Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive384

User:101.178.163.19 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page

Windsor, Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[1] */*Cityscape */* (original addition of image by IP)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Cityscape */"
2. 04:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Cityscape */"
3. 04:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC) "Why not?? Its in the same area, opposite each other.. Just like how New Jersey articles have pictures of New York. They are on opposite sides of the river.."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Windsor, Ontario. (TW)" (formal EW warning)
2. [2] (formal EW warning by another editor)

Should be more than aware of edit warring issue, particularly since there was also a poiinter to EW [3] and then a formal edit warring warning [4] for edits to another article just before the above warnings.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC) "/* File:Detroit, USA Taken From Windsor, Canada.jpg */ new section"

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation since IP only makes this edit once a day, but IP is edit warring to add an image, and stated on article's talk page [5] that he would continue to make the edit, and did so after a third edit warring warning for this article. Meters (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User was also asked in an edit summary [6] and on his talk page [7] to discuss this edit on the article's talk page but did not follow WP:BRD Meters (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Similar behaviour by this IP on Bangladeshi passport, edit warring over multiple days to add contested image despite warnings and requests to discuss edit. No attempt at WP:BRD. Makes comment at thread started by other editors and then restores desired version.

• IP users comments at Talk:Windsor, Ontario clearly indicate a mindset to edit war and refusal to work collaboratively. Can't see any other course to take here but a block. If this were a registered editor, an indef for WP:NOTHERE would be in order. Also, user talk indicates problematic editing, especially concerning images, is not limited to the two articles mentioned here. John from Idegon (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Bangladeshi_passport#File:BIpassport.jpg Meters (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

these were already listed above but re-adding them here for clarity

1. [13] informal pointer to WP:EW
2. [14] formal EW warning Meters (talk) 07:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week 331dot (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mvcg66b3r reported by User:BlueboyLI (Result: No action)

Pages: WPXN-TV, WPHL-TV, WWOR-TV
User being reported: Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/881836166
2. Special:Diff/881988345
3. Special:Diff/881988550
4. Special:Diff/881988971

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#PLEASE STOP YOUR EDIT WARRING

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#WNET/WNJU/WXTV-DT/WWOR-TV
User_talk:Mvcg66b3r#WNET

BlueboyLI (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

I only corrected the city/state overlinks (as BlueboyLI had suggested) and restored some pertinent information. As Bbb23 said:

This is a dispute about when WP:OVERLINK applies. The specific issue appears to be does the state need to be wikified if a major city in the state is already wikified. This is fairly easy. Either is acceptable, and to edit-war over it is disruptive. You want to take it to the article Talk page to get a consensus, knock yourselves out, but I strongly urge you to just let it go.

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The four diffs supplied above are on three different articles. Disputes about overlinking should be resolvable on the article talk page. So far neither party has used any of the article talk pages. If you have general issues about TV stations, you can use the project talk at WT:TVS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fradio71 reported by User:Wallyfromdilbert (Result: Blocked)

Page: Super Bowl LIII halftime show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fradio71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16] initial edit warring, inserting unsourced content
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19] removing dubious tag
5. [20] removing dubious tag again
6. [21] further edit warring, removing sourced content
7. [22]
8. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

I have been trying to improve the quality of the Wikipedia page for the recent Super Bowl halftime show, and one user is continuously reverting my edits, with 8 reverts in the past 24 hours. He is also repeatedly attacking me on the talk page when I tried to discuss the initial disagreement. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

He also just reverted my request for a third opinion that I made regarding the dispute: here Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to have a civil discussion with this user, who has made bad-faith edit after bad faith edit, and yet when I try to explain why his edits are wrong, he doesn't acknowledge the argument, he tries to undermine it by claiming I don't know how Wikipedia works, or that I'm violating guidelines I did not violate, or even right here reporting me for 3RR without even a warning. He is using underhanded tactics to win, and tried to go around crying about how I RIGHTFULLY put a 3RR warning on his page and called it "threatening to block" him, just to gain sympathy. That is underhanded and manipulative. I reverted his seeking a third opinion because I thought it was unnecessary, which it is, especially as the discussion shows, he wasn't even taking a second opinion into consideration. His report is not sought in good faith and should be viewed as fraudulent. I'm tempted to counterreport.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Fradio71 removed someone else's report from the WP:3O board, thus interfering with normal dispute resolution, and now they describe the other party's actions as 'fraudulent'. This dispute was originally about issues of sourcing. To insist on reliable sources is not 'underhanded'. Fradio71 was previously blocked for 1RR on 10 January, and was specifically warned by an administrator for disruption on 21 January. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:100F:B01A:A90C:616E:5F8D:F2AE:BE06 reported by User:Thewinrat (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page

Justin Fairfax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2600:100F:B01A:A90C:616E:5F8D:F2AE:BE06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882228740 by Thewinrat (talk)"
2. 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882226257 by Muboshgu (talk)"
3. 17:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882222945 by Muboshgu (talk)"
4. 16:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882207932 by Jpcase (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. I know that I'm WP:INVOLVED on this article but this is a textbook violation of 3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism on Kamma and Raju Article (Result: Malformed report)

Hello Mr./Ms. Administrator, this user User talk:Sharkslayer87 is vandalizing Kamma (caste) and the Raju Caste and essentially cyber-harassing me. This user has deliberately deleted the work that I have placed many times because he said it was my POV. However, I directly quoted almost all of the content I added, and I made sure to cite them properly. I also verified the credibility of those sources. If a source from the British Raj was already used in that caste article, used by modern college professors and authors to cite their work, and the source is derived from a reputable man, what harm is there to provide the Wikipedia audience with direct quotations, with no influence from me? These quotes also don't say anything that is outside the norm for the topic in terms of what is already present in the article. Sharkslayer87 already has a history of caste based editing, which got him banned until very recently. Other editors, like Sitush, have commented on his talk page about his lack of credible source and vandalism. It's clear he is unfortunately engaging in it again. Please see to this. Thanks and god bless all of you. NagarjunaSarma(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Closed as a malformed report. See the top of this board, where it says 'Click here to create a new report'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Reverted three times and adding contents not adhering to NPOV (Result: Malformed report)

User talk:NagarjunaSarma is vandalizing the articles Kamma (caste) and Raju. They have reverted three times already. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Collapse the details. The reported party, User:NagarjunaSarma has been blocked as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can say the same for youUser talk:Sharkslayer87. Firstly, I have used only credible sources and mostly direct quotations for both these articles. How is it showing my POV when I have literally quoted verbatim from these sources? Did I write those books and papers? NO! Many of them, including Thurston and Yamada Keiko have been used before on the Kamma Wikipedia. Now why is it wrong to provide readers with additional information from these professors and researchers. Moreover, your claim that British Raj articles are unreliable is factually wrong when you consider how many articles and researchers, including caste ones cite them. In regards to the Raju caste article, I added a mere one quote that backs up information already present in the article, and it was from a respected British source. What we have here is that you, Mr. Sharkslayer87, for some reason don’t like what these credible sources have said so you are creating unnecessary drama. When looking at what editors, likeUser talk:Sitush , have said about you, I’m not surprised. It's clear you are from the Raju community and trying to push an agenda. If you must know my caste, I am a Telugu Brahmin, and I have no connection to either of these castes, so I am neutral arbitrator to provide factual information from other researchers. Also, I just checked the Raju page and I see quite a few British era articles and pages cited, so I really don't understand why you are vandalizing other people's work with no cause or reason. Moreover, it looks like you have been banned and reprimanded for caste promotion on Wikipedia. I sincerely request the administrator reviewing the case to consider Mr. Sharkslayer87's previous wrongdoings involving caste articles (He was just recently unbanned from caste articles), and I 100% declare that I was just minding my business by researching with verified sources to contribute to the Wikipedia community, until Sharsklayer87 unjustly pulled me into this mess. NagarjunaSarma(talk) Sharkslayer is quite correct that British Raj sources are mostly considered unreliable on en-WP. In short, they are to a significant extent old and wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC) User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång the thing is that the Kamma Caste and Raju Caste article already utilized these British Raj Sources way before I started editing. In fact, I made sure to exclusively reference Thurston because he was also used. He was one of two Britishers I used. Additionally, Ms. Yamada Keiko, a professor at a Japanese University, and other modern researchers often cite Mr. Thurston's work. This isn't just a willy-nilly picking. There are countless books that cite Mr. Thurston's work and if it's good enough for college professors and their research, Wikipedia audience should benefit from it. Moreover, why would the Kamma and Raju Caste articles already cite British Raj material without any editor removing It or causing a fuss. You can't pick and chose what British Raj articles are reliable, especially when entire college textbooks and professors constantly cite them. In fact, I just cited the British Raj work that was already mentioned through direct quotations. Since caste is such a volatile topic, the British Raj documents have been the foundation basis for many reliable books discussing caste. Finally, I also cited modern documents and college trained professors or historians, like Mr. Tyagi, Ms. Keiko, and others in my edits. Sharkslayer also vandalized those. It's clear that his intentions and previous caste based drama, which got him banned until quite recently from editing caste base articles, is the problem. Not the British Raj sources, which I ensured were used by modern scholars and professors. UPDATE: In order to end this conflict, I have found modern citations for the one or two citations that was purerly British Raj documents. These direct quotation citations come from modern authors and researchers who say the same thing as Thurston with verification. I hope this will resolve the source conflict, and there is No POV conflict because I used direct quotations and cited from two or three different authors. NagarjunaSarma(talk)

Result: Closed as a malformed report. Please see the top of this board, where it says "Click here to create a new report". EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:WikiRaver reported by User:Spike 'em (Result:Discussion occurring )

Page

Shuffle dance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882357849 by Spike 'em (talk)"
2. 13:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 09:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:58, 8 February 2019

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "/* No Citations or Evidence - The main Shuffle Dance moves appear to have been invented else where */"
2. 15:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "/* No Citations or Evidence - The main Shuffle Dance moves appear to have been invented else where */"
3. 15:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "/* No Citations or Evidence - The main Shuffle Dance moves appear to have been invented else where */ resign"

Comments:

user keeps adding non-reliable sources to support WP:OR despite multiple editors removing. Additional discussion on my talk page. Spike 'em (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not blocked User seems to have stopped edit warring and is now engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I am declining to block based on that, just for now, though the report was good at the time, as I want to encourage the discussion to continue. However, if he reverts again without consensus, ping me, and I'll shut it down right away. Jayron32 20:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Bmorrow151 reported by User:331dot (Result: blocked for 1 week )

Page

Bill Belichick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bmorrow151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882390621 by 331dot (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC) to 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "There is no mention of Curly or George only Super Bowl era."
   2. 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 19:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882389621 by Jayron32 (talk)"
4. 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has ignored warnings and requests for discussion. Reporting as I am involved. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:331dot undid my edits 3 times and used a different account to get around rules and ignored my explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmorrow151 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you have evidence for your claim I am using another account. I'd love to see it, as would Jayron32. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I was the other person who objected to Bmorrow's additions. I also warned him to discuss rather than to try to force his preferred additions to the article by sheer willpower. It seems he did neither. Also, I am not, as far as I am aware, the same person as 331dot. I'm rarely that drunk that I'd forget being a whole other person. --Jayron32 19:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Bmorrow has now engaged me in discussion on my talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have started a section at Talk:Bill Belichick to assess consensus on the additions Bmorrow continues to push through. I invite them, 331dot, and anyone else that would like to help determine a consensus to contribute to that discussion. --Jayron32 19:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• As an aside, he has now doubled down on the accusation that I and 331dot are the same person. I'm not sure he's all that interested in playing nice. --Jayron32 20:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• This was borderline, and I was about to give one final warning (even with the unacceptable accusations of sockpuppetry), when I noticed Bmorrow has already been blocked for 3 days for edit warring 2 years ago, and his defense at that time was that there was meatpuppetry being used against him. Blocking for 1 week to crystalize in his mind that this is not the kind of casual accusation you get to make whenever you don't get your way (and, of course, that edit warring is wrong). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

User:VonWoland reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked)

Page

Inejiro Asanuma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Gratuitous indulgence of weapon paraphilia removed."
2. 21:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "There can be no assumption of "good faith" when a bad faith reason is given for an edit and a revert. As soon as the weapon Oswald used to kill Kennedy is accepted as part of the summary of Kennedy's life, it will be exceptable to indulge morbid trivia here (and that---not a desire to glorify fascist violence---is the best-faith interpretation I can give to insisting on that sentence)"
3. 17:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "if weapons fetishits belive the type of knife used is so important, they need to start a page about the assassin, and not the man murdered."
4. 00:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Update: fourth revert - "Put the page under protection and engage in a discussion on the talk page before reverting offensive edits. Thank you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Not assuming good faith on Inejiro Asanuma. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user seems to have made their stance clear, without violating 3RR they certainly would if reverted again. They have given no indication of a willingness to partake in constructive dialogue per BRD. They also were warned against not assuming good faith and calling editors fascists, behavior which they did not abate in subsequent edit summaries. JesseRafe (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Aaand, it's four reverts now, and a demand that the page be protected to his version. --Calton | Talk 00:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Five now. Bradv🍁 01:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring (five reverts in 24 hours). Looks like the editor has also engaged in personal attacks, judging from the edit summaries. Accused a veteran editor of being a 'possible sock puppet account' as well as a vandal and an edit warrior. Please keep WP:ASPERSIONS in mind when the charge is very far-fetched. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:153.165.135.190 reported by User:Gaelan (Result: Protected)

Page

Hot Sugar (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
2. 23:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
3. 23:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"
4. 23:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC) "WP:BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned on talk page (but Twinkle won't let me select it, presumably because it wasn't me or because it wasn't done with a template). They made a legal threat (libel) on their talk page as well. Gaelan 💬✏️ 23:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 2 months. Protection may be lifted by any administrator who is confident that the article will remain free of BLP violations. See Talk:Hot Sugar (musician)#Misconduct allegations for the data to consider, and keep in mind that the charges are mostly allegations that were made on social media, often from anonymous Twitter or Instagram accounts. A couple of publications have done actual reporting (i.e. they interviewed some of the women who complained). Of the four listed web sites, it seems like the Daily Beast is the most credible. See their 22 January report which includes some responses from Hot Sugar's attorney. It appears from the references that Hot Sugar has been busy suing various people, and has obtained settlements. Any admin can undo this protection if they are convinced the problem is over. If we do wind up including a statement in the article, it probably needs to include the denials by Koenig's attorney. EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Race666y reported by User:MattLongCT (Result: Blocked)

Page: Shakir Qasmi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Race666y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
Single-Purpose Account only engaging in disruptive behavoir. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 11:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:Alcibiades979 (Result: Warned)

