion. Firstly, the "consensus" only agrees that the TITLE of the articles involving with the elections conducted in the Republic of China after 1971 were to change to Taiwan, in which I have a problem with but not intend to challenge it right now. However somehow it was changed to even in the articles before 1971, which has no respect to the "consensus" you hold so tight on. Secondly, you are not able to tell what kind of "consensus" you are based on with the argument that the infobox has to be consistent with the title. Look at Taiwan, where the name of the title is "Taiwan" but the name of the infobox is "Republic of China" as it is the legal and official name of the country. I do not see why the same rationale cannot be apply to the election articles and the title "Republic of China" has to be eliminated in every possibility, even if it is the official name of the respected election. Referencing the "Taiwanese independence" example is just to show you how you are biased on favouring one perspective over another by labelling the other as "POV/disruptive" when both perspectives have certain POV. Lmmnhn (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: The filer of this complaint, User:Lmmnhn, is warned for warring against the outcome of an RFC about Taiwanese elections. If you read that RfC carefully, you'll notice that it applies to all elections on the island since 1949, not 1971 as you have argued above. If you think it's likely that consensus has changed recently, you could open a new RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I object your decision. The outcome of the RfC is the titles of the election articles, which I did not attempt to change, not the infobox of the election. Same with the Taiwan article in which the infobox is titled "Republic of China". As I did not violate the the so-called "consensus" of the mentioned RfC, on what ground am I to be warned? If you read the content of the discussion more carefully, you would see that the remarks by User:RGloucester on the 1971 question as I quote in the following – "I assume you are not aware of the history of the RoC, but until 1971, the RoC was considered to be the only legitimate government of the entirety of China by the UN and most of the international community, and indeed, those elections were for 'the entirety of China' according to international law as it stood at the time." The issue however was not resolved in the RfC but I do believe it is worthy of re-exploring. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: Unfortunately Lmmnhn has started being disruptive on this topic again. After creating some new articles on Taiwanese elections by splitting existing ones, they used "Republic of China" to the infobox title,[194][195][196][197] then reverted it back in when this was changed to Taiwan.[198][199][200][201] Given they are also failing to respect WP:BRD with respect to the split (see this article history), some action against them would be appreciated. Cheers, Number 57 10:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I've left a further message at User talk:Lmmnhn since I believe this editor's time is running out. Mass conversion of 'Taiwan' to 'Republic of China' isn't going to be accepted, and the creation of the new articles looks abusive (trying to circumvent the RFC decision). It looks like he is making over 100 edits a day to reorganize the Taiwan election articles, using a method that is lacking in any obvious consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: my understanding the "consensus" of the article is to keep the title of articles of the elections held in Taiwan "Taiwan" but no the "Republic of China", on which I have never intended to step over. The changes I have been making merely to change the title of the election infobox from "Taiwan" to "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the official name of the respected country (See the inaugural address of the President Tsai Ing-wen on May 20, 2016 [202]) Not only did User:Number 57 disruptive reverted the title of the election infobox in which no consensus has agreed upon but also erase the term "Republic of China" from the article by removing it from the lead section, keep reverting on my edits, and then requesting me blocked when I have been making comprehensive edits and improvements on the Taiwan election articles. However, such intimidating behaviour has not yet been addressed by far. Lmmnhn (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• @EdJohnston: @Number 57: @Lmmnhn: the disruptive edits have now moved on to the bolding of winners in Taiwan election articles. Consensus was established at Template_talk:Infobox_election/Archive_4#Bolding_of_winners not to bold the winners, and the changes to those articles were reverted and a discussion started at User_talk:Lmmnhn#Bolding_issue. Despite this, the user has twice reinstated the bold text, most recently this morning after I reverted them and placed a warning on the user's talk page. It seems like the message and the above warning that the user must seek consensus rather than edit war their version is still not getting through. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately Lmmnhn simply seems to be incapable of understanding the need to get consensus for their edits and will plough ahead regardless of how many warnings or requests to stop and seek consensus that they receive. I think a block is probably the only solution now. Number 57 10:16, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any conclusion in the above discussion with no voting involved. Not any discussion without conclusion is to a "consensus" as one would claim and the "not-bolding" "consensus" clearly is not the general practice on wikipedia. Lmmnhn (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't see such a conclusion, but a majority of those discussing the matter opposed bolding, and furthermore the evidence was presented that bolding was not at the time the status quo. Either way, if you disagree with something the resolution is to go to the affected project and talk pages and seek consensus for your point of view, not to keep reimposing it against local consensus by edit warring.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:JesseRafe reported by User:Rbrenton (Result: Filer warned)

