Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.


Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
  • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


User:49.183.57.34 reported by User:Girth Summit (Result: Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours)[edit]

Page
Alain de Botton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
49.183.57.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 14:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here again. From the New York Times. I have just laid out the front page of tomorrow’s edition: “ALAIN DE BOTTON TARGETED BY ANTI ALAIN DE BOTTON PEOPLE ON WIKIPEDIA WANTING ANTI ALAIN MESSAGE TO PROSPER”. It will be front page!"
  2. 14:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here again. From the New York Times. Well it is clear the AA movement is widely afoot here on Wikipedia. I will be show to do an article about this in tomorrow’s newspaper. Regards, Eric Erbetz- Manhattan Office, New York Times."
  3. 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here again. From the New York Times. I don’t work for the Guardian. I work for the New York Times. I think I am going to have to do an article about this page and how there is clearly an “Anti-Alain” movement a foot. The AA movement will not win. I know Alain very well and he’s a great writer. Regards, Eric Erbetz"
  4. 14:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Reception of his writing */Hi. Eric Erbetz here from the New York Times. Please do NOT remove my edit or else I will be forced to do an article on how this page has been manipulated against Alain. I have known Alain for many years and read his work and stand by my quote. Regards, Mr Eric Erbetz"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 14:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Alain de Botton */ new section"
  2. 14:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Alain de Botton */ further comment"
  3. 14:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Alain de Botton */ please desist"
  4. 14:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alain de Botton. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

He's also doing the same thing at Neal D. Barnard. I've no idea whether he really is a writer at the NYT - at first I was willing to AGF, but it's looking less and less likely. GirthSummit (blether) 14:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours by Liz for disruptive editing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Helloman124 reported by User:TheDoctorWho (Result: )[edit]

Page: Big Brother 21 (American season) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Helloman124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revert 1: Part 1 Part 2, 26 June 2019
  2. Revert 2: [2], 26 June 2019
  3. Revert 3: Part 1 Part 2, 27 June 2019
  4. Revert 4: Part 1 Part 2, 28 June 2019
  5. Revert 5: [3], 1 July 2019
  6. Revert 6: Part 1 Part 2, 3 July 2019
  7. Revert 7: [4], 3 July 2019
  8. Revert 8: [5], 4 July 2019
  9. Revert 9: Part 1 Part 2, 4 July 2019
  10. Revert 10: Part 1 Part 2, 5 July 2019
  11. Revert 11: Part 1 Part 2, 18 July 2019
  12. Revert 12: Part 1 Part 2, 18 July 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] on 4 July 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Plain and simple this is a case of long term edit warring by an editor who continued to revert despite active discussion on the talk page and multiple suggestions to discuss on the talk page. I thought it had been resolved but the editor came and made two more reverts today instead of discussing. User has had their preferred version reverted multiple times by myself as well as Jayab314 but continues to instate their preferred version instead of leaving the WP:STATUSQUO and coming to discuss. From a quick look at their talk page this isn't the first time they've been brought here ([7], ([8]) nor was it the first time they've been warned for edit warring [9]). Since it appears their editing habits haven't changed with the previous warnings, ANI discussions, suggestions to take it to the talk page, etc. I think a more long-term block may be in need here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Rick lay95 reported by User:Railfan23 (Result: Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked )[edit]

Page
List of Zords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rick lay95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906914407 by 76.8.148.135 (talk) See talk page"
  2. 04:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906882869 by 76.8.148.135 (talk) See Talk Page"
  3. 22:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906872133 by 76.8.148.135 (talk) This information is accurate. Comics and web series are NON CANON. I've yet to see any proof otherwise. You stop vandalizing unless you have proof. The burden is on you, not me."
  4. 20:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906871120 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
  5. 20:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906870159 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
  6. 20:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906826240 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
  7. 14:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906821644 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
  8. 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906778275 by 76.8.148.135 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

So, this has started up again after the 3RR warning. A long list of reverts over the last 36 hours or so Railfan23 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I consider this edit was actually constructive and not a straight revert, and was combined with an attempt to discuss on talk. Have reinforced the warning and encouraged discussion. Will keep the page on my watchlist and block for any further edit-warring. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User:76.8.148.135 reported by User:Railfan23 (Result: Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours[edit]

Page
List of Zords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
76.8.148.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906912966 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
  2. 22:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906881454 by Rick lay95 (talk) Canon is ambiguous at best and it isn't relevant; the article is reflective of source media"
  3. 20:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906871807 by Rick lay95 (talk) Please stop vandalizing the page with inaccurate information"
  4. 20:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906870953 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
  5. 20:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906869951 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
  6. 14:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906825302 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
  7. 13:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906816852 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
  8. 05:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906775015 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
  9. 20:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 906707142 by Rick lay95 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC) "3RR warning" by User:Peacemaker67
  2. 04:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continued edit warring after 3RR warning. This has been going on for more than 36 hours. Railfan23 (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

This was a clear revert after my warning, so I've blocked for 31 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

User with an account and multiple IP directions reported by User:Baprow (Result: Declined )[edit]