Page

Juan Guaidó (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Page: Juan Guaido User being reported: Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Reported by: Alcibiades979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time of report: 02:02, 27 May 2024 UTC [refresh] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. "Undid revision 882360179 by Alcibiades979 (talk) Read talk. Please do not start an edit war, and read WP:3RR." 8 February 2019 -21,897
2. "Undid revision 882350320 by Alcibiades979 (talk) There is aleady a discussion on Talk, and some changes already seem acceptable. Feel free to join the discussion." 8 February 2019 -21,897
3. "→‎‎President of the National Assembly: This is a section titled "President of the National Assembly" and not "Interim President of Venezuela". Removing irrelevant passages on his recognition as IP and discussions on policies of other countries vis-a-vis this fact." 8 February 2019 -1,556
4. "→‎Interim President of Venezuela: Removing further deliberations on unrelated developments in the Venezuelan crisis. Removing blatant bias." 8 February 2019 -709
5. "→‎Recognition: Out of scope of this WP:BLP, especially that there is a dedicated article devoted to the subject. Once again: this is a BIOGRAPHY, not a description of the Venezuelan crisis." 8 February 2019 -4,759
6. "→‎Recognition: NPOV language. Removing what's in the lead section already." 8 February 2019 -273
7. "→‎Amnesty Law: For God's sake, this is a BIOGRAPHY, not another article discussing the ins and out of the Venezuelan crisis! Keep the text focused on the subject's views and actions and do NOT delve into what other actors were doing. People who want to read about the crisis should read the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Removing several sentences discussing the issue of humanitarian aid/intervention in the Venezuelan crisis." 8 February 2019 -4,101
8. "→‎Finance and economy: This is a biography, not an article on the situation in Venezuela. Stick to MOS please." 8 February 2019 -156
9. "→‎Public perception: Oh, missed this one - WP:PEACOCK. Please do not use Wikipedia for promotion/propaganda)" 8 February 2019 -250
10. "→‎Human rights: The quote does not talk about human rights. Worse: it implies that the subject has no idea about what human rights are. Leave it out, especially that the entire section is based on a single quote in which the subject uttered the words "human rights".)"] 8 February 2019 -1,826
11. "→‎Foreign policy: Out of place in a biography. Keep it in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, etc. Read MOS:BIO)" 8 February 2019 -3,958
12. "→‎Media: Absolutely irrelevant. This is a BIOGRAPHY and not a summary of mass media coverage." 8 February 2019 -4,244
13. "→‎Public perception: WP:PEACOCK, problems with sourcing (editorials), looks much like WP:CHERRY." 8 February 2019 -3,011
14. "Upon reading further, it appears that he was detained for a total of... 45 minutes. WP:UNDUE." 8 February 2019 -36
15. "Discussion of the overall political situation in Venezuela is out of scope of this biography, and particilarly should not be placed in lede" 8 February 2019 -1036
16. "A more neutral tone" 8 February 2019 -378

Diff of warning: [1] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Juan Guaidó#Significant removal of well sourced text

I tried restoring the text twice to what had been previously written, keeping the first four reversions as suggested by SandyGeorgia on the talk page. None of this was spoken of ahead of time on the talk page, only mentioned in passing after over 22,000 characters of content had been deleted and changed, effectively gutting the entire article. I of course won't restore a third time as I myself don't want to run afoul of Wiki's 3R rule. I'm sorry in advance if I've messed this up in anyway, I've never filed one of these before. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

This is, essentially, a content dispute. Having seen several complaints about bias in the article, and, to be frank, shocked with the surprisingly poor quality of what could be a valuable biography given the plentitude of sources, I spent a lot of time this morning cleaning up the article. Primarily, I removed some of the passages that were blatantly POV, quite a lot of unambiguous promo[32][33][34], and some passages sourced to primary sources, e.g., party friends[35] or Instagram account[36]. I believe I retained all the varied points of views with relation to this politician that were there in the article, and in slighty fairer proportions. However, I removed – and am going to defend it – numerous lengthy passages that instead of describing the person, went on to analyse details of the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela[37][38][39], something that already has its dedicated article.

I understand that some editors might feel very strongly about the ongoing Venezuelan crisis and may feel tempted to push a particular narrative into this new article[40]. As someone who objected boldly, I am now taken to ANI. Pity. A waste of everyone's time.

To be clear, I am far removed from the Venezuela context and focus only on quality of Wikipedia. I am not going to fight to death over this article, will just move on elsewhere. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

By the way, Alcibiades979, you have NOT engaged in the discussion on Talk – your only substantial "contribution" to coming up with a quality text were two reverts and an AN report. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandygeorgia and Kingsif, the primary contributors to the article have been publicly commended here for their work in clearing up the article, and were used as an example of their ability in reliably and accurately depicting events in progress: #"(→‎Discussion: response.)" 8 February 2019

"Example Four, Juan Guaidó had numerous content disputes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] This is an event where details can change by the minute. If it were not for SandyGeorgia and Kingsif working so diligently to make sure it was accurate, it would be a completely different article. We can't rely on editors like them for every single article, though." Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I am away from home for the day, and have been in a car accident to boot, car is gone, on a mobile device, and I have not looked at edits to article. People, please do not edit war. The gutting of the artice, with No previous indication of any problem on talk, was Not a collaborative start, and has led apparently to this, but I am hopeful that discussion will ensue now and items can be addressed more collaboratively when I am home. Sorry I am unable to offer more from mobile device, suggest that for someone to gut an article when there were no previous indications on talk of issues was a bad start and can understand if some were perturbed by that kind of editing (which included false claims of BLP issues btw) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear that, and I hope you're alright. Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am sorry to hear this, hope you are ok. Actually, there has been quite a lot of discussion on Talk, only you archived it[41]. See Archive 1. The article is barely a month old and it has already accummulated 55 sections on Talk!

By the way, if this is of any consolation to you, I similarly trimmed Len McCluskey and Craig Murray, and somehow all the editors there seemed fine with it (well, except for the editor who had put all the tendentious details in; but they were later topic banned). — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Diff of discussion before interruption of posts by Kashmiri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both; no one was hurt, but I am now sitting in a coffee shop, with an internet connection, hoping I can get my car tonight and drive the hour back home tonight.

My main concern in this dispute is not the content, rather the casting of aspersions based on NO evidence. So since those aspersions were cast at me, here is my feedback before admins decide how to handle this case.

Alcibiades979, edit warring is never OK, even if the "other guy" is wrong. I put my suggestions on talk page to welcome further discussion, point by point. The edit war ensued with no discussion of those points. I appreciate what I sense is you defending my good name, but I'd rather it be defended discussing points on talk, not on reverts.

Kashmiri, the problem here is not the content you removed, but the statements you made about your removals, and since-- most of which I consider to be casting aspersions on my editing in addition to your edit warring.

I will respond point by point cutting through yuor text. I know it's frowned upon, but here I think it will be the optimal way as we will avoid another wall of text.

• You said, "This is, essentially, a content dispute." Wrong. Edit warring is always a behavioral issue; good editors don't do it. You did, for meaningless reasons, because I had already shown on talk that I don't edit war, and we were going to dialogue, point by point. You showed the classic, had to win, edit warring behavior.

Well, this report is about a content dispute. The lengthy list of diffs above is about content, not about two reverts. You are trying to present it as a behavioural issue as you seem to have an issue that your work was affected.

• Claiming BLP: this is a serious issue, and you should take care in accusing any editor of breaching BLP. This was quite offensive to me, as I consider breaching BLP to be about the worst thing an editor can do. You made serious cuts to the article, and then claimed on article talk that your edits were for BLP. I welcome you to strike those statements, although I care not if you don't.

Absolutely, the article did breach WP:BLP in quite a few places, for example by relying on primary or affiliated sources (expresslly prohibited by WP:BLP). Note that in no place did I imply that it was you who added those passages, as I do not usually have time to check for such details.

• Claiming reasoning for deletions that are not supported by the policy and guideline pages you cited: this is not on, and some of us know those pages quite well (my nickname is MOS Maven in some circles, so I suggest you not cite MOS to remove text that you just don't like).

Fair enough. This makes it even more surprising that, for example, the lead section was allowed to discuss other subjects (e.g., Venezuelan laws and politics) at length, despite clear stipulations in MOS:BIO on how the context shold be presented.

• Talk page archival claim: you claimed, here and on article talk, that I had archived unresolved POV threads. But you presented evidence on none, rather evidence of me archiving threads that were resolved-- often topics raised by me. If you are going to accuse someone of covering up evidence (which is what you did, and that is a behavioral problem, called casting aspersions, be sure your diffs back up your claims.

I did nowhere mention "unresolved". A few editors, however, expressed their doubts about the bio's neutrality. Excuse me that I did not provide links - I thought everyone is able to see these sections by mere glancing through the titles.

• Talk page content claims: you claim there was evidence on talk of POV issues. You have produced none. And I don't/wouldn't archive threads claiming POV (see the talk page of 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.

I did provide some evidence, on Talk and even here on this page (above), but happy to discuss further if you wish so.

• Editcountitis: After you gutted the article, you asked me (on talk) to leave the article, implying ownership based on my edit count. Please do review Featured Articles like Samuel Johnson, Autism, Asperger syndrome ... I could go on for pages ... to see that I make hundreds of small edits to any article I touch, even if I have added negligible content to them. Where you gutted 1400 words in about 10 edits, I take hundreds of edits to try to preserve and restore and clean up the messes sloppy editors who take little pride in their work often leave in articles. If you consider hundreds of single edits where I clean up trivialities like WP:NBSP, WP:PUNC, WP:CAPFRAG, WP:ENDASHes, citation parameters and formatting, and sloppy prose-- guilty. Someone's gotta do it, and I don't like working on sloppy articles. You came to a MOS-clean article and left it a classic WikiMess. After I had spent weeks and hundreds of edits trying to preserve the mess that was there when I came on board. Welcome to editing Venezuelan topics, where few are fully fluent in English, and no one cares about Manual of Style.

You will need to forgive me for not counting the number of bytes added by you and by other editors. I admit I cut this short and went for the simplest measure, i.e., the edit count. I did not know that your numerous edits are just single letters or words. I also did not check which of the removed sentences were written by you. But I am not getting why you would believe I considered them yours as I never implied so.

• And then you used editcountitis to claim ownership, not realizing apparently that your cuts rendered what was left of the article even MORE written by me, because most of what you removed wasn't mine. Thanks to you, I now have an enormous percentage of the article (which I hope you won't use to again accuse me of ownership, since it was MY work you left).

Trust me, that's perfectly fine with me. For me you are welcome to be the author of 1000% of this article as long as the text at least roughly complies with WP:N.

What is at issue here is not content-- it is behavior. Edit warring is but one symptom of a behavioral problem. You missed the chance to dialogue, learn some guideline and policy you don't know, and end up with a better article. Yes, you removed some problematic content, but you also left the article with other problems. So, I don't know if you will be blocked for edit warring or not, but I know that if I will notice if I see you engaging in this sort of battleground editing again, anywhere. Now, I don't know when my car will be fixed, or when I will be home, but I plan to discuss edits, and your answers so far indicate you think throwing WikiAcronyms around on talk is going to work. It's not.

Sorry, shop called and car is ready! My apologies for typos and errors and hasty close ... gotta go. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I did not miss a chance of dialogue. I hope you do not expect editors to redraft the entire article before starting edits that basically remove bias and promo. That is not going to happen. Promo, unverified claims, and bad sources get removed without prior discussion, especially from newly created BLPs. Here, the process was followed, too: I boldly removed what I considered improper, as normal; you objected on Talk; I responded on Talk. Then Alcibiades979, instead of joining in the discussion, went on for a fight in the mainspace, damaging the dicussed text; and then, when reverted, he came straight here all the time without engaging.

Glad you got your car fixed. I am sorry I won't be able to respond all day tomorrow as I will be away at a business meeting. I do not think anybody is going to be blocked here; Alcibiades979 might get a minnow slap for bringing an ongoing content dispute to AN. But they seem to be a fairly new editor, and additionally they say they live in the region, so their strong feelings about that political figure can be forgiven. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, interrupting someone else's post is frowned upon, and also very hard to read when you don't sign each interruption, so I won't try to wade through it. If you remove the interruptions to the bottom of my post you interrupted, I will read. (I see you left the same kind of jumble on article talk). My suggestion is that, as a person who is on this noticeboard because you edit warred, rather than respond point-by-point to your casting of aspersions on my editing, you address your edit warring and what you may have learned that will help you avoid same in the future. Edit warring is a behavioral problem, and it's most often the tip of the iceberg, accompanied by other similar battleground behaviors. I am sensing that you are not getting the message-- edit warring is a bright line, don't cross it. And when you remove very well sourced text (I did not add the instragram and such sources), you would do well to have a policy reason, well justified (not citing the Manual of Style), or consensus on talk. Please respect that I would appreciate that you never break up a post of mine again. Just a leftover from having processed thousands of FAC pages and not enjoying when I couldn't tell who said what because someone rudely chopped posts, and then didn't even sign each piece, so that subsequent additions became impossible to sort. Good luck in your editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Going in to an article which one has never contributed to before, without talking in the talk section and cutting over 24,000 characters whilst accusing the editors who have been working on it of "absurdity", "creation of a crude propaganda machine", 'bias due to geographic location', 'poor editing', 'narrative pushing', 'multiple breaches of wiki rules', etc. is a strange way to begin a conversation. Even stranger when you attempt to bully people who disagree with you to stop working on the article; as well as edit warring. But then again as you pointed out, I am from a country close to Venezuela; perhaps we have different standards on how to conduct civilized discourse! I wouldn't suggest a conversation then immediately tell others that they should refrain from participating. I would, however, not taken a person who does such things seriously. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@WIKI Admin- Would it be alright for me to start repairing the damage that he's done to the page? I tried twice yesterday and was meet by edit-warring, I stopped not wanting to fall afoul of the 3R rule myself. With your permission however, I would like to repair it. Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Alcibiades979, there is too much fixing to be done to undertake it without discussion and there is no hurry. Before discussing the more serious content issues, I would like to fix the simple (things like hanging references and wikilinking and other sloppiness introduced into the article) and blatant problems (original research in saying 50 countries support Guaido and a weasly introduction referring vaguely to an interpretation of the constitution) introduced by Kashmir. It may be best to take it step by step, but the first thing I will shortly correct is the mess Kashmir left on the talk page, as they apparently do not know how to thread discussions, and an orderly talk page will be needed. Perhaps we can find a third party to help encourage Kashmir to use the talk page correctly, and to always provide a diff for allegations and to avoid casting of aspersions.