Page: Dime Community Bank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JesseRafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [203]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [204]
2. [205]
3. [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]

Comments:

I have made every attempt to resolve this without escalating it, but the user has a strong history of edit warring, documented on their talk page. They have broken the COI edit request process for me, by continuing to revert edits by other editors. The last official response to my COI edit request was to report this behavior here. Further, after breaking the COI edit request process by edit warring, the user opened a COI report here. Again, I ask you to look at this user's history of edit warring, and the simple logic of the change we have been trying to make; I think the reverted edits are simply excessive and lack any attempt at collaborative effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbrenton (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is exhausting. I've written a novella on this issue on 4 talk pages now and am being drawn into a 5th. This user is wantonly violating the COI edit request process. It's been discussed what needs to be done again and again. User also has a tenuous grasp on the reality of the facts and is constantly lying about plain meanings of words and what they've been doing. It's exhausting. I've kindly given them ample opportunity and advised them that 3RR has a specific meaning, and asked them to self-revert numerous times. This is absurd and waste of Wikipedia's resources. JesseRafe (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a waste of resources. Please permanently block this user for a long history of edit warring. There are numerous others complaining on this user's talk page. -Brenton (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's my summary of the situation:

• This matter was previously reported at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dime Community Bank
• User:Rbrenton has declared a personal COI at User talk:Rbrenton#Help me!, where he refers to Dime Community Bank as 'our client'
• Somebody who saw Rbrenton's request for help went ahead and performed a change at Dime Community Bank, removing mention of their insurance offerings.
• User:JesseRafe (a regular editor who has worked long term on that article) undid that change, believing that it went against the usual Wikipedia practices for structuring these bank articles
• Rbrenton then went ahead and started editing the Dime Community Bank article himself, in spite of his previous COI declaration. He got into an edit war with User:JesseRafe.

I hope Rbrenton will explain why he shouldn't be blocked for violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I promise not to make direct edits to Dime. Thanks for your time. -Brenton (talk) 12:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

EdJohnston, That's close enough to my recollection of the matter to not inspire me to quibble over a few details. As long as this user stays off my talk page, stays off the Dime page, and doesn't ping me, I'm fine. But I would not take seriously their promise above, as they have demonstrated a willingness to bend facts to suit their whims and have no regard for substance of Wikipedia policy as something other than buzzwords. To wit, the numerous times I told them 3RR doesn't mean what they think it means. JesseRafe (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: The filer, User:Rbrenton, is warned to observe our WP:COI rules. This includes abstaining from direct edits of Dime Community Bank. He made a statement above that he will stop doing direct edits. He should also refrain from personal attacks against User:JesseRafe (like 'seasoned bully'). For his part, JesseRafe could drop the 'constantly lying' bit that we see in his commenta above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:147.10.89.26 reported by User:Onetwothreeip (Result: Blocked)

Page

Australian Better Families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]
5. [213]
6. [214]
7. [215]
8. [216]
9. [217]
10. [218]
11. [219]
12. [220]
13. [221]
14. [222]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Onetwothreeip (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Already blocked – 31 hours by User:Dougweller. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

可愛い reported by User:Belbrabas (Result: Page protected)

Page: Viktor Prokopenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [223]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:19 December 13, 2018
2. 20:49 January 15, 2019
3. 09:12 January 16, 2019
4. 10:21 January 16, 2019
5. 15:03 January 16, 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224] [225]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [226] [227]

