Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive347

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Thetruth16 reported by User:Object404 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Ferdinand Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Thetruth16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=792116967&oldid=792007248 (reverting back Imelda Marcos' contention regarding the source of Marcos' wealth - now more concise.)
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=792130199&oldid=792118993 (rewrote and added a more concise version of the 'economy' paragraph in the Lead)
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_Marcos&diff=792131834&oldid=792131803 (cases filed against Imelda on ill-gotten wealth spearheaded by PCGG which was covered in earlier part of the paragraph . Also preceding paragraph even mentioned 'Imeldific' and the couple's 'kleptocracy')
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

User:Thetruth16 has started resuming edit warring after his blocking 3 days ago and is reinstating content removed by other users during his previous edit war in the preceding section above. -Object404 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Support I have had a brief interaction with Thetruth16 and it seems as though he is trying to push his personal point of view here...TJH2018talk 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Thetruth16 is a repeat offender, despite multiple warnings as seen in his talk page. This is at least the third time he has engaged in edit warring and he seems to be incorrigible. -Object404 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Object404 you deleted quite a lot of stuff in the past few days in the lead without going to the talk section. How can I be doing an 'edit warring' if you are not'? Reasons for edits are all properly documented. Yes, the lead was long, so you deleted a lot of context, then I added some of the context back but in a very concise manner. You can accuse of of edit warring if I added back all the things you deleted and/or without making them more concise, or if I'm unwilling to engage you in the talk page Talk:Ferdinand Marcos, which definitely isn't the case now. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I was not the only one trimming content as the article already had a (Lead too long) template and was massive in size due to sentence creep, which you seem to have been in the middle of doing again, reinstating one by one the sentences removed during the last trim. You can discuss with Drmies who also did some of the trimming. You were adding back the same content which were removed when you engaged in the previous edit war for which you were blocked listed in the section above. -Object404 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Object404 Yes, I added some context back but in view of the long lead issue, I only added them back after significantly summarizing them. After the summary of some deletions were added back, the current version of Ferdinand Marcos not not really longer than the article on Joseph Stalin as I mentioned to you in the talk page Talk:Ferdinand Marcos.
It's not just the length of the sentences but the pertinence to the lead - do they really need to be in the lead article or can they be in their respective main sections in the article? Rearranging the sentences with the same content does not solve this - you just reinstated the sentences/content -- a continuation of your edit war from 2-3 days ago. And for example, the economy sentences you reinstated, the reasons for the economic collapse are more than what you just stated, and then blame all of it on a recession as per "The 1983-85 recession, in turn, brought about elevated poverty, unlemployment levels, and debt crisis a towards the end of Marcos' presidency." when in fact many of Marcos's actions were the cause of extended poverty, unemployment and "crushing debt" (as per citation 37), not just a global and regional recession. You're pushing your own POV. "Fixing" the sentences you inserted and explaining the proper situation would entail lengthening the lead again to ungainly levels, so it's best to discuss the economic factors causing the poverty, unemployment & debt in the economy section, not the lead. -Object404 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Object404 As I mentioned in the talk page, the long lead is caused by inserts of controversies which have been repeated throughout the lead. How many times were Marcos' military claims refuted in the lead mentioned? How many times was the word 'kleptocrat' and 'kleptocracy' mentioned? How many times were 'brutal' and 'repression' suggested or mentioned? All these repeated inserts critical of Ferdinand Marcos only lengthen the article and are already superfluous. Regarding causes of the 1983-85 recession, these are not my point of view - there's an academic source cited. You have your newspaper sources, and many of these are actually 'opinion columns', but you refuse to acknowledge what other sources stated and you simply deleted them, in the name of 'long lead issue'. For the sake of conciseness and just so we don't lengthen the lead, shall place the sources as reasons for recession (both critical and not so critical of Marcos) as a reference after ..due external and internal factors..". Also, saying that debt is 'crushing' is too emotionally loaded and not encyclopedic.
how else would you characterize $28b in 1986 dollars that would take 39 years for taxpayers to pay off, with the low GDP the Philippines had? "Emotionally loaded" or not, that debt incurred by Marcos has been crushing. (word did not come from me) -Object404 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The term "crushing debt" is used by 3 other published encyclopedias123. Can we therefore not say that the term "crushing debt" is encyclopedic? -Object404 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thetruth16 are you also saying that Marcos was not a kleptocrat? -Object404 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't stretch the number. Debt as of end of 1985 is only $26B. It's big, but in the context of pre-recession and post-recession GDP of $37B and $30b http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=PH it's not as terrible as you're making it sound like. Current Debt-to-GDP ratio of many industrial countries like US and Japan exceed 100%. Also debt is fungible, so I'm not sure what you mean by it takes 39 years to pay off. Does it mean that debt incurred during Marcos' term has fully been repaid? As far as statistics go, Philippine debt goes higher and higher (it accumulates) as we're running budget deficits up to present. Debt is paid off by issuing new debt or rolling over old debt. Many succeeding Philippine government have issued longer dated debt (25 years) similar to this https://www.bondsupermart.com/main/bond-info/bond-factsheet/US718286CA32 and I'm not sure if you are going to criticize them for having debt that's 25 years to pay off.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies states $28b in debt to succeeding administration in 1986 -> https://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/ms/pidsms90-12.pdf Debt from Marcos years is still being paid for until 2025 -> 39 years from 1986. -Object404 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