I also noticed the further personalization of issues by Kashmir above (But they seem to be a fairly new editor, and additionally they say they live in the region, so their strong feelings about that political figure can be forgiven.). Honestly, attributing motive. I hope this editor has a good understanding of WP:BATTLEGROUND, but since it appears they may not, I strongly encourage a very slow and methodical approach to repairing and restoring the article. I will try to repair the talk page shortly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Listo te ayudaré. Dijo que no cambiaría mas la pagina y que la dejaría en paz, ojalá que eso no sea mentira, jajajaja. Alcibiades979 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ! Working in a battleground editing environment is tedious and time-consuming, but slow and steady is the way to go. I have added sections on talk for discussing each of Kashmiri's deletions.[42] Please discuss under each section. If we can find someone to keep Kashmiri's responses appropriate and well-threaded, we should be able to determine consensus quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Kashmiri is warned for edit warring. They didn't break 3RR since they only made three reverts on 8 February, but they were reverting to enforce their own revision of the article. Their version clearly lacks general consensus. Single-handed rewritings are unlikely to succeed, and a slower process appears necessary for this particular article. If this article falls into chaos, full protection may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I politely object. Alicibiades was the one who interrupted the consensus process that was at the time being worked out on Talk, without bothering to engage in discussion there. I only reverted their interruption. Further, thank you to correctly state the number of reverts I made. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Korny O'Near reported by User:Ewen Douglas (Result: Warned)

Page: Steve King (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Korny O'Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

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

Comments:

While not technically violating 3RR, Korny O'Near has engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on the Steve King article since 23 Jan 2019 while carefully reverting around the 24-hour limit. Multiple editors have reverted his POV edits, including myself, Snooganssnoogans, MrX, and AzureCitizen. On the talk page, a similar war has played out - multiple editors have attempted to explain to Korny O'Near why his edits are not acceptable, and there is no support for his POV edits, yet he continues to try to force them into the article. Ewen Douglas (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: With his latest edit, Korny has now made 6 reversions to the article (4 of them identical) in the last 24 hours and 28 minutes. Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I admit I should have paid more attention to the 24-hour timer, although I should note that the text I reverted includes what I believe is copyrighted text from The New York Times, and thus may be exempt from the 3RR rule. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with Ewen Douglas and was considering raising this at WP:AE. Korny O'Near's editing is fully tendentious at this point, and his persistent WP:IDHT and edit warring are indicative of someone who is simply trying to get their way in defiance of consensus. In my opinion, a DS topic ban from the article would probably be more effective than a block.- MrX 🖋 17:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, here's the apparent plagiarism that I was trying to revert:

From the text in the Wikipedia article:

In 2010, King accused Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race, stating that Obama had a "default mechanism" that "favors the black person."

From the New York Times article:

He also accused former President Barack Obama of advancing immigration policies based on race. “The president has demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race, on the side that favors the black person,” he said in a radio interview in 2010.

Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The "apparent plagiarism" tack is a new one from Korny. If you look at his earlier reversions of this exact same section (the first three diffs I listed) he did not list "plagiarism" as a concern. He's simply trying to use that as a cover for his edit-warring (it's not plagiarism, in any case). Ewen Douglas (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "new" - I mentioned it in some of the edit summaries, as well as several times on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You did not mention it until 17:58, 7 February 2019‎, less than 24 hours ago. Stop with the nonsense. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You added that text to the Wikipedia article on February 5, and I first mentioned it on the talk page a few hours later. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Your first edit summary to mention it was 17:58, 7 February 2019. You've been edit warring on the article since 23 Jan, so yes, it's a new tactic. It's also not plagiarism, and other editors besides myself reverted your edits that used that excuse, which is further evidence of your tendentious editing. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Then why didn't you restore the version that was consented to by three editors? ("King speculated that Obama's immigration policies were influenced by racial favoritism toward blacks."). Your sudden concern about plagiarism lacks credibility in view of your edits to the article and talk page discussions.- MrX 🖋 18:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "sudden concern". As I noted, I first mentioned the apparent plagiarism on the talk page a few hours after it was added to the article. Should I have done it within minutes? And I didn't revert to that previous wording because, non-plagiaristic as it was, it also didn't make any sense, as I've also noted on the talk page. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that IT ISN'T PLAGIARISM. Zero other editors thought it was. You are the only one who stated that (falsely) as yet another tactic in your edit-warring. Ewen Douglas (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, now the administrators can decide that. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

If the extent of the plagiarism is the example listed above by Korny then I don't find it persuasive. In my opinion this report should be closed without giving Korny any credit for the copyright exception to 3RR (WP:3RRNO #5). If Korny would promise to take a break from editing this article for a month, an admin might consider closing this without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Korny O'Near is warned. They may be blocked if they edit the Steve King article again unless they have received a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine. I disagree with the assessment, but I'll accept the warning. I may indeed have been spending too much time on this one article, the problems with it notwithstanding. Happy editing, everyone. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rmor312 reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of unsolved problems in mathematics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rmor312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of the user's revert: [52]

Diff of the block notification for the same edit war: [53]

Comments:

This user restarts the same edit war, just after the end of his block for exactly the same reverts on the same article. D.Lazard (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 days. The user previously blanked the AfD discussion of an article they created. If this continues they are risking an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:CordialGreenery reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "undid possible vandalism. User was warned."
2. 05:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "undid possible vandalism. User was warned."
3. 05:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revert without explanation. Please use the talk page to discuss."
4. 05:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Restored to last good version with extra citation."
5. 19:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Repaired lede to previously accepted version."
6. 10:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Restored to previous consensus."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Talk:BAMN */ new section"
2. 05:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on BAMN. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Political violence in the lede */ reply"

Comments:

Consistent vandalism, POV-pushing, non-constructive deletionism, and outright aggression that borders on harassment, including open insults on my talk page, make this a WP:Boomerang situation.CordialGreenery (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The hell they do. One editor edit-warred six times against two editors to keep his preferred version and insulted them in the process. And has yet to learn how to sign his name. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this will work out well for you. There's a constructive way to do this, and you're choosing the opposite of that. CordialGreenery (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Your faux concern for me is very touching. Sign me Shabby. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I note edit warring warnings last month by three other editors and a DS alert for American Politics. Despite this CordialGreenery he continued to edit war. called Malik Shabazz "Shabby" on the article talk page and asked if Malik he could read on his own talk page. Malik, you shouldn't have responded on his talk page the way you did. Doug Weller talk 11:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sapphorain reported by User:ZH8000 (Result:Both blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882859182 by ZH8000 (talk) ??? I don't see any source with that simple revert"
2. 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882856312 by ZH8000 (talk) Stop that nonsense (or provide an "indisputable" source)"
3. 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882847905 by ZH8000 (talk)No, they are not. Petit-Lancy is part of the municipality of Lancy, and Acacias is part of the municipality of Carouge"
4. 16:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Suppressed postal codes not for the city, but for other municipalities in the canton"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Geneva/Lausanne */ new section"
2. 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Geneva/Lausanne */"
3. 20:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Geneva. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* ZIP */ new section"

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48h.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:92.184.96.18 reported by User:Dorsetonian (Result: blocked, 24 hours)

Page

Dakota Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
2. 20:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
3. 19:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
4. 18:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
5. 15:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
6. 13:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
7. 11:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
8. 00:03, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
9. 20:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
10. 18:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
11. 18:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
12. 17:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
13. 16:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
14. 15:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
15. 10:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
16. 23:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
17. 17:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
18. 16:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Dakota Johnson. (TW)"
2. 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is reportedly removing content without discussion or even edit summary. The content in question is gossip but can be referenced to reliable sources. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

They have reverted again ([54]) after being notified of this report ([55]) Dorsetonian (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm sorry this took a while--a block is obviously justified here. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• I see now that the same material has been edit-warred into out of the article by couple of Indian IPs and maybe others; I'll semi-protect. I don't like doing that since as far as I'm concerned it's celebrity gossip, but this edit war is irritating, and a consensus to remove would have to come by way of the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rm w a vu reported by User:Drmies (Result: 7 days)

Page

Mueller, She Wrote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rm w a vu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]

Comments:
User has now reverted three times. I could revert again, and get them blocked, perhaps, but I am not interested in doing that--I am more interested in them realizing that this should stop. Apparently they don't want to hear this from me. I might have talked more with them on the talk page, but they had little more to offer than an accusation of bias. Pinging JzG also, who wrote the article and reverted the editor the first time (so we're well past BRD). Note that their added sources are not acceptable by our standards; the only thing that might could be called verified is a bit of trivia about the opening sequence. The rest is links to the actual podcast and fact tags. Drmies (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been involved in the creation or early stages of a page being created and populated, but in my experience, a fair amount of latitude is ordinarily given to allow a page to be sourced before being whittled down. I made attempts to engage in a civil conversation on the talk page, only to be accused of hyperbole, with an unwillingness to work towards the common goal of Wikipedia. Let's not be lame, let's be bold and get an article off the ground that has enough information and report to warrant it. --rm 'w avu 23:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You have any more insults laying around? Drmies (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You have anything constructive to contribute? --rm 'w avu 23:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's something constructive - Blocked for 7 days. I'm pretty sure that an account that has hardly edited snce 2017 and turns up 15 months later on a wild revert spree is not here for any useful purpose. Next block will be indefinite, I suspect. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

User:67.135.148.177 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Doctor Who (series 11)

1. 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899820 by Seby1541 (talk) (talk) please be constructive"
2. 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899385 by Seby1541 (talk) (talk) please, no sockpuppeting"
3. 00:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898452 by Esuka (talk) status quo? wiki is always in flux"
4. 00:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898097 by Esuka (talk) please take it to the talk page"
5. 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882897206 by Alex 21 (talk) Please take it to the talk page rather than edit warring."
6. 00:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896883 by Alex 21 (talk) please stop vandalizing, take it to the talk page"
7. 00:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896714 by Railfan23 (talk) please stop vandalizing"
8. 00:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896416 by Railfan23 (talk) revert"

Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who)

1. 00:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882892542 by Sebastian James (talk) reverting broad brush"
2. 00:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898588 by Seby1541 (talk) your editing is overbroad, please keep it to and point you are addressing) revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"
2. 00:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Doctor Who (series 11). (TW)"
3. 00:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Doctor Who (series 11)‎. (TW))"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:67.135.148.177 reported by User:Railfan23 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899820 by Seby1541 (talk) please be constructive"
2. 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899385 by Seby1541 (talk) please, no sockpuppeting"
3. 00:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898452 by Esuka (talk) status quo? wiki is always in flux"
4. 00:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898097 by Esuka (talk) please take it to the talk page"
5. 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882897206 by Alex 21 (talk) Please take it to the talk page rather than edit warring."
6. 00:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896883 by Alex 21 (talk) please stop vandalizing, take it to the talk page"
7. 00:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896714 by Railfan23 (talk) please stop vandalizing"
8. 00:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896416 by Railfan23 (talk) revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Currently on their 8th revert of multiple editors. Reverting to put an unsupported edits that contains clear vandalism. Has been warned about 3RR (removed from their talk page) by another editor. Railfan23 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Same as above. Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:217.39.24.212 reported by User:AlanM1 (Result: Two articles semied)

User being reported: 217.39.24.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Summertime Ball

• Page: Summertime Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous version: Special:Permalink/879520040
• Warring:
  1. Special:Diff/879671558/879520040 – IP attempted to add empty setlist sections in improper format
  2. Special:Diff/879780171/879671558 – Reverted by another user
  3. Special:Diff/879819102/879780171 – IP again adds setlist sections, one correctly formatted but empty, the other, broken format
  4. Special:Diff/879819114/879819102 – Cluebot reverts this one
  5. Special:Diff/879827329/879819114 – IP again adds setlist sections in broken format
  6. Special:Diff/879827356/879827329 – Reverted by yet another user
  7. Special:Diff/879846071/879827329 – Reverted by IP
  8. (more warring regarding a "RUMOURED" 2019 lineup and "PREDICTED" setlist WP:CRYSTAL nonsense, with primarily another IP, though this IP added back in the empty set list section twice more)

Jingle Bell Ball

• Page: Jingle Bell Ball (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Previous version: Special:Permalink/881485389 – Broken format in 2010 and 2011 sections, MOS:FLAGS, other problems
• Warring:
  1. Special:Diff/881553436/881485389 – I fixed broken format, remove flags, clean up style and other issues
  2. Special:Diff/881607920/881553436 – IP reverts back to broken format, with flags, etc.
  3. Special:Diff/881712750/881607920 – Another user reverted to my version, based on my posting to WP:AIV (I think) and I did some more format work.
  4. Special:Diff/882530877 – IP restored the flags again

Misc

• Special:Diff/881487899 – Blanked MOS:BIO
• No edit summaries, no response to article or user talk pages
• Diff of warnings:
  1. Special:Diff/879819115 – Cluebot's warning about Summertime Ball
  2. Special:Diff/881555015 – My warning about blanking MOS:BIO
  3. Special:Diff/881556321 – My warning about Jingle Bell Ball
  4. Special:Diff/881556391 – My welcome message
  5. Special:Diff/881712912 – My second Jingle Bell Ball warning
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/882023825/881162298
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: Special:Diff/882540920

Comments IP user has been given various level 1–3 warnings for problems with three articles, a User talk:217.39.24.212#Welcome!, and a specific request to talk about their latest insistence on having flags where they don't belong, despite my having pointed out how it's againt MOS:FLAG in the original edit summary, their talk page, and the article talk page. The IP user refuses to get it, leave edit summaries, or discuss. I've done about all I can do for them. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Jingle Bell Ball two months and Summertime Ball two months. Lots of speculation and unsourced changes by IPs, including the IP editor who was reported here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:CatholicMan2016 reported by User:TonyBallioni (Result: blocked, 24 hours )

Page: Catholic Relief Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CatholicMan2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66]

Comments:
Sorry for the mess of the template: haven't reported here manually in a while. Tl;dr: we have an SPA who has been edit warring literally over years to push a POV about Catholic Relief Services controversies, despite there being a (limited attendance) talk consensus against it. I'd indef per edit warring/POV-pushing/NOTHERE, but I'm involved. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. A longer block can be applied if this continues. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Inoteator reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked)

Page

Afro-Dominicans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882742687 by Historiador91 (talk)"
2. 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882713610 by Historiador91 (talk)"
3. 03:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882560734 by Historiador91 (talk)"
4. 12:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882477170 by Historiador91 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

was warned days ago when they strated but to no avail.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – 31 hours. User keeps reverting but will not communicate. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Mlambo1975 reported by User:criticalthinker (Result: Warned)

Page

Kalanga people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mlambo1975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