Comments:
This edit warring user seems to be connected to Viktor Prokopenya as he pro-Prokopenya, insists only on his POV, makes original research statements, and activates in WP on the dates when events happen connected to Prokopenya Belbrabas (talk • contribs) 11:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

User:可愛い is risking a block for long-term edit warring. The user reverted out the 'Multiple issues' template a total of four times, once on 13 December and then three more times in January. (Diffs 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the list above). The last of these removals was done while this report was open. One of the claims in the 'multiple issues' is that this is an autobiography. Such a cautionary template flags an article problem; it ought to be removed only per discussion or if there is no evidence for it. A review of the talk page does indeed show the possibility of insider editing or paid editing, and suggests a lack of frankness by the main editor. That editor, User:可愛い was queried in November by User:Drmies about the possibility of a COI but he denied it in in a post on 16 January. He stated in December 2018 on Talk:Viktor Prokopenya that he had made edits to 40 biographies. What account do you suppose he was using for these articles?

We should also consider the possibility of sockpuppetry. An SPI was filed recently against 可愛い but declined without prejudice to refiling. The person who opened this AN3 report and filed the SPI, User:Belbrabas, has surprisingly few edits. If Belbrabas was previously active as an IP on the Viktor Prokopenya page, this would be a good time to make that known. (It can be done discreetly if desired). When one person with no track record reports another person with a similar level of activity, a sock charge is not always very credible. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I edited as IP in the article, no edits were done under another account. If someone wishes details on IP, please let me know how I could state this discreetly.

I suspect that previous mysteriously disappeared author - ELindas - who self-confessed that he "knows Prokopenya from his previous work" [228] and User:可愛い, who makes the same edits on "arrest" article section [229] like ELindas previous edits in the article [230] are the same editors, or at least one team of editors having COI.

Information on arrest is supported by sources like Deutsche Welle [231] and Vice News [232] apart from numerous local news outlets like tut.by, Onliner.by.

I don't understand why information on POV of Prokopenya on death penalty is inserted into criticism/controversy section? There is no any controversy or dispute around Prokopenya's POV on death penalty, since this is a POV which no one criticizes. Obviously, whole current "Controversies" section is edited from Prokopenya reputation management POV. No any alternative POV's are even allowed.

User:可愛い explains his original research, as to why no one cannot write the word "arrest" in the article despite such sources like Deutsche Welle and Vice News here. I tried to explain him that the main thing are reliable sources, but nevertheless he pushes his standing and doesn't want to change anything. Belbrabas (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• :: Belbrabas has made several vandal changes to the page. He does not look like a real user, doesn’t have any edits on other pages, except related to Prokopenya. He is one of the haters of Prokopenya and is editing the article and is making a number of vandal and wiki rules noncompliant edits of the page. He is not interested in making wikipedia page look neutral and compliant with rules, - all he wants is to add a few false or tabloid style statements to the article. As a person who was engaged in major revision of this page I’ve seen Belbrabas’s vandal changes - cancelled them, provided detailed explanation why he is wrong. You can check the discussion page - all his vandal changes were addresses and explained why his changes are wrong. He wants to add to the page phrases, which are completely incompatible with wiki like: “tits are new brains” and things like that. He is adding information about discussion about differences between swiss and US universities to the page, which is completely irrelevant for the biography of a businessperson. Belbrabas is trying to change detention to arrest, while this is not true and was clearly addressed on the comments page. There was incorrect reported by some media initially, when some media called the case arrest, while it was detention. News about detention was republished by various media. However, then, when they understood that that was wrong most of media outlets have changed arrest to detention. Belbrabas takes the last 1% of sources, which haven’t changed the arrest to detention and tries to change the page based on that and ignores the fact that 99% of media outlets have changed their texts to detention - as it is the correct legal term to what have happened. You can see more information describing that on the page comments.

Using the incorrect term “arrest” instead of “detention” by some media outlets resulted in the fact that many of these outlets then corrected it. Some of them even deleted articles with the incorrect term usage. Now most of them use it correctly. Here are the links [233] One more. As I mentioned before, if you are referring to the DW article, their use was also incorrect.. Further, you should note that, in an article published at a later date, they correctly used the word “detention» [234].