See http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/DT.DOD.DECT.CD?locations=PH Philippine debt as of end of 1985 is $26b. The $28b is the debt at the end of 1986. Since Marcos went on exile in Feb 1986 I don't think you should be attributing end of 1986 debt to him. The debt Ibon mentioned is for the Bataan Nuclear Plant - it's not unusual in finance to match the term of the debt against the designed life of the asset (40-50 years?). Besides, it's small in proportion to total debt of 26b. Ibon is known for left-wing anti-debt media exaggeration.
[[User:Object404]|Object404]]] I don't know and I'm not in a position to answer whether he's a kleptocrat or not. What I know is, while he has wealth is far in excess of his salary, he hasn't been convicted guilty (nor is Imelda) of taking money from the government coffers. Other explanations like that Imelda and Enrique Zobel said are plausible but again I don't know if that's true or not. I think that you need to present both sides in Wikipedia rather than just present one side alone and dismiss the other side as "conspiracy theory". Thetruth16 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance - That Marcos's wealth came from the stolen Yamashita Treasure is a fringe theory and you are giving it undue weight. Besides, even if Marcos found the Yamashita treasure, the law requires that 50% of it be surrendered to the government, which he did not, so it is still stolen money. -Object404 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
TJH2018 The part inadvertently removed earlier has been added back and not been removed anymore. I don't quite understand your charge of 'I'm pushing my personal viewpoint of view' when all the contributions are well-referenced and definitely not my personal opinion.Thetruth16 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thetruth, as their name suggests, is on a personal crusade here, with a combination of POV-pushing and synthesis, all executed in edit-warrior style. They should be topic-banned from Marcos and associated articles, really. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Drmies Personal crusade as my username suggest? Is that an opinion or a fact? You can't be so sure particularly if you are judging based on my username.. Thetruth16 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't be silly. I judge your edits on their own merits. Your username does indeed suggest you're here for some kind of truth, yes, and that's not the kind of editor we need. That's my opinion. What's not my opinion is that your apparent whitewashing of the Marcos regime is disruptive--and even if you're not whitewashing, or trying to whitewash, you're still disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And deleting a large swath of well-cited contributions in the lead in one feel swoop without consulting in talk page or discussing first just like what you did isn't disruptive? You could have at least tried to rewrite and summarize... Thetruth16 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Your creeping Marcos apologist edits left the lead section of the Ferdinand Marcos article unsalvageable/unrewritable/unsummarizeable. Entire sections had to be deleted to turn it in a more manageable size. Please note all that the POV tag "The neutrality of this article is disputed" was placed on the article specifically because of Thetruth16's whitewashing edits back in December 2016. Multiple users have complained about Thetruth16's behavior. Here's an example. -Object404 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Harvey Milligan reported by User:Agricolae (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Francis Pigott Stainsby Conant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harvey Milligan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:
Has not addressed concern raised on Article Talk page; has made a contribution on my User Talk page [8]. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Concern raised on Article Talk page has been referenced by inclusion of two viable references - Burke's A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry - 1838 (page 792). and The Manx Sun. Saturday October 6th, 1860 (page 6). In the context of the subject, the lineage of the subject's family is relevant as the subject was descended from a long line of English nobility going back to the Norman Conquest - as referenced. I have undertaken considerable work on the subject's page. This has included the creation of a biographical section with additional information on ancestry, education and marriage. Through my research I was able to correct the false year of the subject's birth - from 1810 to 1809 (with viable reference) in addition to which I was able to provide information on the family home and information on the subject's appointment and tenure as Lieutenant Governor of Isle of Man. Because of this additional work the article has been considerably enhanced - proof of which is the fact that I received an acknowledgement from User:Fayenatic london who has also contributed to the article. The concern raised is tenuous at best. By simply citing that it violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, plus it is not reliable, without giving a valid reason as to why, when reliable sources have been referenced, would indicate that the complainant's reasoning is open to question. As someone who has written well over 100 Wikipedia articles, including several biographies, and in addition to which providing referenced information on numerous others, I would contend that the article as written and referenced conforms to the standard expected of Wikipedia. Harvey Milligan (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2017. (UTC)