Forgive me for not knowing how to exactly do this, but I need some help resolving and issue. This is a page I request semi-protection for a few months back because of someone who appears to be from this ethnic group adding information that had A LOT of POV. It appears the protection went away in early December and that someone came back a few days ago (February 7) with a similar kind of editing as before, putting all kinds of irrelevant and biased/POV wording in the opening paragraphs of the page not at all consistent or standard for these kind of pages on wiki. The page needs to be reverted back to the version prior to the semi-protection being removed. The problem editor seems to be one Mlambo1975 who may or may not be MmeliMoyo who was responsible for the last semi-protection being put into place. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Mlambo1975 is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Kalanga people unless they have obtained a prior consensus for their change on the article talk page. In particular, I see they have twice removed a merge tag with no discussion and no support. EdJohnston (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2600:1003:B85B:E4F7:C9CF:3791:6495:FEE8 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Semi)

Page: Survivor: Edge of Extinction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1003:B85B:E4F7:C9CF:3791:6495:FEE8 (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] THERE IS A SOURCE CLEARLY STATING THE AIR DATES FOR THE SEASON, STOP DELETING PERTINENT INFORMATION FOR THE SEASON. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA NOT A FANDOM PAGE
3. [70] Do not add season premiere date until it actually happens, even if there is a reliable source
4. [71]
5. [72]
6. [73]
7. [74] Please do not add season premiere date until it occurs
8. [75] Please do not add season premiere date until it actually occurs
9. [76] Please do not add the season premiere date until it actually occurs.
10. [77] Do not add any information for episodes that have not been aired yet.
11. [78] Do not add any information pertaining to episodes that have not been aired yet.
12. [79] Please do not add ANY information pertaining to episodes that have not been aired yet, even if there is a reliable source.
13. [80]
14. [81]
15. [82] Do not add information for episodes that have not been aired yet “Only insert the date after it has happened.”
16. [83] Do not add episodes that have not yet aired. Only add individual episodes after they have aired.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84] Warning: Three-revert rule on Survivor: Edge of Extinction. (TW)

Comments: Continuous disruptive editing on the upcoming reality show of its new season, the episode titles are claiming with reliable sources. ApprenticeFan work 11:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP edit warring by User:109.153.201.30 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jeremy Hardy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.153.201.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:36, 12 February 2019‎
2. 13:54, 12 February 2019‎
3. 14:26, 12 February 2019‎
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
This isn't a 3RR report: it's a BLP violation, with an IP trying to add information without using reliable sources. The first source they used contained none of the information they were adding, the second is a crowd-sourced, unreliable site. The user was warned, initially by edit summary, then by message on their talk page, informing them of the BLP and WP:RELIABLE policies. Further edit warring has taken place since then. SchroCat (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)}}

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Skylax30 reported by User:Calthinus (Result: blocked)

Page: Gjon Kastrioti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skylax30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[88]] -- Skylax30's initial addition of his sources claiming that Albanian medieval nobleman and national hero Gjon Kastrioti was "Greek"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert of Cinadon36 [[89]]
2. revert of Resnjari [[90]]
3. revert of Ktrimi991 [[91]]
4. second revert of Ktrimi [[92]] (reinstating this edit [[93]] reverted by Ktrimi [[94]])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[95]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[96]]

Comments:
With this user it is in fact a chronic problem of using outdated sources, generally in attempts to deny the existence of an Albanian people. He has been previously blocked for such behavior three times, and one more for personal attacks [[97]]. He is also a subject of some of the densest and most frequent sanctioning I've ever seen, on his native Greek wikipedia for behavior in the same vein [[98]]. On the page Gjon Kastrioti he has a particular history demonstrating a long-term fixation with portraying him as non-Albanian, although in terms of what he should be instead, Skylax30 has proved to be rather flexible. He is now arguing the man was Greek, but earlier he was aiding the efforts of a now-banned sockpuppet to claim the man was a Serb.--Calthinus (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

A clear violation of the rules. It is not the first time though. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30's edits clearly demonstrate a prolonged pattern of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS behavior.Resnjari (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The usual accusations and lies by the group of 3 guardians (plus one who never adds anything to an article but only assists in deleting) of the Albanian national myths, who prevent the improvement of relevant articles. I am not "claiming" something about a person being Greek. Articles are written on sources, not on users' opinions. I expanded the article by adding sourced material, which they delete because they don't like. The "outdated" sources mentioning Gjon Kastrioti as Greek are of 2017 and 1968, both published in academic journals. At the same time, the above team of guardians, is preserving in the same article a "fresh" source from 1899 (now number 4) and an obscure source in Russian first published in 1931 (number 3). I added a tag "citation needed" for the claim that he is Albanian (no question there are such sources) and they erase it, with the argument that this is "obvious" (Is the sky blue? Source). See talk [99]. In the talk, Calthinus is personally attacking me with ironies and suggestions to "talk about my feelings in a safe place", with ironies about the Greek WP. The above 3-4 users are acting as a team, not to improve articles but to force an isolated user to "edit war" if he/she tries to change the articles they are patroling. Btw, I would like an opinion by adminis if pointing to previous "sunctioning" of a user (especially in another WP) is accepted as civil behaviour. If the admins board see that I am wrong on the above, I will never edit those "Albanian" articles again. 1899 was not a bad year, after all. --Skylax30 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Casting WP:ASPERSIONS on other editors with comments such as The usual accusations and lies by the group of 3 guardians (plus one who never adds anything to an article but only assists in deleting) just highlights your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. There is much more out there, but as the report is on Gjon Kastrioti article, the focus is on that in here.Resnjari (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The most frustrating part is not the breaking of 3RR, but the unwillingness to use the Talk Page and follow consensus. When I removed the {{citation needed}} template, I didn't cite obviousness, I wrote: "Removing {{citation needed}}. It is deduced from the main body of the article. ie "In 1386, like many other noblemen from Albania, Gjon became an Ottoman vassal". See also "titles" section. As far as I can understand from the Talk Page, Skylax30 is questioning Kastrioti's origins. Origins do not translate to ethnicity or nationality though"(spelling fixed). In the article one can read at the section "titles"His different titles used in sources include Lord of Emathia and Vumenestia or simply Lord of Mat. In Venetian sources he was also referred to as "lord in Albania" (dominum in Albania),[49] and "lord of the part of Albania" (dominus partium Albanie).[50]" I also checked the article Albanian nobility, at section "Noble families", Kastrioti's family name is there. I also explained my reasoning at the Talk Page [100]. As of now (permalink) I didn't get a respond. I am not tag teaming with nobody. Occam's razor says that if you try to insert fringe opinions in an article and get reverted by 3 other users, it is most probable you are inserting inappropriate material rather than there is a conspiracy.Cinadon36 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• I have blocked for 3RR violation. Last block duration was 2 weeks, so 1 month is the standard escalation. If any admin feels this is too harsh, they may reduce. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Usmannoormalik reported by User:Saqib (Result: protected)

Page

Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883151660 by Saqib (talk)"
2. 15:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883136460 by Saqib (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar. (TW)"
2. 16:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC) "/* February 2019 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This newbie adding OR (such as DoB) despite being advised not to do so. And trying to engage in edit warring. Saqib (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment in my opinion, the 'newbie' feels like bitten. Instead of reverting the full change (blanket undo), removal of only unsourced content might have prevented this edit-war.  samee  converse  16:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Article protected for 1 week. Concur with Samee to some extent. If User:Usmannoormalik is edit warring then so is User:Saqib. I don't want to block both of you at this stage. Suggest discussion at Talk:Iftikhar Ahmed Khan Babar which is currently empty. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yesterday, I was adding stuff with proper references and Saqib was reverting everything I was editing. Even when I put references from official websites of government, he changed it and replaced the reference with a different reference of a private media channel saying later reference was more authentic. So govt. reference isn't authentic enough for him? He just likes to revert everything anyone else writes and then writes same with a few modifications claiming his own contribution. Usmannoormalik (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Usman
  • Your comment reminded me of this edit. Anyhow, Usmannoormalik this isn't a valid excuse for edit-warring on your part as it disrupts the encyclopaedia. In future, get yourself involved on talk page rather than un-doing edits otherwise you may be blocked and lastly, please avoid personal attacks and battleground mentality. Happy editing!  samee  converse  18:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Sellpink (Result: No violation)

Page: Child's Play (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)&oldid=883056398
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)&oldid=883073259
3. [diff]
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:Child%27s_Play_(2019_film)

Comments:
I simply informed the other party (Rusted AutoParts) that 'title' and not 'name' is the proper term for films and books. His response was to revert my edit and accuse me of being pedantic in the user comments. He was combative and irrational.(Sellpink (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

Oh wow are you serious? Not only did you report me for one revert you didn’t even feel obliged to inform me of said report. I’ve addressed your issues in the article’s talk page and you’ve yet to respond, so I’m feeling this may just be some attempt to pick a needless fight. Rusted AutoParts 19:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:175.137.72.188 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Falooda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.137.72.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:

This IP is actively edit-warring against several users (LouisAragon, Oshwah and me), refuses to admit that the sources proposed are reliable, and fails to discuss in a civil manner with others. Please take a look at what Oshwah told him on their talk : [109]. I think that admins attention is required. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

i strongly believe that removal of my RS from shudhganga and refusing to discuss the matter on the talk page and inserting non reliable RS from india today, indianexpress and a persian blog on faloodeh which is irrelevant to the another article falooda and reinstating a irrelevant, non RS, is a violation of wikipedia rules, i have repeatedly asked, why my RS from shudhganga been removed even though its an RS, no replies have been made, the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article in order to make it more persian biased, i have argued that persian faloodeh is a dessert while falooda is milk based beverage which has got persian faloodeh noodle influence in the mughal periods, so i have mentioned falooda vermicelli milk based percursors by referencing the RS i have just mentioned above, which has been removed by persian users without providing any reason, and they keep adding non reliable RS from india today, indianexpress, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Add massive violations of WP:PERSONAL to that as well;

• " (...) by persian users such as Wikaviani, LouisAragon, Oshwah (...)"[110]
• "(...) the users are from persian backgrounds, i feel that as persians, they are trying to change the indian article (...)"[111]

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Also, FYI, this "user" is IP hopping since a long time. Compare IP 175.137.72.188 with this other IP.[112] Exact same geolocation,[113]-[114] same POV, same concerns, not using edit summaries. Pinging Bishonen, who's aware of this.[115] - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Thanks for your swift intervention to put an end to the disruption. Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

User:95.93.201.166 reported by User:MapReader (Result: blocked)

Page: Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.93.201.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]

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

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

Comments:
This is an IP editor with a long history of repeated disruptive editing, tying down multiple editors daily in dealing with edits that continue regardless of any discussion or consensus on the page. As an IP editor it hasn't been possible to communicate or post any warning. MapReader (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. But what do you mean "it hasn't been possible to communicate or post any warning"? They have a talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. And, yes, so they do. Now I feel dumb; I just assumed IPs didn't, because it comes up 'do you want to create the userpage' when you click on the user. I never went further. sorry. MapReader (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

p.s. And you'll have noticed no shortage of warnings from others already there! MapReader (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:67.135.148.177 reported by User: Pinrestop (Blocked)

Page

Doctor Who (series 11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Twice Upon a Time (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Doctor Who (series 11)

1. 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899820 by Seby1541 (talk) (talk) please be constructive"
2. 00:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882899385 by Seby1541 (talk) (talk) please, no sockpuppeting"
3. 00:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898452 by Esuka (talk) status quo? wiki is always in flux"
4. 00:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882898097 by Esuka (talk) please take it to the talk page"
5. 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882897206 by Alex 21 (talk) Please take it to the talk page rather than edit warring."
6. 00:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896883 by Alex 21 (talk) please stop vandalizing, take it to the talk page"
7. 00:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 882896714 by Railfan23 (talk) please stop vandalizing"

Comments:

• Blocked 1 week and article semi protected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ljuvlig reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: blocked)

Page

Accession of Macedonia to NATO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "It's not vandalism, stop saying that, I'm not a vandalist, this picture has no references and is not appropriate, it's graffitti."
2. 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883275933 by Resnjari (talk)"
3. 11:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "It's not edit war and I have been blocked not fairly, you have misused wiki and tricked the people so they block me."
4. 10:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC) "Removed unnecessary picture that doesn't help the context."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[121]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has received 2 recent blocks for the same edit-warring, & was warned again today. David Biddulph (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ljuvlig's behavior via WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons is disruptive to the Wikipedia project. The article in question is covered under WP:ARBMAC.Resnjari (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Those 2 recent blocks where made unfairly and manipulative by Resnjari's lead. Stop lying Resnjari, it has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:TENDENTIOUS. It's not neutral with that picture and there is no source that there is widespread Anti-Nato feelings in the article, it's weird how people believe your word when you have no evidence for it. I want to say that me being blocked was unfair and wrong, I'm not a vandalist, I don't think the picture should be there cause it doesn't give the article a neutral account. And I don't see how graffitti is relevant in this case to portray this article. Ljuvlig (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Resnjari should get some warning for the lying and manipulate behaviour he has done to me.Ljuvlig (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest to Ljuvlig to stop editing that article for some time. After reflecting on the issue and gaining experience, they could return to the dispute and seek a stable solution. A good solution would be having two pics on the article, one showing pro-NATO sentiments and one showing anti-NATO sentiments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, I suggest to Ljuvlig to not make personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. Clear violation of 3RR. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fcbjuvenil reported by User:R96Skinner (Result: Both warned)

Page: Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fcbjuvenil (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. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Fcbjuvenil believes this footballer, Maximiliano Meza (footballer, born 1992), left his ex-club, Independiente, in 2018 but joined his new club, Monterrey, in 2019. That's despite it being a direct transfer, therefore he'd have to of left/joined at the same time; i.e. the same year. My POV was that he left/joined in 2018, as that's when the transfer was announced. However, I get that's arguable as some editors believe its when the transfer window opens (2019). Fcbjuvenil thinks it should be: left in 2018, joined 2019. Which doesn't make sense. However, I'm willing to compromise at 2019 both ways. Fcbjuvenil continues to blindly revert, avoiding a discussion despite my attempts (see above). R96Skinner (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Fcbjuvenil and User:R96Skinner are warned for edit warring. Since both parties broke 3RR, action won't be taken here. Neither side has used the article talk page which would be the best place to resolve this. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

That hardly solves the issue, does it? You honestly believe the user would hold a conversation via the article's talk page when they didn't even respond to direct contact, nor respond here. Interesting. You could probably class Fcbjuvenil's edits as vandalism; therefore making the 3RR void. However, I was willing to find a better solution than that by coming here hoping to resolve the issue in some way. I will open a discussion on the article's talk page, which will likely be futile but hopefully I am wrong! R96Skinner (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't use the term WP:VANDALISM unless you are confident that the other party is actually trying to damage the encyclopedia and make it worse, which doesn't seem to be the case here. If a transfer was recorded as of 31 December (as suggested by your source) there might be an ambiguity as to which year he started with the new team. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fcb is still engaging in edit warring at multiple articles. Koncorde (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I believed both parties did not use the talk page very much, despite members of WikiProject Football had preferred their own version or MoS on these transfer (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Maximiliano Meza, transfer years), it can be solved by one side of the edit war to start a thread in the player's article talk page or in the project. Matthew hk (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not using the article's talk page at the beginning, likewise with the 3RR. I should've used the talk page earlier, I will do in the future. However, I feel you can understand why I thought it would be rather futile - as it evidently has been, no response whatsoever from User:Fcbjuvenil in three different locations (here, article talk page, NFOOTY talk page) which is a shame. It seems Koncorde has seen similar issue(s) with this user. R96Skinner (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Yanping Nora Soong reported by User:Doc James (Result: Agreed to revert to status quo ante, no action)