The article by Vice News is not a good example to justify the use of the word “arrest”, as it refers to other articles that no longer exist. It is perfectly viable that “arrest” was also used incorrectly in those articles, and therefore the relevant publication removed the article from the public view. As such, we cannot rely on the Vice News article as proof that term “arrest” is acceptable in this situation.

It is absolutely vital that, when media organisations – including journalists – and Wikipedia editors write about legal issues, they use the correct legal language to do so.

He is writing about his disagreement with death penalty discussion for the first time. He never pointed out that on the comments page.

Belbrabas doesn’t understand that wikipedia is about neutrality and all he does in the discussions is incorrectly accused me of being connected to Viktor Prokopenya. He thinks that being neutral means connected. He haven’t provided any other arguments on my feedback and doesn’t participate in the discussion as you can see on the discussion page. I am not connected to Viktor Prokopenya and I don’t have a conflict of interest. While Belbrabas is clearly connected to Viktor Prokopenya - he is one of his haters and is biased, thus, can’t edit wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia rules. As he haven’t answered any of my feedback provided on the discussion page, I am returning the page back to my version, as it contained loads of other changes. 可愛い (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, seems you stated the reason for your continuous reverts. In my opinion, neutrality is meant as WP rule allowing representation of all points of views which are supported by reliable sources. No one prevents you from adding this your particular POV on validity of "arrest" use into the article (just adding, not deletion of other pov's), but you cannot censure every and all sources. Many Hollywood actors were arrested like Lindsey Lohan (Legal issues. In May 2007, Lohan was arrested on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).[248] In July, less than two weeks out of rehab, Lohan was arrested a second time on charges of possession of cocaine, driving under the influence and driving with a suspended license.[249][250][251][252]). And no one disputes the use of the word "arrest". Belbrabas (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Last, but not least. 可愛い created his account in Russian Wiki on September 25, 2018. Elindas stopped editing on July 4th. Vacations? Belbrabas (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Both ELindas and 可愛い are females, which is seen from their Russian edits. Pure coincidence? Belbrabas (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

可愛い claims to be lawyer. Belbrabas (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Prokopenya's companies offices in Minsk are located at address Belarus, Minsk, Internacionalnaya str. 36-3, 220030 [235] which is Business-center "Velcom" of mobile operator and internet provider Velcom. If both accounts use Velcom provider ip-addresses - then they are highly likely may be interested persons. Belbrabas (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. If User:Belbrabas is the same as an IP who edited on 16 January, I recommend that they stop using the IP and limit themselves to using their account. Don't see an obvious sock case here. 可愛い has admitted that the 40 articles they say they edited were on the Russian Wikipedia, and their contributions tend to support that. Anybody who knows Russian might check those contributions if they want. There is a possibility of COI editing that is hard to rule out, and there are the usual issues of promotion versus unnecessary criticism that sometimes affect BLP articles. Consider working out those issues on the article talk page. I actually ran out of patience evaluating this so if another admin wants to look it over and take some action, feel free. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: No violation)

Page: WKRC-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [237]
2. [238]
3. [239]
4. [240]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242]

Comments:
Also look at Spshu's talk page. As you see by the posts there, Spshu's mostly showing off. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What the world is "showing off"? Point at prior discussion as a decider in an edit war is improper: I assume he is attempting. Well, editor Mvcg66b3r was making this improperly a legal issue:

• Mvcg66b3r: "That's how it is legally; where did you get this nonsense from?"
• He was ask in an edit summary by me "where do get that is it legally? that major nonsense
• His next reversal has no response "(Undid revision 878912020 by Spshu (talk))"
• Mvcg66b3r jumps to threats of blocks instead of suggesting discussion or revealing that this is "legal".
• He is bureaucratically counting a stray symbol removal as a full edit (#4) counting towards 4RR.
• I started the discussion, only Mvcg66b3r running here would end the discussion in which he reveals he has no knowledge of the legality of -DT2: "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:WKRC-TV&diff=next&oldid=878914130 I take back the legal part, ...]". Thus had no real reason to revert me at all. And is looking to a quick block to cover his misdeeds. Spshu (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No violation – The diff listed above as #4 is not a revert, it is just fixing a typo. You are both experienced editors, you should know of a talk page where you can get input for this kind of question. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:86.30.66.111 reported by user:Wikaviani (Result: Semi)

Page: Ghurid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎86.30.66.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [243]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [244] Tried to remove "Iranian"
2. [245] reverted a user
3. [246] reverted a user
4. [247] reverted a user
5. [248] reverted a user
6. [249] reverted a user

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [250]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [251]

Comments:

This IP has been edit warring against two users today (including me), refuses to get the point even after discussion on the talk page. He confuses Iran, Iranian peoples Safavids, etc ... clear case of disruptive troll on a mission here, admins' intervention is needed. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I was not aware of a 3 edit rule. The warning containing that information was given to me by Wikiaviani after the rule had been 'broken' and after Wikiaviani reverted the edit again, so it was pretty pointless.

I am definitely not a 'troll', that is an unfair slur.

It wasn't relevant to link to an article about architecture of Iran, considering there was no source describing Ghorid architecture as from Iran in the article, so I removed the link, and provided explanation for removal on request. My edit were reverted by a user HistoryofIran: the first time, he didn't provide an explanation at all, second time he didn't provide a reason, but merely asked for "proof" (even though the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, which wasn't me).

I did open a new section on the Talk page to try and engage but there was no reply to my comment at 22:05. After I had been reported on this page by Wikiaviani, he then gave a half hearted reply at 23:06 in an attempt to make it seem as if he engaged.

For what it's worth, the linked article was about Iranian architecture, in the sense of the country of Iran, not ethno-linguistic Iranian people. This is obviously evident from its contents and the way its structured - using Iran/Persia as a reference point in subheadings. It only talks about modern architects from Iran and uses 'Iranian' architecture as a synonym for 'Persian' architecture. When it first was created as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iranian_architecture&diff=9680858&oldid=9673186, that was the intention - it only talks about Iran. The meaning of 'Iranian' cannot be changed whenever one wishes. Unfortunately the double meaning of 'Iranian' is being exploited here for nationalistic purposes. 86.30.66.111 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"It only talks about modern architects from Iran" : Wrong, take the time to read, at least, the first sentence of Iranian architecture : "Iranian architecture or Persian architecture (Persian:مهرازى ایرانی) is the architecture of Iran and parts of the rest of West Asia, the Caucasus and Central Asia." Also, you cannot justify any breach in the WP:3RR with your above kind of rationale.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, you are not fooling anyone. Why does it mention Iran first and by its specific name? Because it is about Iran - and other general regions are mentioned simply as examples of where supposedly Iranian (as in from Iran) architecture are found. The assumption being: that the architecture of these regions were influenced by Iran/Persia.

It then goes on to use Persian as a synonym for Iranian: "Persian buildings vary from peasant huts to tea houses and garden, pavilions to "some of the most majestic structures the world has ever seen".[1]"

And then it talks about the CAPITAL OF Iran, Tehran, in the lede: "In addition to historic gates, palaces, and mosques, the rapid growth of cities such as the capital, Tehran (Architecture of Tehran) has brought about a wave of demolition and new construction." Now how can an ethnic-linguistic group have a capital?