User:Harvey Milligan has now reverted four times. I hope he will consider reverting his last change and promising to wait for consensus. Otherwise a block for WP:3RR violation appears likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be nothing short of intimidation. The proposer makes no structured argument and I will not be bullied into changing a well researched contribution which has taken me a considerable time to construct. If my contribution to this article is to be held in such contempt, then I shall withdraw every part of my contribution and allow it to revert to the format prior to my contribution - which incidentally includes an incorrect birth date of the subject. Harvey Milligan (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2017. (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Following the WP:Edit warring policy is not optional. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV reported by User:Qerinaceous (Result: No violation)[edit]

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



Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenn_treasure&diff=next&oldid=791654383
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenn_treasure&diff=next&oldid=792022152
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fenn_treasure&diff=next&oldid=792094771


Looking at these diffs, I see the OP referencing the reverts done by others, not me. Looking at my own reverts, I see one on the 24th, one on the 22nd, and one on the 21st. I would recommend that any admin examining this consider the apparent socking of the newly registered OP. The involved page has been rife with COI edits by IP's in the past week or so. My own reverts have been to remove updates sourced to a blog by a HuffPo writer whose specialty is not in the valuation of treasures, buried or otherwise. ScrpIronIV 06:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – If the filer of this report, Qerinaceous, was previously editing as an IP, that won't violate WP:SOCK unless they continue to use more than one identity. I noticed ScrapIronIV's removal of the Huffington Post reference, which is arguable both ways. I hope you will try to get some feedback on that from regular editors. If necessary you could use WP:RSN. Someone else has opened a thread at Talk:Fenn treasure#Treasure value and all of you could participate there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:117.212.41.199 reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page
Talk:Radha Madhav Dham (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
117.212.41.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792135534 by Sro23 (talk)"
  2. 14:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 791989993 by Eggishorn (talk)No reason for keeping nonsensical comment of a fraud admin.."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[9] block-evading socks

Comments:

Also reverting from 117.241.146.7, 117.206.208.69, and 117.207.186.166 Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Has now moved to 117.206.210.222. Is there a rangeblock possible? Courtesy pings: @Drmies and NeilN:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
The IPs are coming from more than a /16 so there is no single rangeblock that would work. I've semiprotected the talk page for a month. EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2605:E000:5AD8:8300:2D16:EB4C:E40F:21A6 reported by User:Location (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Pritikin Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:2605:E000:5AD8:8300:2D16:EB4C:E40F:21A6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) also editing as 2605:E000:5AD8:8300:30F1:8B58:335F:B862 (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]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Advised to take to talk page in edit summary... [17]