Page: Brugada syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yanping Nora Soong (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. [122] (Feb 13th 16:10)
2. [123] (Feb 13th 20:00)
3. [124] (Feb 14th 00:55)
4. [125] (Feb 14th 22:28)
5. [126] (Feb 14th 22:34)
6. [127] (Feb 14th 22:39)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [128] (Feb 14 22:34)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:

So what we have here 6 reverts without gaining consensus on the talk page to valid concerns raised by two editors (myself one of them). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They're not all reverts. I am adding new material and new sources each time, and it was easier for me to restore the material and then add the sources, because I was making my edits piecewise. Two editors isn't consensus. I would appreciate wider viewpoints on the matter. I am also editing from class. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yanping Nora Soong: But they're partial reverts. You can't do that either, both for legalistic reasons (the policy says "in whole or in part"), and realistic ones (otherwise, one could always insert whatever they wanted to just by tweaking it slightly each time). Please self-revert, and gain consensus on the talk page. Generally when there's a content dispute, consensus is needed for the new material to be added, not for its removal. p.s. I don't understand what "editing from class" means, or what it has to do with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to revert. I also have to pack my laptop soon. I'll defer to uninvolved administrator decisions but I am not sure what self-revert to carry out. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean just revert to the status quo ante, and then discuss. Your edits are all saved in history, and will be easy to get back if you gain consensus on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can you linked me to the preferred revision and I will revert to that? I'll defer to the whatever you think is the preferred, conservative revision because I will not be online again until I get home. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yanping Nora Soong It would be this version[130]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if we're doing status quo ante, let's do it right, not incorporating some of Doc James' comments from today. I've reverted to the version from yesterday that was stable for 2 weeks. If some of the intermediate changes are sure to be uncontroversial, they can be re-added, but anything with any chance of having disagreement should be discussed on the talk page. Since YNS agreed to the revert, I'm closing this with no action. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Floquenbeam perfectly reasonable. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

user:Wikaviani, user:LouisAragon user:Oshwah reported by user:175.137.72.188 (result: OP warned)

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

---

Page: Falooda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikaviani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: LouisAragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Oshwah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [134]

Comments:

These users have reverted my RS in Falooda, i have tried to engage in them in the discussion by leaving a message on their talk page, but these users have not, user:Wikaviani has has used nationalist argument that

Faloodah was invented in Persia more than 2500 years ago, how could the Mughals invent it 2000 years later ? Please check what this Indian paper says about this : "Even the concept of sweetmeats after the main meal was introduced by the Persians. The most common being kulfi and falooda, eaten in tall glasses in Iran. Even jalebi found its way to our hearts from Persia! Sherbet, served during Indian summers, originated in Persia.".

Faloode was introduced by Persians.

The beverage is also of Persian origin. Also, you seem to think that only you can identify what a RS is. Edit-warring against 3 other editors before waiting for the discussion to conclude is not the solution. Best regards.

these assertions are without credible RS, i have tried to make a logical argument and in reply, the user has only inserted nationalistic POV and has not provided credible source, user:Wikaviani, user:LouisAragon have removed my RS from shudhganga without any reasonable explanation, there is also an issue of persian blog post which is irrelevant to the article being used to assert this nationlist POV,

user:LouisAragon user:Oshwah have not even engaged in the discussion depite calling them to state their reasons.

regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment Another report was made about this : [135]. IP user, please keep in mind that Wikipedia works primarily with WP:CONSENSUS. So far, you've been reverted by 3 users (the three you reported here), this is far from any consensus. In such cases, it's better to try to solve the dispute constructively and without attacking other users like you did above with me. I'm not a Persian nationalist and the sources i provided on the talk page were Indian papers, not Persian blogs. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

revert has been made without seeking any consensus, the other two users have made reverts without bringing discussion on the table, all three users clearly are working together with nationalist motivation which can be observed in the comments, and which can be seen in their reluctance to participate in the discussion, otherwise there would have been proper discussion before reverts been made, removal of RS still has not been addressed, as well as non reliable RS persian blog which specifically targets faloodeh of persia and irrelevant to Falooda, user:Oshwah reverted even my talk page message to user:LouisAragon and user:Wikaviani also reverted my talk page message to user:Oshwah, this is pretty evident that all these three members have worked in unison [talk revert] regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Administrator note There is no merit in this report at all. 175.137.72.188: you violated 3RR on 13 Feb, which I will overlook because it is 2 days ago and you have not edit warred since. Please continue the discussion on Talk:Falooda and stop attacking other editors — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

i have not made three reverts, i have only made two reverts, please go back and check again user: Wikaviani is the one who has made three reverts, the other two have made one each which makes five reverts, the three users have tried to revert my editing without proper discussion, and have not engaged in the discussion in the talk page, as i have already stated, that the two users are not interested in the discussion, only one engaged and user is insistent on not giving reason for reverting my RS and imposing persian blog irrelevant source which is about faloodeh, and he has clearly revealed his bias in the discussion, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your reverts: 1, 2, 3. Also, even if we ignore that, when one person is reporting three people, it's almost always the one person who is edit warring. You are the edit warrior in this case, and failure to acknowledge that does not help you. Further arguing that you were not edit warring or that they were will be considered disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Closed OP warned that they were the edit warrior in this case. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

the second one is not a revert, it was edition, i have reported three of them because they have not engaged in the discussion. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Final warning: DROP IT. You were officially the edit warrior in this scenario. Any assessment that is both good-faith and competent would arrive at that conclusion. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

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

User:ElHef & User:B dash reported by User:219.79.97.234 (Result: OP blocked)

Page: Talk:The Voice India Kids (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• ElHef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• B dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/883302063
2. Special:Diff/883305800
3. Special:Diff/883444667

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/883444667

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/883449030

Comments: These users keep closing the edit request without knowing the situation. We have explained many times that we are unable to edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.97.234 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, I hope the admins should consider looking at User talk:117.97.142.249 before taking actions. --B dash (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours No, you're edit warring. Someone should really make a template that explains "if you're all alone reverting multiple users, you're the edit warrior." Your reverts include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. At no point have you explained why or how you're unable to edit the page. The first time you even claimed you can't edit was when you were claiming that you already explained it. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler reported by User:175.137.72.188 (Result: Just stop it, already)

Page: Pilaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fowler&fowler (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. [136]
2. [137]
3. [138]
4. [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140][141]

Comments:

The user FF has been engaged in edit warring for last three days, the user has made multiple edits, in quantity of hundreds and in the mean time has also reverted multiple times, in last three days, the user has totally changed the intro and the history section of Pilaf without reaching any accommodation or consensus or discussing it with multiple users, the indian accounts from mahabharatha and yajnavalkiya smriti has been moved down even though they are cronologically at earlier date just because user argues that the sources are not authentic because user insists on middle eastern origins of the dish, the user insists that his sources are correct and the rest of the sources are incorrect and have been deliberately removed form the page. The user is also now edit warring on his own sources which he is manipulating them to suit his narrative, his sources mention one thing and the user manipulates them to suit his narrative and POV, please take a note on that, the user also doesnt listen to the objections raised on his sources and the contradictory claims made in them, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is the third thread currently visible on this page involving the IP editor. Maybe it's not everyone else that's the problem? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. See the warnings on their talk page, including from me, and at the article in question, this. [142] Doug Weller talk 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

    Europeans writing Eurocentric articles [143] , Persians writing Persian-o-centric articles [144], seems like the IP has problems assuming good faith. --regentspark (comment) 22:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. If the IP files another spurious report, I think we should block for a week. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Davey2116 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: William Barr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: William Barr

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 01:35, 15 February 2019
• 01:52, 15 February 2019
• 07:04, 15 February 2019
• 14:42, 15 February 2019
• 19:49, 15 February 2019

Comments: This user is attempting to impose his own style preferences on infoboxes of American politicians, and he's willing to cross 3RR in doing so. He has previously been warned, following a 3RR report, not to edit war.

In this particular case, MOS does not indicate that "nowrap" is not to be used in infoboxes. This user is repeatedly removing the "nowrap" without giving a valid reason. Davey2116 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

User:汉族公民最 reported by User:Willthacheerleader18 (Result: both warned)

Page: Jamie Chua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 汉族公民最 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [146]
2. [147]
3. [148]
4. [149]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [151] [152]

Comments:
User continues to make nonconstructive edits to the article, even after I tried to discuss the matter on their talk page and the article talk page. They have accused me of WP:Ownership. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please admins judge who say right, this user is trying hard to avoid of understanding the fact, he think since he has created the article, he is owner of that!!!!!汉族公民最 (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• By my count you are both at 3 reverts, so both are warned that any further reverts may result in a block. @汉族公民最: I suggest you discuss at Talk:Jamie Chua where Willthacheerleader18 has begun a thread. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Blamen1 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Various)

Page

Kalash people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Blamen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "I did discuss. And I just checked this source was removed soon after it was added, it was removed many times after that."
2. 11:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "I did and explained how I discovered it unreliable, I read it. You offer no disputation."
3. 10:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Sorry lost my password. But you have offered nothing disputing what I said. Please don't add an unreliable source with conspiracy theories and fake claims that's been removed her before too."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Kalash people. (TW)"
2. 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kalash people. (TW)"
3. 11:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883750706 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
4. 11:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kalash people. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I told him repeatedly to discuss the matter in the talk page. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

He left out the part that I did discuss it at talk page. Didn't dispute it. The source he keeps adding back was removed many times in past which I checked. It is unreliable. I tried to explain but he doesn't stop adding it back. So what am I supposed to do? Blamen1 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

One cannot initiate a talk and keep reverting the article simultaneously. The religion section had been discussed extensively in the past here and here, but the Minahan source (to which user Blamen has objected) has been kept. For example here: here. I even asked Blamen to communicate with the users involved in the discussion here in the article talk page.

I would request @Kautilya3:, @Anupam:, @NadirAli:, @Mar4d: to look into the matter. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The editor has not crossed 3RR, and they made a detailed post on the talk page. So I can't see any applicable sanction. Blamen1, please read WP:BRD and follow it. When the issues are contentious, you need to go slow and allow WP:CONSENSUS to develop. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't offer any real disputation, just calling on others rather and avoiding the issue. Maybe the religion part was discussed, but I don't think that was the problem here which I think no one will discuss since it's a sensitive one. The issue rather seems to be the book itself including his conspiracy of Arabs invading in 700 CE and slaughtering or converting everyone. I tried looking it up, turned up nothing besides him in real historical sources of Arab invasions. Also the source is not needed, there are much better sources already there it seems. Blamen1 (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I still suggest Blamen1 to discuss the issue in the talk page and develop a WP:CONSENSUS first. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't realize I must wait but you should talk after I presented unreliability of Minahan. Blamen1 (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Blemen1 and User:Blemen2 are socks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Blamen2(Franchiodiol (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. With this, the editor is on their 4th revert.

Blamen and Blamen1 are the same person, but Blamen2 (talk · contribs) is probably a different joe-job account. See their contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blamen2 and Franchiodiol are socks of Nsmutte. Franchiodiol has been blocked as such. --bonadea contributions talk 17:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, ok. My bad then for getting taken in. Will unblock Blamen1 who hasn't violated 3RR after all. --regentspark (comment) 17:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Blamen2 blocked indef, this is a classic Nsmutte disruption. Acroterion (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Acroterion: another SPA Tyrosinephosphate emerged and refactored Franchiodiol's comment (see Special:Diff/883798341) any idea it is a sock of which master, or yet another unrelated SPA lurking AN? Matthew hk (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I didnt edit any thing , just i corrected the space between two words (Tyrosinephosphate (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

User:TommyVictor reported by User:Bignole (Result: blocked)

Page: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TommyVictor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. February 14 - 1
2. February 15 - 2
   1. Warning by GoneIn60
3. February 15 - 3
   1. My request for explanation of removal of sourced content
4. February 15 - 4
   1. Explaining what the infobox guide says and directing to article talk page
5. February 15 - 5
   1. Officially letting him know his edits could result in being reported and blocked
   2. His response that he'll just make a new account
6. February 15 - 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154], [155]

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

Comments:
There appears to be a history of this. If you go to the article talk page, you can find him consistently removing budget information he doesn't like all the way back in May 2017. I did insert the links for discussion into the revert report just so it was easier to see the timeline of events.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 week. The usual duration for first offence would be 24 hours but with their editing pattern, it might go unnoticed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:144.140.230.8 reported by User:ToBeFree (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
2. 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
3. 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
4. 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
5. 00:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
6. 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
7. 00:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"
8. 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Remove information about sister cities"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Taipei. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked by Materialscientist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Musicfan122

I hereby report that Musicfan122 has been engaging in edit warring and harassment of other editors on Slavery for quite some time now and has violated the 3 reverts policy. Diffs of the user's reverts: [156] [157] [158]

Balolay (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to block both of you for edit warring on that article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Vcuttolo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Vcuttolo (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 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 01:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Awards and honors */Building a "criticism" section to replace the deleted part of the media section. A work in progress."
   2. 01:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Fixed my own typo"
   3. 01:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */Added source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Step One of a work in progress. Please hang in there."
   2. 16:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */This should for everyone, I hope."
   3. 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Fixed typo"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source"
   2. 16:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added another source; removed request for source; removed neutrality claim."
   3. 16:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Alright, hopefully this works."
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC) to 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added content and context"
   2. 08:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source, clarified her comment as her own and not that of neutral WP."
   3. 08:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added source"
   4. 08:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media coverage */Added content. Separated out unrelated items into discrete paragraphs."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
2. 01:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Media section */ cmt"

Comments:

1RR violation. Not really a sign of willing to hear out other editors when repeatedly trying to add original interpretations, and when reverted and opposed, built a separate criticism section for virtually the same content. Sanctioned back in November for warring on the same page to make the subject appear to endorse Hamas "terrorist invaders". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 02:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page, you will see that I made a number of edits in an attempt to improve the page. Some of my edits involved adding to the criticism she had received for repeated gaffes, which seemed to fit in to the "Media" page as it was constructed.