Either you didn't read or understand the article, or you're being dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.66.111 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You should have discussed all this on the article’s talk page instead of edit warring with two users. Also, again, you just don’t seem to be familiar with this topic. Will let admins deal with you now. Good night.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It was discussed on the Talk page, which I initiated. I didn't get a reply and my edits were being reverted. Evidently the goal for you and HistoryofIran wasn't to engage in discussion, just to lure a person with opposing views unaware of the 3RR rule into getting blocked so that "admins could deal with them now". 86.30.66.111 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP has broken 3RR. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hildeoc reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2018 Russian presidential election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hildeoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:58, 17 Jan
2. 19:36, 17 Jan
3. 21:57, 17 Jan
4. 23:00, 17 Jan

Editor repeatedly reinserting grammatically incorrect text (despite this being pointed out), then reverting back in another attempted change to the lead sentence. Number 57 23:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

• I hope User:Hildeoc has stopped this silliness. Their preferred text was indeed grammatically incorrect, and warring over it is no good. Impru20 has made an edit which may well be a good compromise; either way, Hildeoc, if you revert/undo/change that edit, you should be blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Looks like a violation to me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndInFirstPlace (talk • contribs) 03:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tematice reported by User:BD2412 (Result: Warned)

Page: Plant-based diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tematice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tematice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated WP:3RR at Plant-based diet (see page history here). He continues to remove reliably sourced content stating that a diet can be "plant-based" while still including some amount of meat or fish. bd2412 T 14:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I didn't violate the rule as you keep spamming by reverting back the definition of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant-based_diet We can say the same thing about you, because you've edited the Plant-based Diet article 3 times today. I've added the current reliably source that a "plant-based diet" should not contain any animal products. How is an 8 year ago source more reliable than a source for the definition is from the U.S. National Library of Medicine I've added to the article? (see [1] in the Plant-based Diet article above) -– Tematice (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• You are mistaken. Multiple editors, including User:Flyer22 Reborn and User:Roxy the dog, have reverted your changes, as they go against the sources cited in the article. I have now added a 2018 source supporting the same proposition. bd2412 T 14:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

If other 2 editors have reverted from the definition I've used, that doesn't mean it's true. The quote from the last 2018 source you've added to the Plant-based diet article is biased. Please read the Talk from the Plant-based diet article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plant-based_diet -– Tematice (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• From looking at the article history it looks like they went right to the 3RR line and not over it. But the behavior at the article certainly seems problematic. PackMecEng (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Tematice is warned. They may be blocked if they revert again unless they have received a prior consensus on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:AveTory (Result: No action)

Page: Volodymyr Zelensky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [252]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [260]

Comments:
Constantly getting involved into edit wars using one scheme: he removes sourced content he personally doesn't want to see and then suggests the original contributor to "convince" him that the information should be in the article, coming up with new excuses why he is "not convinced". I encountered him several times, it is always the same. In this case he started by removing a short translation of a sourced text with a comment "true, does not require a direct footnote quotation", and the next day removed the whole sentence with links along with another sourced addition as "unimportant". From then on he has been involved into edit warring, manipulation and removal of clearly sourced and stated facts and free interpretation of Wikipedia rules. He has a long editing history and knows what's included into biographical articles, yet in his attempts to remove the content he ended with straight personal attacks. I've no idea what's his motivation in this case, but he shows obvious bias and complete lack of neutrality. I don't see his edits as "good-faith" and have no interest in discussing anything with him. AveTory (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, there is no 3RR violation. I made one revert during last three days. What is going on? User AveTory is trying to include a poorly sourced and hardly relevant information about a Ukrainian presidential candidate to his BLP page. I explained AveTory the policy [261]. He responded with personal offenses [262]. Yes, I had previous discussions with AveTory about BLP. For example, here he inserted a really ridiculous claim that a famous actress "is covered in blood", meaning she is guilty in death of people, which is nonsense. Once again, the inserted content was poorly sourced, telling politely. I am not sure he can edit BLP pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If you "have no interest in discussing anything" with me or other contributors, that's fine. But then you should not edit anything that has been challenged by other contributors because editing controversial subjects does require discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