Comments:
I believe that the message the second IP left on her talk page indicates that the two IPs are the same person. Location (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Truthwillsetyoufree123 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Jamie Leigh Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Biased and slander- see actual sources."
    2. 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "3 sources justify the EEOC statement and I have included the EEOC determination letter."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Please see EEOC actual court document. Wikipedia needs to at least be accurate."
    2. 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Not Accurate- Jones had PTSD per 9 doctors at trial."
    3. 01:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */"
    4. 01:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
    5. 01:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "The title to the amendment was missing"
    6. 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Midding another law that was passed due to Jamie Leigh Jones testimony to congress"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Amendment is relevant to this Wikipedia."
    2. 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Jones's allegations */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "I used a court document- the origional EEOC determination. The WSJ is inaccurate. Please see the actual EEOC determination"
    2. 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  5. 00:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Added Congressman Ted Poe's Testimony on Case"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Actual EEOC determination letter- Some of the articles lied about the determination. It was in Jamie Leigh Jones favor."
    2. 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "EEOC findings were inaccurate. They are now corrected per source."
    3. 23:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Jones's allegations */"
    4. 00:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "She does not have histrionic personality disorder- this was not her therapist or physician. This is a living person"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jamie Leigh Jones. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Hopefully, I did this right. Not used to using Twinkle for this. New user has an obvious agenda. Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The agenda is to have accurate and unbiased information on this page. This page is laden with inaccurate information. I have corrected the information and added multiple sources. Please do kindly allow the corrections as this is a living person that deserves accurate information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The user has stated on my talkpage that they are the article subject, but I'm not sure this needs to go through those channels for verification at the moment since this seems like a pretty standard new-user issue. The user will hopefully learn about policy through explanation/discussion on article and user talk pages, and with that goal in mind I think temporary semiprotection might be better. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @CambridgeBayWeather: I feel a bit like those editors who badger a voter at RfA, but I'm having trouble figuring out what semi-protection achieves. The new user is autoconfirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Bbb23. Just like the goggles it "does nothing. Changed it to ECP because I can't count beyond three. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And I don't know how to make a template work, Bbb23. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: Well, at least you could have played Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Sorry, I didn't realize Truth was autoconfirmed. :/ –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

BOB123 is reverting changes even though I have provided plenty of evidence that this page is biased and several of the facts are untrue. Please delete the entire page. This is a living person and is slanted to KBR Halliburton. This is not a representation of all of the things Jamie Leigh Jones has done in her life. There is plenty of items in Jones' favor that are evidence based on the talk page that Bob123 keeps reverting. Remove the page please.Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans continues to edit war Gatestone Institute's page. S/he has continually deleted neutral sentences about Gatestone and added in biased statements intended to paint the organization in a negative light. This has been going on for far too long. I have attempted repeatedly to reach out to Snooganssnoogans to come to a consensus, but s/he has refused to engage. Wikipedia administrators, please help. Gregcollins11 (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Snooganssnoogans reported by User:Gregcollins11 (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [18]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatestone_Institute

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [changed "right-wing" to conservative]
  2. [added in "The organization has been criticized for publishing inaccurate articles."]
  3. [deleted "Gatestone writers have been cited by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Catholic Register, Vanity Fair,New York Post, U.S. News & World Report, The Hill, and New York Daily News."]
  4. [deleted "Raheel Raza, president of The Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, said, “If Muslims guided by CAIR could take the time to read and reflect on efforts of people like Nina, they would broaden their horizons and gain a lot of insights into the betterment of Muslims."]

Snooganssnoogans continues to edit war Gatestone's page. This has been going on for far too long. I am happy to reach a consensus, but s/he has refused to talk to me. Wikipedia community, please help. gregcollins11

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Also malformed. Given the filer's history, probably should be WP:BOOMERANG.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Augurar reported by User:Geogene (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Augurar (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. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22] [23]

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

Article is under 1RR restrictions.

Geogene (talk) 04:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems I did indeed violate the 1RR by a few hours with my latest revert, for which I apologize. This user and a few others have put a stranglehold on the article in question and are stonewalling all changes that might contradict the article's blatant POV. When I made an edit with numerous reliable sources, it got removed without discussion ([24], [25]). When I tried to discuss further on the talk page, the POV template linking to the discussion was repeatedly deleted ([26], [27], [28]). Clearly improving the article is not feasible. Feel free to block me from editing the article if that seems appropriate, I'm throwing in the towel as several other editors have already done. Augurar (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Augurar is warned for edit warring. WP:CONSENSUS applies in this case. Is it so hard for you to understand that there have been previous discussions? (There are 13 talk archives). The POV template is sometimes the last resort of an editor who has not been able to get their content into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand perfectly: improving the article has been forbidden by the bureaucracy. So be it. Augurar (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:202.156.181.76 reported by User:202.172.56.4 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Halimah Yacob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.156.181.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [29]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]
  5. [34]
  6. [35]
  7. [36]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]