I was reverted, and told that I had used WP:WEASEL words, because I had not specified the gaffes; I had written that she had made a number of gaffes, but I had intentionally not specified the gaffes, so as not to oversell the point. Instead I added to the sources for that one statement, so that there were now a total of seven sources, should anyone care what the gaffes were, as well as which media organs had mentioned them.

As I say, I was accused of violating WP:WEASEL by saying that she had been criticized, but not providing more specifics.

I also was told that the topic did not belong on the "Media" page.

In a good faith attempt to address those issues, I opened a separate "Criticisms" page, and began to specify some of the specifics I had been referencing. Again, it sounded to me that I was doing precisely what I had been asked to do.

Evidently, Tsumikiria disagrees. More notably, Muboshgu told me to avoid a "Criticism" page, as they are generally bad things to have on BLP pages, which is news to me. I responded to Muboshgu by asking how the media criticism should be included.

I am requesting assistance as to how to deal with Tsumikiria, who has been hounding me for a long time now. Every time I breathe, he drops a warning of potential suspension on my page. (A glance at his Talk Page shows that I am hardly his only target.) He once reverted me on precisely the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page because I used an Israeli newspaper as a source. Wrote Tsumikiria, "everyone knows that israeli (sic) media lies". He wrote a similarly disingenuous claim above, in relation to the Gaza protests of 2018. I had noted that the Gaza protests were violent, and supported by Hamas, which is exactly what the WP article 2018 Gaza Protests article said. Tsumikiria wants me suspended for mentioning that fact.

I want to be able to make good faith improvements to WP pages without having deal with an editor, with an ax to grind, constantly harassing me.

Thank you,

Vcuttolo (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, the article I used to guide my comments came from 2018 Gaza border protests. (I omitted the "border" part above.) Despite what Tsumikiria wrote above, I was not sanctioned for edit warring, nor for making AOC appear to support Hamas. I was sanctioned - at Tsumikiria's insistence at the time - for mistakenly including the wrong source. I had a source supporting what I wrote, and which matched the content of the then-edit-protected 2018 Gaza border protests article. I mistakenly used a different, irrelevant source, dated three months after the fact, for which I was sanctioned.

Vcuttolo (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is concerning to us that you're unwilling to recognize your edit warring, and when getting opposed with explanations, throw around accusations of harassment or revering the subject more than god. Your willingness to intentionally misquote people (I said "we know Israeli media criticize anyone criticizing israel", not "israeli media lies". I was unfamiliar with Haaretz at the time), as well as writing disparaging original interpretations (using a conservative columnist's comments to support the claim that progressives criticize AOC; writing "Ignoring the large numbers of protesters who were armed members of Hamas (considered a terrorist group"), is indicative that you're essentially treating this page as an ideological battleground. If you cannot work in a collegial manner, you might be walking yourself to a ban from such contentious topic areas. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 19:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I agree that the 1RR remedy has been breached. A phrase about "verbal gaffes" was added three times in the last 24 hours. Blocked for 1 week. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result: blocked)

Page

Sporting CP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. What is happening here! I gave you official sources and links to the games and someone keeps reverting back the page to fake facts! This is censorship!"
2. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. If one checks the links I provided, one can see that in fact the futsal derby took place on the 7th of February 2015 at 5pm local and that the football derby took place on the 8th of February 2015 at 8pm. Facts are facts and not opinions. This kind of censorship and cyber bullying is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Hope this settles this argument, otherwise I will have to report this situation to someone in charge. Regards."
3. 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I confirmed the fact that the futsal derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3666265) happened before the football derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3597315). Again I think that Wikipedia must be about facts and not opinions. Also I don’t think that when describing the Sporting Porto rivalry, one can say that they formed an alliance against Benfica, it just seems biased and simplistic. Regards."
4. 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Also the description of the Sporting / FC Porto rivalry as simply an alliance between the two clubs against Benfica seems to be very biased and partial. Maybe it was written by one SLBedit (benfiquista) that can’t see anything but red and should not be allowed to publish lies and opinions in the Sporting Clube de Portugal page. I always thought of Wikipedia as a place to publish facts and not opinions and blind rage. Best regards."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Sporting CP. (TW)"
2. 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sporting CP. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Censorship attempt */"

Comments:

In addition, user made another revert while logged out. Fore more information see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OctopusFactCheck. SLBedit (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 36 hours for 3RR violation. I think the actions of Kingerikthesecond should be considered also. They reverted 5 times without once leaving a suitable edit summary. This is not "obvious vandalism" so an exception does not apply. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for not including edit summaries. Twinkle's vandalism-revert feature does not allow for summaries. I did, however, warn the user multiple times. --Kingerikthesecond (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Callind reported by User:Moxy (Result: sockblock)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884031933 by Moxy (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) to 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 14:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) to 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 04:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 04:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 04:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 04:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 04:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 05:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   11. 12:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   12. 12:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   13. 13:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   14. 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   15. 13:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   16. 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) to 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
   1. 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   3. 21:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   4. 21:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   5. 22:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   6. 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   7. 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   8. 22:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   9. 22:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""
   10. 22:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No communication from this editor at all....no replies for sources ....not even edit summaries. Adding guess work and the one source used is a blog. Moxy (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In adition to that, we have large-scale copyvios from England in the Later Middle Ages: A Political History. Dr. K. 03:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• The reported account has since readded the copyvio three more times through fast-paced edit-warring. Dr. K. 03:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: blocked as a sock of Krajoyn -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sword313 reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: )

Page: Atropatene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sword313 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [159]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

Comments:

The reported editor is actively edit warring at Atropatene and refuses to discuss in a constructive way, see this comment on my talk page. The article's lead is clear about historical Atropatene and the infobox has been legitimately corrected by Qahramani144, but the reported user keeps edit warring and refuses to discuss on the article's talk page. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Atropatena covers the Republic of Azerbaijan from the north. Therefore, it should first be the flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan. It also covers the main part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The root of Azerbaijan is connected with Atropatena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This is your POV and this is actually contradicting the lead of the article which is sourced. Anyway, this is a content dispute and the above remark of yours does not justify your refusal to discuss with fellow wikipedians on the article talk page instead of edit warring. Best regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Between,it's not a good thing to say "dadash" to you. Do not forget that the letter "A" in English comes earlier.Best regards.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sword313 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but i don't understand how your last comment was relevant here. Also, please sign your posts with four (~) and indent your answers for better readability. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how Qahramani144's edit can be anywhere near legimate here. It is clearly visible on this map that Atropatene covered southeastern territories of modern-day Azerbaijan. It is the third time that I see Wikaviani disrupting the work routine and pushing his own political agendas to surpress the Azerbaijani Wikipedians. Such actions must have consequences. There are lot of Persian users interrupting the factuality. Also, in my opinion, we should use CheckUser on Qahramani144 to guarantee that there is no hypocrisy in here. --► Sincerely: A¥×aᚢ ⚔ Zaÿïþzaþ€ 05:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not the first time you attack me and you've been already warned for that by someone else. About Qahramani144 being a sock, just go ahead and file a SPI if you want, but do not accuse people of sockpuppetry without a legit reason. Also, about my "agenda" against Azerbaijanis editors, just take a look at my contribs, and you'll see that i just try to report users who disrupt this encyclopedia and i don't care at all about their nationality or ethnic background. I reported Sword313 here because he broke the 3RR and refused to discuss on the article talk page, not because he may be an Azerbaijani. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, evidenced by your above comment (and many other of your comments) is just another proof of the kind of editor you are. Regards.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Please read this about what is a personal attack : "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Liqunaei reported by User:Fradio71 (Result: no violation)

Page: Voltron: Legendary Defender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Fradio71 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [166]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]

Comments:
The user reported me for vandalism because they didn't like that I was removing the fancruft about fan behavior in the article. I kept telling them just because it's sourced doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. The user then reverted her warning for the report back onto my talkpage despite it being my talkpage. It's not like it was a block template. I was allowed to remove it. User kept telling me I was warned, by other users, however I hadn't interpreted as directed at me. User said the only reason I removed it was because I didnt like it, but that's far from the truth--Fradio71 (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not broken the 3 edit rule. In fact, the moment I realized that I had reached two edit reverts in a 24 hour period I immediately stopped and reported him for his behavior. He has now edited over six times in less than 24 hours against four different editors. Prior to his actions, four editors were working with one another to edit, fix, and change the article into what we believed as suitable. Liqunaei (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already been lectured about this: That is not how the 3RR rule works.

WP:3RR isn't permission to revert three times but no more. It says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

And you did have a third, rulebreaking revert: You readded content to my talkpage you were not within your rights to readd, and then used that to further paint me as the bad guy. You were still edit warring and readding unencyclopedic content. You called me a "vandal" because you didnt like that your unfocused section on "fan reaction" was being removed. You couldve tried to correct me and talk to me on my level instead of immediately painting me as a vandal because I removed an unnecessary section you liked. Removing fancruft from pages is completely permitted and you were actively trying to prevent me from doing so--Fradio71 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, no.

“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.”

It is not allowed on a single page: IE, the Voltron page you have now edited over six times. The bit about “the same or different material” is about the material on that single page—as in editing multiple sections repeatedly, as you have done now six times.

And the talk page I was not meant to read? It is an open talk page where people leave you comments. You removed the comment stating that I had reported you for repeated violations and vandalism. I spoke to you on the article talk page and on your own talk page, which you deleted. I reached out in good faith and you deleted my comments and attempt to reach out to you.!you attempting to erase your behavior against four editors should be acknowledged. Liqunaei (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You didnt reach out to me in good faith. You called me and my edits "disruptive" and a vandal, and that I was acting out of an alleged "bias". I never said you couldn't read my talk page, so dont try that. Your use of the disruptive edit template showed you didn't want to know why I removed the section. You just wanted to be seen in a good light. You started off with personal attacks, so please do not try to rewrite the history of the conflict in such a manipulative fashion. That is no way to carry a conversation.--Fradio71 (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I will allow Wikipedia to go through your content and your behavior. While it may have been wrong to revert your edits the two times I did, since you removed well-sourced content from four different editors it felt appropriate. Your behavior has been nothing but deplorable and rude to the three other people who were working together with me to make sure that the content was appropriate and well documented. We were all talking it out through talk pages and edits, doing fine with changing and editing until we all came to something we agreed on. You came in and deleted our hard work. That is inappropriate. I will no longer be responding to you or your behavior. Liqunaei (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

"Well sourced"? One of the removals was when "citation needed" templates were plastered all over the passage. Possibly two. How has my behavior been "rude" and "deplorable" to the other editors? Just because I asked questions that didnt have satisfying answers? Just because the four of you thought the content was appropriate (without even having a proper talkpage discussion), doesnt mean it was. And even then the sources weren't solid. I do not want to be blocked again, and many of your claims are either false or too shallow to hold up--Fradio71 (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The missing citation was from when you removed it. No one has been able to add it back because you keep cutting them out and changing them. Reverting after your multiple edits has been a headache for four people for the last 48 hours. Everything was sourced before you started hacking the article to pieces. And if you stop repeatedly abusing the edit function, the citations can be added back where they belong. Liqunaei (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You are blatantly distorting the truth. There is clearly very little sourcing at the time I made this edit. You are exaggerating when you say removing a single subsection is "hacking the article into pieces". And who are you to say the other editors have a headache because of me? You do not get to speak for them--Fradio71 (talk) 09:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet if you look at the most recent edit, most of it includes the clearly sourced material. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&diff=884055939&oldid=884055262

If you look at your other edit here, you clearly edited out the sources adding the “citation needed.” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltron:_Legendary_Defender&diff=883883539&oldid=883877080

You are the one who has been editing out properly sourced information to suit your narrative, and now you are lying about it. Liqunaei (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• No violation by Liqunaei — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment "The user reported me for vandalism" in the OP seems to refer to this post to WP:AIV initiated by Liqunaei regarding Fradio71, which was removed by Materialscientist with the edit summary of "not for this board".—Bagumba (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fradio71 reported by User:Liqunaei (Result: blocked)

Page: Voltron: Legendary Defender (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:Liqunaei (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Fradio71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]
5. [176]
6. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Comments:
The user has been edit warring with four different users on the same article. He has ignored multiple requests on the talk page where everyone else has made it clear that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. G. Capo, Jesip Lunati, Max1057 and myself have attempted on multiple occasions to ask this individual to stop. He has continued even after being warned, and has removed the comments and warnings left on his talk page. The moment he sent me a message stating that I may have been involved with breaking the 3edit rule, I stopped editing his constant edits. He has, however, continued editing and additionally breaking the vandalism rules as well as edit warring. This is a constant behavior for this user; if you look at his previous behavior, you will see that this is a regular hobby for him. His repeated abuse of Wikipedia makes it clear that he is not acting in good faith, despite people repeatedly trying to speak with him on the article talk page. Liqunaei (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You keep using the word "vandalism", seemingly to only use it to try to smear me as something I'm not. Your attempt to report me for vandalism was removed because it was not vandalism and yet you're insisting upon it here for what possible reason? There have been no "people" repeatedly trying to talk with me on the article talk page, or else you would have actively tried to bring me to it. Your first restoration of the section says "You need to be reported for vandalism". What happened to acting in good faith? You expected me not to try to get that content off the page? If you look at my previous behavior, yes, I've been imperfect but I've never acted in bad faith. It seems the words "regular hobby" are also misused here, as my current Wikipedia hobby is adding game show and competition series to actors' filmographies, and I would like to continue that without being blocked for removing fancruft from that makes up anywhere from 1/13th to 1/20th of a show page.--Fradio71 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It was removed because it wasn’t the right place to report you. And I quote, “not for this board.” This is why I have come to this board to report you. In addition, you falsely reported me for breaking the three revert rule when I only reverted your edits twice. Prior to your behavior, the editors and I were working together to make sure that we had a fair and balanced article. Your vandalism (and it is vandalism) is something you have done repeatedly for multiple articles over the past two months. Liqunaei (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Plese see above, just because you insist something doesn't make it true. What I was doing was not vandalism. And again, that is not what 3RR is about. Your idea of a "fair and balanced article" means turning a huge chunk of the article into something that wasn't about the show. Tipping the balance of the article with 3-5,000 bytes on fan reaction, compounded with the reception article, is not balanced at all. You keep calling my work vandalism when I have never been blocked for vandalism. Just because you were working with multiple editors on fancruft does not legitimize the fancruft--Fradio71 (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You have been known for editing and participating in edit wars on multiple occasions. You purposely have done so against multiple editors on over 4 other occasions. This individual also is known for reverting review admins posts, disruptive editing and personal attacks, and edit warring. They have been blocked repeatedly, and continue on with this trend through multiple articles. Their toxicity and unrepentant behavior is known by the Wikipedia staff. Liqunaei (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't have the right to smear me as "unrepentant". I have never been disruptive, I never made personal attacks (and this was proven in my appeal). I have only participated in one edit war and been blocked twice and the first was an accident they decided to stick with. You condemn me for making personal attacks while claiming all these things I'm allegedly "known" for. You're painting me with broad strokes and no context considered. You tell me I'm known for personal attacks…while making personal attacks.--Fradio71 (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked 4 days for 3RR violation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• I've also fully protected the article for a week to prevent other editors taking advantage of one side of the dispute being blocked — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Would it be possible for you to revert the original which he vandalized, please? Liqunaei (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  Certainly not. Please read WP:NOTVAND for starters. And then meta:The Wrong Version might be of interest. Suggest you try and reach a consensus at the talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The others and I had come to a basic consensus and were working through the kinks before this particular person came and started slicing and dicing up the article. We had an open dialogue available that he opted to ignore in the talk thread and on our personal talk pages. I wanted to state that for the record before ending this conversation. Liqunaei (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Once you have a clear consensus, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Avatar317 reported by User:Qzekrom (Result: blocked)