Page: President of the Republic (Spain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
2a02:587:2917:8800:b090:665:e526:b4cc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2a02:587:2917:8800:1409:483c:348b:f452 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
85.73.27.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
WhiteStarG7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2a02:587:2917:8800:e96e:e5b8:a088:7444 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
2409:4052:90e:389f::1c:f0ac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
This user is adding incorrect information to the article "President of the Republic (Spain)". The article is not called "Heads of State of Spain who were not monarchs" but "President of the Republic" and this should talk about people who held that office or who ruled when Spain was a Republic. Franco, a military dictator who destroyed the Second Republic, who maintained his regime in a provisional ambiguity between 1939 and 1947 and who from 1947 until his death (1975) was officially regent of a kingdom without a king, should not appear on the list. In addition, the user pretend to eliminate the presidents of the Republic in exile.--Baprow (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:5Ept5xW reported by User:DIYeditor (Result: )[edit]

Page: Atlas V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 5Ept5xW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14] which they responded to negatively.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this edit war but discussions occurred on user talk pages from what I understand.

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation but part of a pattern of edit warring. This user was recently blocked for edit warring (for 3RR) on the same page and seems to take a damn-the-rules-damn-consensus-I'm-right attitude. Third revert falls minutes outside 24 hours. Would like to see at least a formal warning against this behavior and encouragement for them to work to consensus on article talk pages rather than getting into revert wars. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, if you look at what I was reverting you will see that I am in fact trying to improve the article. One of those reverts was a revert of a mistaken revert, as acknowledged by the user who was responsible for the original revert. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pictogram voting info.svg Comment. It's not the same page as before, related but different. I'm on the fence as to whether to block again. I have to say that the edits made by various users are less like reverts than attempts to work out differences at the article rather than on the Talk page. Not the way it should go, but it doesn't necessarily justify blocking either. I'm still trying to reconcile myself to the word "uncrewed", which (1) looks like a very unfortunate typo and (2) is a testament to the destruction of the English language by Wikipedians.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion had been removed, here is a link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALauritzT&type=revision&diff=906916672&oldid=906916366) 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you talk to NASA about uncrewed. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction on who is destroying the English language.Face-smile.svg As for discussion, I said the article Talk page, not a user's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
What about my conduct on the Atlas V(?) talk page was objectionable, if I may ask? 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
You're being obtuse. I said you should have worked this out on the article Talk page, which you didn't do because you didn't edit the Talk page. You might be able to get away with this considering that you didn't violate 3RR at Atlas V, but given your recent block for edit-warring, you don't have to violate 3RR to be reblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia is surprisingly complicated and not all that accessible to a new user like me. As you can see, I was not engaged in an edit war on the Atlas V article, and the article has become more informative as a result of my edits (while also not incorporating the redundant language that another editor correctly objected to). I was thinking that the argument about gender neutral language was an entirely separate issue, are they in your considered opinion connected? I understand that you do not like my use of gender neutral language, but find myself preoccupied with administrative issues and unable to properly develop a coherent line of thought. 5Ept5xW (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
5Ept5xW, the only exceptions are listed at WP:3RRNO. Trying to improve the article, which many could claim, or fixing "erroneous" edits other than blatant vandalism, do not justify back-and-forth reverts (or more than, say, 2 per day and not on an every day basis). I do think you are a good faith editor and I don't think you should be blocked at this point, rather warned that if you continue a pattern of very aggressive back-and-forth reverts a block may be necessary. It is required that users, even new ones, be competent enough to familiarize themselves with the published policies, especially after warnings. It is good to see that you understand that leaving the comma in place and working to add other material around it avoids a reversion, but you are still failing to use the article talk page (so others can give input) to work out the fundamental differences.
Also, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and certainly not through unilateral mass changes. If you want mass changes to more neutral language I would suggest the RfC process, which if you have questions about I would be glad to help as far as I know the right procedures, and I'm sure others would be as well. I'll note that "uncrewed" is rejected by both my spellchecker and my preferred dictionary (M-W), but I am open to arguments toward its use. Good luck to you and happy editing. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm the user that placed the edit warring notice on the user' talk page. I misunderstood the user's actions – I no longer think the user was edit warring at the time I placed the notice. The user has shown good faith and seems to be willing to learn about and comply with policies. As such, I do not think a block would be appropriate. — Lauritz Thomsen (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:DrChaos56 reported by User:Mazewaxie (Result: Sock indeffed)[edit]