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

Comments:

The IP in question has a Sockpuppet investigation open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reid62. --202.172.56.4 (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Two IPs keep reverting one another at a high rate. This was a fairly quiet article prior to early July, when it seems that everything exploded. There have been some sock charges that I can't evaluate, but the IP abuse is real. Any admin who think that blocks are necessary should go ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:LittleJerry reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: Two editors blocked)[edit]

Page
Caelifera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
LittleJerry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Others also edit warring on that same page. Don't have time to sumbit other reports right now - need to get to office. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
This is nonsense. Please see The Administrator noticeboard Roy Bateman is the one edit warring! LittleJerry (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - Just posted there too. 3RR blocks in order for several editors. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I agree not to make any more changes to Caelifera until the conversation at the noticeboard is done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:170.178.156.22/User:108.200.144.47 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: Withdrawn)[edit]

Request made at RFPP instead. Marianna251TALK 10:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page 1: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: DREAM Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - for reference only, since the IP has been making the same contentious edits there but has not yet broken 3RR
User being reported: 170.178.156.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)/108.200.144.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (appear to be same IP editor)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45]
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]
  5. [49]
  6. [50]
  7. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and Talk:DREAM Act#Terminology -- "illegal" vs. "undocumented" - this appears to be a long, ongoing issue

Comments:
I came across this edit war while patrolling recent changes, so I don't know the history. However, it appears to be both a current edit war and a slow-motion edit war dating back to June 2017 (or November 2016, depending on how you look at it), with the IP insisting on changing "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal alien". There seems to be some WP:IDHT going on, since consensus in the discussion on DREAM Act talk looks to be going against the IP but they're refusing to accept it. Might be a case for ECP on both pages. Marianna251TALK 01:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

More than one IP is warring about 'illegal alien', so there may be a case for semiprotection. I don't see a clear decision on the talk page as to which term to use. There is another dispute about 'illegal' versus 'undocumented'. With so many IPs and such a divergence of views, it is not obvious that blocking would do much. If the war continues after semiprotection then blocks could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll withdraw this report and tag both pages for RFPP. Marianna251TALK 10:15, 27 July 2017 (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:93.76.208.161 reported by User:GreenC (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Europe Business Assembly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.76.208.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [54]
  2. [55]
  3. [56]
  4. [57]
  5. [58]
  6. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:

The account User:Truth and honour appears to be the same user or is related. -- GreenC 03:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

-- GreenC 03:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:2017DB reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Page
John A. McDougall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2017DB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC) "FyzixFighter
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]
  5. [66] (initial edit)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on John A. McDougall‎. (TW)"
  2. 12:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on John A. McDougall"
  3. 12:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC) "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion"
  4. 13:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC) "John A. McDougall Page."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The Alexbrn revision on this subject dismisses sizeable research by other medically trained researchers who after years of study have reached a consensus similar to the underlying medical science Dr. McDougall’s plant-based nutrition recommendations are based on.

Additionally, Alexbrn’s key detractors respectively have critics which should be fully disclosed or have no published medical training themselves and thus have not had medically peer reviewed examinations of their claims.

My revision, in listing a converge of similar medically-trained researchers as Dr. McDougall, permits readers to investigate supporters and detractors for themselves. Alexbrn’s revisions seek to promote only dissenting views to plant-based diet researchers. Quick and heavy-handed attempts to quell points of views that do not subscribe to this bias are evident. Alexbrn's key initial responses to a challenge of opposing published experts show a high bias.2017DB (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn did not wait 24 hours before summarily reverting to his revision which does not list the conflicts of interests regarding User:Alexbrn's sources supporting one narrow POV. I therefore report User:Alexbrn for initiating edit warring.2017DB (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Two editors blocked)[edit]