Page: Market urbanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Avatar317 (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. diff
4. diff

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

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

Comments:

This user has been engaged in multiple edit wars, according to the messages left on their talk page. Qzekrom (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked both combatants (Avman89 and Avatar317) for 24 hours. It would not have been fair to block one side and not the other. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Swapachi8890 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: Indef)

Page

Anand Teltumbde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Swapachi8890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "reinstating previous correct version"
2. 16:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC) ""
3. 05:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "troller again change so i will change valide information about teltumbade"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Anand_Teltumbde. (Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Spamming SPA, indulging in long term edit-warring with at-least 4 editors. Please indef. ∯WBG^converse 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely but opening threads in multiple noticeboards isn't really the way to do this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

  NinjaRobotPirate, that thread wasn't opened by me but on retrospection; this report was needless:( ∯WBG^converse 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Luciusfoxx (and likely IPs) reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page: Glass (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luciusfoxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-02-16T06:51:50

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2019-02-16T23:26:42
2. 2019-02-17T00:51:56
3. 2019-02-17T03:42:44
4. 2019-02-17T03:52:47
5. 2019-02-17T16:26:56
6. 2019-02-17T17:43:30‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: evidence No warning given: Editor claims to have edited here for years using a prior account dating back to 2006-2008, then editing anonymously as an IP. WP:3RR has been a rule during all periods covered and editor has in depth knowledge of content policies exposed in other talk page/edit summaries.

Comments:
Two of the reverts are from IPv6 addresses that, given the language used in the edit summaries, is highly likely to be the reported editor. Reported editor has also been excessively hostile to anyone that edits contrary to their goals. @TropicAces: You may want to mention your experiences with this editor. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I acknowledge the IPs, that I think are referenced here. Didn't realize the 3RR side of it which honestly I forgot. Been awhile. Haven't edited since 2006-08. Also, will be sure to log in for now on, to avoid the IP edits. To be clear, I wasn't trying to be anonymous. Just forgot to login after my dinosaur of an older computer logged me out.lol..In light of that, I can take a break for a few days, a self-imposed banned of sorts. Or if blocked anyways for a few days by the powers that be I will respect it, my bad. However, John Locke IMHO is disruptive and being insincere. This other editor TropicAces which clearly has an agenda and clearly engages in WP:UNDUE violations regularly on film articles, usually because he doesn't seem to like it when critics pan a movie. Locke Cole for instance has made several personal attacks. And when warned by me and others, defends it. He should know better than to do this as well, since he's been here long enough. Tropic aces IMHO is attempting to game this article in dispute, and others movie pages like it. And though it might not be relevant here, Locke Cole is a probable sock of a banned user that he makes the point to complain about on his own talk page. In the meanwhile, I would like a little time this morning to present the provocations by both editors here with proper refs. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciusfoxx (talk • contribs) 18:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I was actually in the middle of starting my own section on this Board when I got the alert, that’s pretty nuts... anyways, yes, this user has been very passive-aggressive and/or straight up ignorant with his dealings with me, with comments on my Talk such as “first warning.” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/883787522) and “So please start backing up your -ahem- concerns with actual citations or direct sources. It's clear you don't appreciate our contributions with your obtuse behavior.“ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/883791675) He either has a gross misunderstanding for how the citation and Metacritic quoting works, or more likely is a blocked user. Let me know if anything else is needed. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

2019-02-17T18:16:48 User notified of this discussion. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Locke Cole and editor TropicAces are engaging in what I think is clearly gaming the system, on some level meat puppetry, and at least these personal attacks by editor Locke which would provoke any new or returning editors:

1. John Locke - remarks with ROFLMAO
2. "Your ignorance is truly stunning." - quote by John Locke attacking me
3. At one point, John Locke says "You are being a dick" - clearly a personal attack
4. John Locke makes attack against other editors disagreeing with him, saying "Clearly reading comprehension is going out of style around here lately. " Clearly denotes battleground mindset
5. Editor TropicAces is clearly canvassing another editor for his edit war, which back in the day was also called meat puppetry.
6. John Locke accepts offer to canvass and game page by other editor
7. Also this page blanking behavior and this page blanking behavior when I attempt to work things out with them, despite them engaging in provocation by talking about me.

Finally, also consider this recent disruptive dispute on the very same article between User:Locke Cole and ANOTHER generously-civil editor who warned him against breaking the rules [179]and[180] and[181]and [182]and[183]. "Your ignorance is truly stunning" is clearly a personal attack and that User:Locke Cole argues when confronted that it is "far better" than what personal attack he "originally" planned on writing not only does not make it any better but exposes his battleground mindset and gaming-the-rules philosophy which he proudly defends and rationalizes. He's been told repeatedly to "please discuss content, not editors" to which he brazenly dismisses, saying he "will happily comment on content as soon as all other editors involved are held to that same standard".Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If it matters, the accusing editor John Locke complains about this other blocked disruptive editor that he claims ain't him, which certainly is common of socks trying to evade blocking. I only mention this because the editor himself has a history of personal attacks, disruptive behavior, and these attempts to game wikipedia, and a lot of this smacks of projecting, common of disgruntled editors who were banned. All that said, admittedly, I'm rusty at this and accept the outcome regardless. But have tried to stay within what is right by the rules and article. Thank you for your time and sorry for any where I have erred when dealing with these disruptive editors.Luciusfoxx (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I could do a point by point rebuttal, but I won't.. to the closing admin, please look very closely at the linked diffs provided by User:Luciusfoxx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and observe the gross misrepresentation once they're taken in context. Example: His last link where he claims he was "trying to work it out", but the actual message being removed was an attack claiming I was a sockpuppet of a banned user (he's made this claim repeatedly, in fact). Civility is a two way street, and when confronted with open and continuous hostility, I respond in kind. WP:AGF is not a death pact. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

This...that he wrote "when confronted with open and continuous hostility, I respond in kind" Translation: When another person is breaking the rules (i.e. someone makes a personal attack) then it's ok to break the rules back. P.S. If the truth matters, I didn't become snarky or make observations about his own behavior until AFTER he referred to me "as ignorant" or "a dick" and made a series of false accusations against me. However, if my snark did rise to the level of an attack, even if provoked or par for the course (his logic, not mine), then I humbly apologize. See everyone in a couple of days regardless.Luciusfoxx (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: Suddenly this edit happens which is similar to these reverts [184] and [185] by Locke Cole and this revert [186], one of many like this from TropicAces. Note that the edit from TropicAces is carefully concealed in a bit of misdirection in the subject-heading as a minor edit concerning a link over "world building." The anon IP just so happened to make this edit [187] on the article in contention, which has little traffic, suspiciously restoring the deleted content that the editor TropicAces was aggressively advocating/editwarring for. User:Locke Cole was also advocated for this change, look at his reverts:[188] and [189]. Interestingly, editor John Locke claims he did not add the disputed Metacritic content, IN CAPS NO LESS, despite doing it twice: [190] and [191]. Maybe both editors could go on record that this is not them. Either way this anonymous IP editor [192] just happened to appear in the middle of this dispute, and gamed the article in their favor, consistent with their edits over the last 24 hours. Given all the projecting going on over anon IPs, thought it important to mention this update. If this is truly a coincidence, and this IP is no where near the two editors, then I apologize in advance. Thank you everyone involved!Luciusfoxx (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

haha I don’t know what to say besides that wasn’t me, I wouldn’t log out of my account just to make an edit. All due respect I don’t put *that* much time and effort into my Wikipedia edits... TropicAces (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

• Result: User:Luciusfoxx is warned for edit warring. They may be blocked the next time they make an edit that doesn't have prior consensus on the talk page. I have semiprotected the page two weeks due to the high probability of some logged-out editing. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger that. Got the memo. Thank you for your time and understanding.Luciusfoxx (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Sullay (Result: blocked)

Page: Ben Shapiro (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]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:59, 18 February 2019‎
2. 17:40, 18 February 2019‎ "Unnecessary. The ARTICLE is cqlled "Ben Shapiro", the INFOBOX is titles "Ben Shapiro", do you really think that are readers are so stupic as to be told that the PHOTOGRAPH is of Ben Shapiro? Whose image do you think they might be expecting there, Lady Gaga? Please don;t do this again"
3. 18:09, 18 February 2019‎ "unnecessary"
4. 00:31, 19 February 2019 "IAR"
   Added 4th revert wumbolo ^^^ 09:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has done this before in December (link). I have no idea why the user is so obsessed with writing weird captions, even when several users tell him it is against the usual style used in Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions#Special situations it is stated: "The ideal caption can range from none at all to a regular full-sentence caption. "Shapiro in 2016" doesn't add up with "none at all", thus it is a full-sentence caption. "(2016)" is neither. –Sullay (Let's talk about it) 01:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BRD - when a Bold edit is Reverted, the next step is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page
• WP:STATUSQUO - articles stay in the status quo ante while a dispute is being discussed
• WP:CONSENSUS - disputes are determined by a consensus of editors
• There was no attempt by OP to discuss on the article talk page and get a consensus
• This is a comment by another editor on the talk page
• OP goes to BLPN with the complaint, which is not pertinent to BLP policy
• OP comes to my talk page, where he calls the status quo version "idiotic"

(Although the content argument OP makes above is not actually pertinent to this report, I should point out that the OP has quite obviously misinterpreted a "range" of possible captions to mean "either/or", so if a caption is not "none at all" it must be "a regular full-sentence." There may be a language issue here, or a WP:CIR concern, because it's quite obvious that a "range" means anything in between and including those two options. In any case, MOS is, as always, an advisory editing guideline "which is best treated with common sense", and is not mandatory, as the OP appears to believe it is. Again, I realize this is not pertinent to an EW report, but I add this in the hope that perhaps the OP might learn something.)

Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sullay—image captions can be used flexibly. Captions can be brief or lengthy. WP:CAPLENGTH is giving guidelines only. For an opposite approach to that seen at Ben Shapiro consider the captions under the images at Kay Sage. (I wrote those captions.) Bus stop (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Clear violation of 3RR on this article. Blocked 48 hours. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Shame on the users with no sense. See WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that (edit-warring issues aside), BMK made what appears to be entirely valid observation that goes to the core of the dispute: 'the OP has quite obviously misinterpreted a "range" of possible captions to mean "either/or", so if a caption is not "none at all" it must be "a regular full-sentence.' While can't literally read Wumbolo's mind, this interpretation is consistent with the evidence. However, BMK's caption of "(2016)" is obviously not how WP does captions, at all, ever, so it was foolish to insist on it. The current one, of the form "At [place], [date]" is much more sensible than any of the alternatives people were squabbling over.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 reported by User:CrispyCream27 (Result: blocked)

Page

Shin Lim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2604:6000:D786:6C00:FC0B:14FC:18B9:6346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "You're the one who perpetuates edit warring while keep dodging my questions. You still haven't answered my last question. Where's the reliable source stating that he's still a canadian "citizen" at the moment? Your source from Sept 20., 2018 can be outdated when it concerns a person's citizenship status. So, provide an updated source, or accept my revision because his status as an ethnic Han Chinese will NEVER change. Therefore, he is definitely still a Chinese-American. You can't argue with it."
2. 01:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "It has dragged out this long only because you kept dodging my question without providing a source for your claim until I had already asked you the same question at least 3 or 4 times. But the source that you provided now only states that he has canadian "citizenship" as of Sept. 20, 2018. That does not necessarily mean he still has canadian "citizenship" right now. So where's the reliable source to prove that he's still a canadian "citizen" at the moment? Yet, he is always ethnically Chinese."
3. 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "You're still dodging my question. And I already told you, being ethnically Chinese makes him Chinese-American. I can also say that even though he was "born" in canada, he no longer has canadian "citizenship" after taking American citizenship. So that rebuts your claim. Unless and until you can provide a reliable source link for your claim, I should not have to provide any source link for what I say either. But at least I did provide a source link. So my revision should be automatically accepted."
4. 00:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "That still does not answer my question of why a source link even mattered, because his revisions never contained any source links at all yet were "automatically accepted" every time, while mine were always "pending" and rejected. So, mine should also be "automatically accepted" every time even without any source link, too. Unless, wikipedia's rules allow bias only in favor of anything "canadian". It's hilarious that you keep dodging my question, as if you're trying to finagle out of your guilt."
5. 00:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Which part of wikipedia rules says that Youtube is not a "reliable source"? Or did you just make it up? Youtube is still better than no source. I did not even have to post any link and still should have my revisions automatically accepted just like his were, because he did not post any source link at all. So you are just dodging my question about why the double-standard in treatment between my revision vs his."
6. 00:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "No. You did not point to a source, because you did not post a link. Anyone can write a few words like you did and claim that to be a quote from a "source". But where's the proof? Unlike you, I posted a link. So why is only your revisions "automatically accepted", while mine is always "pending"? This obviously biased double-standard by the censor of this page makes wikipedia look pathetic!"
7. 22:54, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "You have posted no link to show that he still has canadian "citizenship", only your own words. Therefore, he cannot be considered to be "canadian-American". I, on the other hand, have posted a reference link for my edit."
8. 21:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Wrong. "born in canada" does not mean that he is still a canadian "citizen" after becoming American. Furthermore, "canadian" is also NOT an ethnicity, so he has to still hold canadian "citizenship" to be considered as "canadian-American". Thus, "Chinese-American" is more accurate."
9. 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "There is no proof that he still holds canadian "citizenship". So he cannot be "canadian-American". Also, canada is widely NOT held as a real country, too. So being "widely held" does not constitute a reliable measure of truth."
10. 17:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "canada is not a country, but a colony belonging to the queen of England. Therefore, there is no real canadian nationality."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As Canadian, I can assure the IP-in-question, Canada is a country & it does not belong to the queen of England. Furthermore, there's no such thing as a queen of England. Not sure where the IP's getting its info, but it's certainly not reliable. GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked by User:Drmies — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Tina Will reported by User:David J Johnson (Result: blocked)

Page

September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tina Will (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* See also */"
2. 09:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* See also */"
3. 18:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on September 11 attacks. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Person has been warned numerous times on their Talk page and has ignored all requests to stop edit warring.