While this is irrelevant to the topic, in case of Liya Akhedzhakova ‎I went through another exhausting discussion filled with complete removal of sourced material (in the process it was revealed that he didn't even check most of the links), claims of "unimportant facts", "poor sources", "demonization", obscure "Wikipedia rules" and involvement in offtopic, yet we finally agreed on the final version of the article. Which he now simply reverted as "nonsense", 2 years after. This is the kind of editing policy I'm dealing with. AveTory (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• The filer of this report doesn't seem to understand WP:BRD. If your content is reverted, you then discuss on the talk page, not blindly restore it; they have edit-warred just as much, if not more, than the party they reported. Add to that fact that the talkpage discussion was started by User:My very best wishes and, the filer accused them of bad faith (not to mention "You keep proving your complete inadequacy"), I am minded to close this without action at the very least. I am also noting edit-warring at Liya Akhedzhakova. Other admins may wish to comment. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I already explained why it's impossible to lead a normal discussion with the user. He clearly demonstrated it on the talk page, starting with "unimportant information" (since when ethnicity/religion/education grant is not important at a public person's page?) and ending with accusations of me being a follower of a "Jewish conspiracy". All this because I added information on his parents being Jewish (among many other facts and sources - before that 90% of the article linked to one questionable source, yet he was perfectly fine with it). Yes, I find this to be an inadequate behavior. And I commented on Liya Akhedzhakova above. He reverted a whole paragraph he himself had approved before. Yes, it's bad faith. AveTory (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, here is the diff [263]. In this edit you insert a qualifier ("a Jew himself") for an author and an opinion that "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews". Now you edit war about something similar in the BLP of Zelensky. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

How is it similar? A clearly sourced quote from a famous article by the popular post-Soviet author who described his meeting with a leading oligarch? His self-identification as a Jew? A mention of the word "Jew" on a page related to politics at all? Maybe you will now remove all mentions of Disraeli, Lenin, Trotsky, Sanders, Ukrainian prime minister and many others having Jewish background? Is it all Jewish conspiracy? Ethnicity/religion is mentioned on every celeb's page when such information is available. Yet you went to all this trouble simply to remove a mention of his roots - an open secret in Ukraine which Zelensky never tried to hide and constantly mentioned. AveTory (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• If AveTory is revert warring to insist on Zelensky's Jewish descent, that seems peculiar, though I don't know the entire background. There is nothing elsewhere in the article to imply that Zelensky's religious convictions (whatever they may be) are relevant to his career or to the accomplishments that make him notable. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

There is an opinion [264] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network). My very best wishes (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I left several links on the talk page to serious political and Jewish websites where he is discussed as "a Jewish candidate for Ukrainian presidency" (from the positions that this is not a problem for Ukrainian voters). But I seriously don't see how this is a problem in a biographical article at all and I don't know how someone's origins could influence his/her career. It's just trivia. AveTory (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action. MVBW did a self-revert. It looks as though agreement has been reached on the talk page, per the discussion with User:Icewhiz at Talk:Volodymyr Zelensky#Unimportant details. EdJohnston (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The user clearly stated in the comment above that his reverts are motivated not by good faith, but by his own political paranoia and bias (on Black Kite (talk)'s request). And he continues edit warring, now at the Liya Akhedzhakova's page. As I mentioned before, he reverts the paragraph he himself suggested as a "compromise version" 2 years ago after another similar long discussion. Now he claims that "I would never include myself things like that to BLPs. I removed this stuff to make clear that I do not endorse it". I stand by my words: his edits are non-neutral, motivated by his own political or whatever views, he has been manipulating Wikipedia rules to remove whole paragraphs of sourced text for years and will continue doing so unless some action is taken. AveTory (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
    • You do realise that, having been noted for alleging that MVBW is "completely inadequate", you now double down on it with "his political paranoia and bias"? This is really not a good idea. I suggest you strike it (and your previous personal attacks), or this filing might end up with a block after all. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe you will take notice of the user's actions first? Read his comments and his editing history? He has been removing chunks of text for years using whatever reason he comes up with, manipulating rules, calling me names, accusing of being a bot, a follower of conspiration theories, a paid promoter of political opinions, putting other people's words into my mouth, etc. How is it not "inadequate, political paranoia and bias"? AveTory (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Any diffs? I never said that you are "a bot". Yes, I do believe you do not respect BLP policy when it comes to BLP pages of people who oppose to Putin, and some of your edits (like that one) are questionable. Other than that, I think you are doing good work around here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