Page
Marvel Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792423797 by Iftekharahmed96 again given false reason & failing to continue discussion"
  2. 12:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792422818 by Iftekharahmed96 failing to allow colaberation throught dissucssion WP:BRD"
  3. 12:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC) "WP:OSE, WP:N doesn't have to do with quantity"
  4. 21:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792319769 by Iftekharahmed96 not notable enough"
  5. 14:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792264734 by Iftekharahmed96 not coming to talk page"
  6. 14:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792263775 by Iftekharahmed96 I asked you to & I am providing it at the talk page"
  7. 14:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792262095 by Iftekharahmed96 again you have not pointed to concensus & are twisting my words"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Separate entities issue */"
Comments:

Multifaceted dispute over tagging of the article and inclusion of information regarding a separate, now-defunct entity that was also called Marvel Music. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seeing as I was involved with this dispute, I will provide my perspective on the situation. The conflict started when I tried to place the Marvel Music Inc. infobox at the top of the article. My edits were reverted because I was told that it's not necessary for infobox to be at the top of an article. Eventually, The Marvel Music infobox was placed on top of the article, however, I was told in the talk page that this is not the correct way to layout the article as there were two unaffiliated entities within the article, that being Marvel Music Inc. the record company and Marvel Music the comic imprint. In response to this, I conducted an article split as the link between the two business with the Marvel brand was weak. Marvel Music Inc. is a legal entity that's the subsidiary of Marvel Studios, a company under Walt Disney Studios. Marvel Music the imprint on the other was a label used by the Marvel Comics Group. Outside of both companies representing the Marvel brand and having the name Marvel Music, they have no affiliation with each other whatsoever, and do not share the same line of business. My article split was consistently reverted, and I was told that there wasn't enough citation for both articles to validate the split. An article is able to exist on Wikipedia if it has a verified citation regardless of how many citations there are within the article itself. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Note, my reversal edit summaries indicate that I want to continue discussion instead of his summary judgement in his edit summaries. He edit warred over two subject, two articles and a template since his first set scrambled any sense out of the orignal article. He create the second article specifically when I indicated that his solution to make another article would make both fail notability. He makes personal attacks and twist what I say. I warned him about edit warring to which I was banned from his talk page for the warning and a minor and short term removal and return of one of his post to my talk page that made false assumptions about me and that I want him to continued discussion at the article talk page. I wanted at some point to revert one of my reverts but was beaten to the revert by Iftekharahmed96.
Spushu, you forgot to sign your note. And when I stated that you had an obsession (defined as the state of being fixated with something), I meant it in the context of keeping Marvel Music the record label and Marvel Music as a singular article, which again, does not make sense because the only two affiliations they have is the name "Marvel Music" and being associated with the Marvel brand. That is it, every other facet of these two entities couldn't be any more different. When I said obsessive, it wasn't a personal attack because I was describing your fixation to keep a record label and a dissolved imprint under one article. I never insulted your intelligence or emotional stability. You on the other hand decided to delete my response on your talk page. Which fair enough, your talk page is your talk page, but then you had the nerve to threaten me an edit warring warning, which is hypocritical as, EdJohnston has clearly identified that you have "has seven reverts per the list above" (granted, I am not denying my eleven reverts either, but I'm not the one who's being reported here). So I had every right for you not to invade my talk page because you were clearly acting manipulative and refusing to consider other perspectives outside your own. Had other users outside yourself voted to keep Marvel Music Inc and Marvel Music the imprint under a single article, then I wouldn't have taken this as far as I have. The only validation that you have at this point to keep these two unaffiliated entities into a singular article was that you didn't like the quantity of citations as singular topic, which truth be told, neither fails notability. You're just under the assumption that it does. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of ban for warnings
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  • 792264666 14:27, 25 July 2017 "/* Separate entities issue */ originally /* Ibox at top */"

Individual diffs for Iftekharahmed96' 12 diff at Marvel Music, 4 at Marvel Music (imprint) and 9 at Template:Marvel Comics are forth coming. Now, Vipersnake agreed to the separate articles but ignored the issue of notability for the two articles and has started an edit war about that, pretending that such a discussion was not under way as that was the key point of why there should not be separate articles. This report seem to be attempt to stop discussion and not real address the issue. --Spshu (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks to me that User:Spshu and User:Iftekharahmed96 have gone well past 3RR and that both parties should be blocked. One party has seven reverts per the list above; Iftekharahmed has reverted about 11 times since July 23. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Tarook97 reported by User:Pinkbeast (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Al-Andalus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tarook97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


I've got multiple examples here, so: first removal of this text from Coffee

  1. second removal of this text

change by Zefr

  1. Tarook reverts
  2. Tarook reverts again

In none of this do they edit Talk:Coffee.