Page
Mary Jane Watson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
DrChaos56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "She is the MCU version of Mary Jane look at the references"
  2. 17:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "Quoting fiege “Well, we never even looked at it as a big reveal necessarily but more of just a fun homage to his past adventures and his past love. She's not Mary Jane Watson. She never was Mary Jane Watson. She was always this new high school character, Michelle, who we know there's an 'M' in Michelle and an 'M' in Mary. [laughs] So we're so clever and we thought, 'Wouldn't it be neat if her initials were MJ?” Mary Jane is a seperate character."
  3. 16:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "Look Fiege said a homage to his past love, and in another interview Zendaya said Michelle is not Mary Jane, Mary Jane is a separate character entirely in the MCU, she is in a similar place to Miles Morales and Ben Parker have only been confirmed to exist through dialogue and interviews."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
  2. 17:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
  3. 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "/* July 2019 */"
  4. 17:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 17:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC) "/* Mary Jane Watson */ new section"
  6. 17:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is constantly adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Also, looking at the type of edits he makes, it could be the same person that owned User:Hhggtg3279, an account that was blocked a few days ago. Mazewaxie 17:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Now is insulting me. The more he keeps reverting, the more I think it's the same person that owned User:Hhggtg3279, judging by his writing. --Mazewaxie 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mazewaxie: You're right. Sock indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Super ninja2 reported by User:Masgouf (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2019 AFC Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Super ninja2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]
  4. [18]
  5. [19]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:2019 AFC Asian Cup

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mutt Lunker reported by User:Lightburst (Result: )[edit]

Page: Fritter roll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff]
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]
  5. History of the past few hours of edits on the article

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

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

Comments:
I was on PROD patrol and saw areas to improve this article - I did some research on the subject and added some references to this stub. Also created a category for the readability. The nominator immediately tagged all of my refs "failed verification". I went to the nom's talk page and explained why the "failed verification" tags were incorrect. By the time I was done typing the nom had an AfD slapped on the article. I went to the article and did clean up of the referenced material - verified that information was cited correctly, removed the "failed verification" tags. But... the nominator put the "failed verification" tags back in reverted my work. Based upon the nom's evident desire to delete the article I suggest that it is a conflict of interest for a nominator to delete, tag, and revert during this deletion process. I cannot improve the article while the nominator deleted and reverts to the nominator's preferred version. I count 8 instances in the past several hours where the editor has erased a category, reverted info twice and tagged my work. For my part I have not reverted the editor and have attempted to improve an article. Lightburst (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

You have linked the same diff twice. Why? ST47 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I struck one, and added the overall history. It is my first time making such a report.Lightburst (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This submission appears to be as much through inexperience and lack of understanding of terminology, guidelines and policies as vexatiousness.

The user who submitted the report has accused me of WP:COI, I think on the basis that, having PRODed the article, they regard it as illegitimate to subsequently AFD it or make further edits to it. This is an apparent misunderstanding of the term and policy.

The user added some material and references which do not discuss the subject of the article or verify the material therein, in regard to the subject of the article. I tagged the sources as having “failed verification” and two (at least) of these tags were removed by the user without addressing the issue. I replaced the tags, explained why I was doing so in the edit summary and at talk but decided not to issue a “Removal of maintenance templates” warning due to the user’s apparent inexperience and a presumption of good faith and that they may pay heed to my explanations; perhaps I should have warned them.

I’m unclear as to what is being referred to when the user states that they “Also created a category for the readability” and that I “erased a category”.

The diffs given above relate to edits on entirely different aspects of the material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

This thread on my talk page may also be pertinent. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

To note, having checked the edit history of the article, this removal of a maintenance template by the user is of course entirely warranted as it accompanies the removal by them of the unsupported material. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
...but not the other such removals. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: it is my practice to improve articles. I have participated in hundreds of article improvements and I have never had a nominator act in this manner. Most of the time the person who has placed a PROD thanks me for the work I have done. In this case the nominator immediately dismissed any work that I did and placed an AfD before any discussion. The nomination then focussed on my work rather than the validity of the nomination. Next nearly every edit that I made to improve the article was stepped on, and the article was rendered a stub again through wholesale changes made by the nominator. When an editor is so determined to delete an article it has the appearance of a conflict of interest for that editor to revert, dismiss and erase content. The nominator believes that the Fritter roll can only be made one way, and the roll cannot have any other substance used for the interior. I submitted WP:RS to show that individuals have customized the Fritter roll. Just as Spaghetti is made with zucchini noodles, and cabbage leaves can be stuffed with beef, or rice, or chicken, etc.
In any event, the article has been rendered a stub because of this nominator's content dispute and I have been reluctant to continue improvement because of this nominator's tendentiousness. The nominator has demonstrated a non-collegial attitude while also vigorously depreciating the article to make this AfD go the nominator's way. (Diff 2 shows the erased category along with two deleted reliable sources). I now ask for the nominator to step back and allow the article development in this forum, because asking the editor on talk pages did not work. Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

User:GergisBaki reported by User:Lindenfall (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Kirkland & Ellis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GergisBaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. July 16
  2. July 17
  3. July 19

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kirkland & Ellis#Should clients be mentioned in lede

Comments:
I'd urged them to the TALK page, in my page editing notes. The reversals and re-additions of information all appear to support the editor's desire to sensationalize by WP:coatracking controversial clients into the lead paragraphs. (One subject is recently infamous; the other may warrant some inclusion, as well, but not as done, or as placed.) There has been some attempt by user:Snooganssnoogans to restore the questionable lead inclusion, as well. Today, I see that GergisBaki had been quite active on the page prior to this dispute, so the edit-warring to sensationalize situation may date back further than I know, which I had thought to be around July 15. Thank you, in advance, for your time. Lindenfall (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)