Comments:

Person has been advised and warned numerous times by several editors and has taken no notice and continues to edit war by inserting duplicate references - all just Wikipedia source. David J Johnson (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Not a 3RR violation but a concerning pattern of edit warring despite warnings. Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Coldcreation reported by User:95.180.55.184 (Result: Filer blocked)

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

I do not know how to do that because of rollbacks done Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_Deco&action=history
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments: He refuses to communicate and when he does he is hostile. He is reverting it because he does not like it I assume and because he thinks I am some banned user.He called reliable sourced material nonsense without any explanation.

The closer of this report might take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrStefanWolf/Archive. All the IPs mentioned in that report were from Serbia, and were interested in Art Deco, as is the one who has filed the present report. If this IP is actually MrStefanWolf, then all their edits are block evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This IP began posting at 22:42, 16 February 2019 (less than a week ago). The same pattern of disruptive behavior—disregard for consensus at Talk pages, abuse of the three-revert rule, sometimes up to seven reverts of the same text or images, pretending to be a victim, accusing others of bullying—was observed in other users back in October 2018 by a host of IPs and named users, who have since been banned permanently. They all tend to post the same text (usually WP:COPYVIO), they exhibit the same poor grammar, and post the same non-free images (e.g., Tamara in a Green Bugatti by Tamara de Lempicka) with no valid non-free use rationale, they all operate out of Belgrade, Serbia (or in close proximity) and lurk principally at Art Deco, Modern architecture, Art Nouveau, or Conspiracy theory and respective Talk pages. Here are a few aliases: 24.135.129.103, 77.243.30.118, 77.243.31.234, 77.243.23.50, 77.243.22.13, 37.19.108.39, 77.243.23.209, 37.19.109.33. The suspicion is that these are User:MrStefanWolf, blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. Coldcreation (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Is being from Serbia problem here on Wikipedia? That account has changing IP unlike me, but please start investigation. I am curios what administrators think about nonconstructive edit warring by Colcreation.95.180.55.184 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: Filer blocked one week for evasion as User:MrStefanWolf. The Art Deco article is semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Abhijeet Safai reported by User:QueerEcofeminist (Result: Warned)

Page

Jagannath Dixit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Abhijeet Safai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Your edits on Jagannath Dixit */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC) on User talk:QueerEcofeminist "/* Stop removing important information from Wikipedia */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring and personal attacks, name calling and threats QueerEcofeminist (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

QueerEcofeminist, there was no edit-warring and no action is warranted.

Abhijeet Safai; she has enough experience over here and your message was needlessly patronizing and aggressive. Your previous creations have been subject to a series of AfDs for promo-spamming on subjects of dubious notability and additionally, your addition of so many Youtube links fails miles afoul of the concerned policies. Please assume good faith and settle it out via discourse over t/p(s). ∯WBG^converse 16:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks WBG for your comments, I would try to sort the things on article talkpage. I prefer "they" for myself, use of she doesn't harm though. thanks again. QueerEcofeminist (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks WBG. Thanks QEF that you yourself brought this to the notice of admins. I am happy now that now at last some admins must have looked at your editing pattern. Assuming good faith, I wish you happy editing and learning! Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Result: User:Abhijeet Safai is warned for promotional editing, per this edit that restores a lot of Youtube links to the article and removes the notability tag. It is not a good idea to remove maintenance tags when an article is under dispute; get consensus first. Abhijeet's charge of vandalism was incorrect and their message was needlessly patronizing. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:109.153.226.113 reported by User:Thewinrat (Result: Page protected )

Page

Ched Evans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884280464 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
2. 17:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "not notable"
3. 17:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "not notable"
4. 17:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "not notable"
5. 17:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "piss off"
6. 17:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884274938 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"
7. 16:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883478627 by Serial Number 54129 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected I cannot definitively say that the other reverts on the article are covered under WP:3RRNO, so a lock + discussion sounds like the best option for now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: wrong venue)

Page: Ilhan Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [193]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:19, 20 February 2019 - title of the section was reverted to version existing before
2. 04:18, 20 February 2019

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195], - see discussion

Comments:
The article is under 1RR restriction [196]. The subject of the page is also under discretionary sanctions related to US politics. His specific edit is also under ARBPIA. The user was notified [197].My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Note the applicability of ARBPIA here is from from clear - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles where consensus seems to be that this is "broadly construed" but not "reasonably construed" - and hence ABPIA 1RR doesn't apply. Doug Weller placed the 1RR on the page on 18 Feburary - so that could've been overlooked, and calling diff1 a revert (to a version 5 days prior - 15 Feburary (by a different editor) - and many edits prior (and prior to the 1RR restriction)) - is... While not impossible, at the boundaries of what is usually considered a revert.Icewhiz (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There is a 1RR in effect for ARBAP2. There is an edit-notice on the page. Try to edit the page and you get a large banner informing you of the 1RR. That page notice was created two days prior to either of these reverts. This has nothing to do with ARBPIA, there is a 1RR for which there is an active edit notice for. And Sir Joseph declined to self-revert when informed. And finally, Sir Joseph made similar edits in the past, he clearly knew this was being edit-warred over. nableezy - 16:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Declined. This seems to be the wrong venue for this request. The requesting user is requesting enforcement of discretionary sanctions for which Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is the right venue if the requirements for sanction exist. This noticeboard is only for violations of the standard 3RR or active edit-warring outside of areas where discretionary sanctions apply. Neither seems to be the case here. Insofar, I agree with Icewhiz that the first edit is not clearly a revert for the purposes of WP:EW. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I brought it here per instruction on the top of this page: "Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here." No, it was not my intention to report this user to WP:AE, I am well aware about such option. Finally, it's perfectly fine not to make any action if such is admin's discretion, however, I do not understand how restoring word-to-word old title of the section (1st diff) can be regarded as NOT a revert. My very best wishes (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Pddalmeida reported by User:SLBedit (Result:user blocked)

Page

Sporting CP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I revised the text regarding the incidents that took place in the Lisbon Derbies of futsal and football, that happened respectively on the 7th and 8th February 2015 and created a more recent and accurate citation to those incidents. I also changed the text regarding the rivalry between Sporting and Porto, since the alleged alliance between the two clubs against Benfica, doesn't exist anymore, given the fact that Sporting has a new President since the 9th September 2018. Regards."
2. 21:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I don’t know much about talk pages of articles, I just try to contribute to the information on Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. I stand by the fact that I gave all information about my edits and in my opinion someone is using their privileges in Wikipedia to censor my contributions! Wikipedia should be a place of freedom and knowledge and not a place to see who can get their way without any regard for the facts and the truth! I will not give up on this issue! Never!"
3. 21:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "I will not stand for this censorship! Everything I said in my revisions are facts and the true and someone keeps reverting the revisions back to the old fake facts and biased opinions! I will not stand for this and no one should, since nowadays more than ever we must fight for what is right and not give in to the world of afame news that we live in!"
4. 21:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. What is happening here! I gave you official sources and links to the games and someone keeps reverting back the page to fake facts! This is censorship!"
5. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. If one checks the links I provided, one can see that in fact the futsal derby took place on the 7th of February 2015 at 5pm local and that the football derby took place on the 8th of February 2015 at 8pm. Facts are facts and not opinions. This kind of censorship and cyber bullying is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Hope this settles this argument, otherwise I will have to report this situation to someone in charge. Regards."
6. 20:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Hi there. I confirmed the fact that the futsal derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3666265) happened before the football derby (https://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=3597315). Again I think that Wikipedia must be about facts and not opinions. Also I don’t think that when describing the Sporting Porto rivalry, one can say that they formed an alliance against Benfica, it just seems biased and simplistic. Regards."
7. 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Also the description of the Sporting / FC Porto rivalry as simply an alliance between the two clubs against Benfica seems to be very biased and partial. Maybe it was written by one SLBedit (benfiquista) that can’t see anything but red and should not be allowed to publish lies and opinions in the Sporting Clube de Portugal page. I always thought of Wikipedia as a place to publish facts and not opinions and blind rage. Best regards."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on Sporting CP. (TW)"
2. 20:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sporting CP. (TW)"
3. 21:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Censorship attempt */"

Comments:

After being for blocked for violating WP:3RR, user is back to edit war on the same article. SLBedit (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks by DrmiesYmblanter (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:109.240.80.16 reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: blocked 72h)

Page

Game Camera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Page

Trail Camera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.240.80.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Game Camera
   1. 13:20, February 18, 2019 (UTC) "(Undid revision 883424666 by KH-1 (talk))"
   2. 05:44, February 19, 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 883926583 by Polyamorph (talk)"
   3. 09:25, February 19, 2019 "Undid revision 884067940 by PRehse (talk)"
2. Trail Camera
   1. 13:19, February 18, 2019‎ (UTC "(Undid revision 882347833 by Polyamorph (talk)) (undo) Tags: Undo, Removed redirect"
   2. 06:14, February 19, 2019‎ 109.240.80.16 (talk) "(Undid revision 883926269 by Polyamorph (talk)) (undo) Tags: Undo, Removed redirect"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 13:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
3. 13:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[198]

Comments:

Continued to restore these spam forks despite reversion to appropriate redirects by several other users Polyamorph (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment possible sock of 91.155.247.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who made similar reverts and added the original spam content. Polyamorph (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The pages have been protected by Dlohcierekim but I request indef. blocking of both IPs. Polyamorph (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Ronz reported by User:MPS1992 (Result: Protected)

Page

Sara Duterte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "/* Diverse contradictions with the national legislation or even with legislation enacted by the City Hall of Davao */ unsourced"
2. 01:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884179026 by MPS1992 (talk) per BLP"
3. 00:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884173802 by Sennen goroshi (talk) BLP vio"
4. 15:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 884096189 by Sennen goroshi (talk) per BLP - poorly sourced contentious material about living persons - please work to find consensus on talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sara Duterte. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor believes that he is not beholden to Wikipedia's policy on edit warring, nor is he required to discuss his changes before summarily reverting everyone who disagrees with him, solely because he considers his edits to be covered under a WP:BLP exemption. MPS1992 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• But MPS, in this edit you acknowledge that there are BLP problems, and thus Ronz's reverts were fully justified. I went further and reverted the lot, since even a quick glance reveals there are serious sourcing problems (at least some of the sources seem highly suspicious) and there are serious writing problems, including non-neutral (argumentative) language. Plus, of course, sections with such titles are discouraged. What's well-sourced should be brought into the main text, but in neutral language. And User:Sennen goroshi should read the BLP carefully and edit in accordance with it. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Fully justified? Get a grip man. MPS1992 (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless ALL the content that was removed by Ronz had BLP issues, then Ronz went over 3RR. You can't find a few minor issues and instead of removing just the offending content blank huge sections claiming "Oh. BLP" and ignore 3RR. That's just gaming the system. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the attacks directed at me, if they will stop shortly.

So MPS1992 is saying that the unsourced material should not be removed regardless of what BLP and ONUS say?

There are many more problems like that. How many more would you like identified before you attempt to discuss the problems?

Maybe fully protect the article?

I'm happy to step away from all direct editing of the article for as long as an Admin wants, if that will help. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of other silliness has now introduced itself, so I suggest you step away for as long as you feel comfortable. MPS1992 (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

At this point, MPS1992 appears to have done this to attack me, along with this, and now this. --Ronz (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Uh, no-one is talking about your reverts as part of a special conspiracy to attack you, in fact no-one cares at all. I just got a notification from some arb commenting on my talk page, and that wasn't anything special either. Everything is under control. MPS1992 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Page protected – 5 days. At WP:BLPN User:MPS1992 has indicated that '..this article needs a lot of work, and much of it is heavily biased in a way that is not compatible with WP:BLP'. It would be helpful if MPS1992 would review some of the material removed by Ronz and recommend some parts that could be safely restored. Use an edit request if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

User:Fenetrejones reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Warned)

Page: 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fenetrejones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:20 15 Feb

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:45 Feb 15
2. 20:12 Feb 15
3. 21:08 Feb 15
4. 23:54 Feb 15
5. 22:22 Feb 17
6. 17:25 Feb 20

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:41 Jan 27
2. 21:47 Jan 30
3. 13:57 Feb 7
4. 0:08 Feb 16

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [199]
2. [200]

Comments:
Fenetrejones has been repeatedly edit warring on Venezuela articles, with warnings going back weeks. The 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis is on the main page and keeping it up to snuff is an effort. In spite of long discussions on talk attempting to explain reliable sourcing, this editor continues. Seems to be WP:TEND and WP:NOTHERE, and WP:SPA on Russia-Venezuela. The slow edit warring is sapping other editor time, and this editor does not seem to be responding to discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Update: this time, while I was filing the AN3, the editor self-reverted.[201][202] At any rate, this behavior has gone on for weeks, and has consumed time from other editors, with an article that is on the main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Add WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, per my user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am NOT a talk page stalker, I only talked on your because you reported me, no other reason. I am not doing biased editing like you are suggesting. I did not create this account to vandalize, promote propaganda, harass users anything like that. I am not a single purpose account because I have edited multiple different things. You can have a look:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fenetrejones Fenetrejones (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I have never said you were a "talk page stalker", nor did I express any problem with you posting to my talk. I did suggest, on my talk, that you could help your case by coming here and promising to stop editwarring, which you have not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Than sorry on there, that was just some other thing that popped on here. Back on the topic, I am not any of the user types that she is accusing me of. I know that users are supposed to assume good faith until proven otherwise. I did state that I will stop, and of all the people who wasted their time on that section, the one who wasted the most time was me because I was searching for articles on the topic and I found plenty on it. I was not seeking to vandalize or place propaganda, I was just trying to state some information. To understand what was going on let me talk about the topic.

There was this coalition announced by Venezuela at the United Nations and it is stated with many sources that we found reliable. However it did not give the full list. Sources she deemed unreliable were giving the full list. Even one user said "Seeing how there are multiple other sections using fox news (x1), nytimes (x7) and WaPo (x2) as sources, I think it is safe to call it reliable proof/source. But of course more is welcomed." So it is a confirmed thing to happen and to confirm that those deemed less reliable were telling the truth I watched the official speech and those representatives were actually there. I did not make it up nor do I seek to add propaganda, but if necessary I think a small ban should be put in place on me.Fenetrejones (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

References

• Result: Warned. Fenetrejones may be blocked the next time they add a country to the list based on sources considered unreliable, such as TASS. According to the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, TASS is reliable for scarcely anything other than the position of the Russian government. If there are different opinions about the usability of a source, get agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)