They change an image on Al-Andalus. I revert that change because the previous image was more pertinent.

  1. Tarook reverts.

I discuss on talk page. One other editor supports me, which isn't exactly conclusive, I'll grant. Talk page discussion doesn't otherwise go anywhere. After giving it a week I change it back - sure, counting noses isn't consensus but there's clearly zero consensus in favour of the original change.

  1. Tarook reverts.

I revert. Naughty me, but with no support for Tarook's proposed change I feel it's fair enough.

  1. Tarook reverts.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: above. Nothing on Coffee since I wasn't in that one; I just noticed it in their contribs.

Comments:

This user's entire modus operandi is edit warring; they've already collected two blocks for it, and the rest of their contribs are much of the same with barely a talk page visit in sight. None of this is past 3RR, but edit warring is what they do and it's all they do. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems Pinkbeast went with the "reverting = edit warring" method on the Coffee article, add to that mentioning my edits as removal and Zefr's as 'change'. Tarook97 (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale There has been no activity on the Coffee article for 24 hours, and Tarook97 has not changed the image on Al-Andalus back again since he was last reverted, so no admin is required at this time. If the edit-warring starts up again and there is a clear and obvious breach of 3RR, pop back here and I'll look into it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, there is no requirement for a breach of 3RR. Pinkbeast (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User:70.162.220.155 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page
AZ (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
70.162.220.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792719630 by Ebyabe (talk)see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas 4th point"
  2. 06:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792716111 by Ebyabe (talk)see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Commas 4th point"
  3. 04:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC) "add comma per MoS"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Baywatch. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user has declared themselves intent on edit-warring to prove their point and is beyond stubborn and moreover doesn't even understand the rules he or she is trying to implement. See also Baywatch, where like AZ, the comma is just simply wrong, I stopped edit-warring/trying to reason and just rewrote the sentence. User:Ebyabe thinks this person is a sock of Hoggardhigh. JesseRafe (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale The IP and Ebyabe went right up to the line of WP:3RR over a comma. Give me strength. However, it was six hours ago so the warring has stopped for the minute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Two notes: 1. the IP is now blocked 31 hours for possible block evasion. 2. JesseRafe It seems you did commit 4 reverts yourself in about 12 hours at the Baywatch article. only (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, reverting somebody while saying "stop edit warring" is a bit of a silly thing to do, unless you're being ironic. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Please look again, Only. I reverted 3 times, then rewrote to remove the opportunity because it was obvious IP was not here to contribute and only to edit-war. This wasn't a matter of taste/preference of a comma itself, so your flippancy is unneeded, Ritchie333, it was about the readability of the encyclopedia. IP was just putting them after dates wherever they occurred, heedless of rules and convention and the English language in general, which they subsequently did on Baywatch in a completely different context just because they only wanted to be disruptive. And then followed a random page I had edited to add commas there. Clearly a mark of any reverts being to remove vandalism, not engaging in edit-warring myself. JesseRafe (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding or removing a comma is not vandalism. Assume good faith. "My edits were right, so I wasn't edit-warring" is the oldest cliche in the book. That said, now the IP is blocked for other reasons, the disruption has stopped of its own accord, so I think we're done here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Mens rea? AGF only works once, look at their talk page and edit history, it's clearly intended to be disruptive. After 31 hours they will be back and vandalizing again. JesseRafe (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I had seen this IP's mass changes of commas pop up on my watchlist, and wondered if it was correct. (It's so hard to keep up with the rules). Nonetheless, the pattern (as well as the edit summaries) suggests trolling to get a rise out of people and not a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. If the pattern resumes, we should probably insist that the IP wait to get consensus. I'm leaving a ping for User:RickinBaltimore since he did the 31-hour block. The SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hoggardhigh does mention a lot of comma changes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
The IP was quacking into a megaphone, almost identical to the now blocked Hoggardhigh. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Norvikk reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Template:Visa policy by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Norvikk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [68]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [69]
  2. [70]
  3. [71]

previously

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] [75] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[76]