What other purpose did you have by constantly bringing up the banned user on this thread on my talk page? And what does Putin has to do with Zelensky's background (I didn't even edit anything regarding his political views since I don't follow Ukrainian politics), Akhedzhakova's famous speech (at least in Russia) from back 1993 or the history of seven bankers, when Putin was still a nobody? I'm rarely getting involved with articles even remotely related to modern politics, unlike yourself. And in 99% cases I'm adding information, not deleting it. AveTory (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hence, you was unable to provide any diffs to support your claims above that I accused you "of being a bot" and "a paid promoter of political opinions". Please strike through your comments above. And BTW, asking someone if he was a paid contributor is a legitimate question, but I never asked you this. My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I provided both in the comments above, though you didn't ask for the diff on a paid promoter ("There is an opinion [13] that Zelensky is a puppet of Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi. This opinion is actively promoted by RT (TV network)"). I'm not striking anything on your request and expect you to acknowledge that your reverts were not triggered by any of the reasons you voiced at the talk page, but were politically motivated, and revert the Akhedzhakova's page back to the consensus version. AveTory (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• • • • • While I agree Zelensky's Jewish roots should be mentioned (and interjected on the article talk page after seeing this filing) -this diff (12:16, 18 January 2018) by AveTory, presented by MVBW above, is alarming. Jew-labeling has a long history in political discourse in this part of the world and is still an issue in the fringes (right and left) - sometimes paranoia is justified regarding certain issues. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not Jew-labeling, it's a topic that had been widely discussed in Russia at the time, I practically quoted a British journalist and a famous open letter by a Jewish writer while also added a lot of other info (basically wrote the article from scratch). People who edited it since always contributed something and I didn't mind at all, but then My very best wishes came and reverted this one particular paragraph. And what's the point in bringing it up during the discussion of a completely unrelated article where I simply added info on Zelensky's parents? How is it Jew-labeling, especially since I provided a link to his recent speech where he self-identified as a Jew? I also created articles on the Brumberg sisters, Rolan Bykov and other people with Jewish background, nobody found it problematic. AveTory (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Speaking about this diff, I disagree. Simply citing Harding (left part of the diff) might be OK, although I doubt this quotation is important on the page. However, your version (right part) tells essentially, in context of the page, that the robbery of Russia has been accomplished by Jewish oligarchs. This is a conspiracy theory on par with Jewish Bolshevism. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No. The right part says that 1) most bankers had Jewish roots and that 2) it led to a rise of antisemitism. Both claims were confirmed by the links and the bankers' biographies, unlike the "Jewish Bolshevism". AveTory (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• For the third time I'm trying to draw administrators' attention to the user My very best wishes. His deletions on the discussed page were only partly self-reverted, he decided what to return and what not, it wasn't a result of an agreement. Simultaneously he reverted a whole paragraph at the Liya Akhedzhakova's page which had been previously added based on the consensus version reached after a discussion with him and he keeps ignoring all requests to return it. In addition, he is currently involved in WP:HOUNDING - yesterday he made three similar edits, one by one, on three different pages to the information I previously added. One of the sentences was also a result of a consensus reached with him. As I said, his edits are not good faith. AveTory (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe that emphasizing ethnicity of people (Russian, Jew, whatever) when this is not relevant to the content of a page, is inappropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Jim7049 reported by User:Mikrobølgeovn (Result: blocked)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox
User being reported: Jim7049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Syrian Civil War#RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian_regime

Comments:

• Violation of the 1RR, which is in place in all articles related to the Syrian Civil War, and which Jim7049 is certainly aware of (he previously reported me for violating it; @MSGJ: decided against a block, while I promised to cease edit warring the template, a promise I have kept). Jim7049 resumed edit warring hours after the protection of the template expired, while showing no sign of trying to change the existing consensus on the talk page. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not a revert that's a modification. Jim7049 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A partial revert is also a revert. You removed Iraq while leaving the sources, that’s a revert. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)