Comments: After being reported here, they went to the talk page and said that my arguments are "misconception" and that I will be reverted (in fact, they already reverted me). I do not see any constructive contribution from their side, and most of hios contribution to the template are reverts.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No further reaction from the user (here, on their talk page, or on the talk page of the template); apparently they got their hand by reverting and are now happy with the result.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User:124.106.251.20 reported by User:Garchomp2017 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

He keeps changing images/nationalities (e.g. English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish to British), adds double/triple images to year articles even when I've told him enough and only one user was able to fix it, but his edit was reverted by that same IP (Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian, etc. to Soviet and Serbian/Croatian to Yugoslav). I just gave him two warnings, both for 1975, which I just finished reverting. Someone please block him. Gar (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

User: MBlaze Lightning reported by User:119.160.98.146 (Result: Filer sockblocked)[edit]

Page: Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MBlaze Lightning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [77]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [78]
  2. [79]
  3. [80]
  4. [81]

Comments: Indian nationalist pov pusher whose focus on wikipedia is making articles about indian army @MBlaze Lightning who had been blocked in the past for socking and edit warring, breaking 1RR is edit warring again. Mblaze removed sourced content [82]. When I reverted it pointing out the content was sourced [83] Mblaze edit warred and falsely claimed the information is not verifiable in the sources [84]. Another user pointed out that information was in the given sources [85]. MBLaze reverted them as well [86]. MBlaze has edit warred by reverting in a total of four times. This is violation of 3RR and blocked is not the first time they did this. Seems like this user does not learnt after being blocked multiple times. They should be given a longer block this time. 119.160.98.146 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe that this IP is an obvious sock of a community banned editor and have filed an SPI case. —MBlaze Lightning T 14:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment: This User has removed my notice of this discussion on their talkpage with a misleading edit summary. 119.160.101.237 (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Filer blocked as a sock. GABgab 15:32, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Shady59 reported by User:Max Eisenhardt (Result: Protected)[edit]

He keeps reverting changes that have been made after thorough discussion on the talk page of C.Ronaldo. There's been an RfC for 30 days now and by far the most people who commented on this issue thought it was completely inappropriate to refer to C.Ronaldo as 'the greatest footballer of all time'. Still, Shady59 is reverting every edit that changes this sentence. Max Eisenhardt (talk) 12:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week by User:Berean Hunter. See his post at Talk:Cristiano Ronaldo#Content dispute. He states there "If there is no consensus over the wording by the time the protection expires then none of it is to be added back as you will have not achieved consensus to do so." EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:BedrockPerson reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: version being reverted not to. Not added by Bed


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 15:32, 28 July 2017 , restoring dates in infobox
  2. diff 16:45, 28 July 2017 , restoring dates in infobox
  3. diff 18:14, 28 July 2017, restoring dates in infobox


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

  • Note - per their block log they are very aware of edit warring.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I opened Talk:David#Infobox_issues where Bedrock has finally started talking; they also wrote this on Talk.

Comments:

This is not over 3RR but it is at 3RR and this is coming off a 1 week block for edit warring. As I described in last week's EWN that led to a 1 week block, Bedrockperson is committed to a biblical maximalist ideology, bringing that into WP and is again attempting to edit war that view into WP, on yet another article. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Ping:Jytdog, I think that last link, where they say, "they also wrote this on Talk," isn't going to the diff you're looking for, unless you're deliberately linking to the whole talk page. Alephb (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
You mean diff #3? this diff at 18:14, 28 July restores the dates in the infobox and has a long edit note that says few things - we use these calculated dates from these sources on EVERY biblical king. They are consensus. Two, I looked at the talk, you never asked around about this as you claimed. There's nothing.. 2 things about that - to the extent that "every Biblical king" has dates in infoboxes, that needs fixing, and as for me not having opened a discussion on talk, I had already opened a section on infoboxes here at 17:14, and I had made a note about the "guerrilla" thing already here at 17:52, and said there that i was not further contesting that. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Defense So, 3RR isn't being violated, my attempts to engage in conversation were ignored and I'm being punished for it, meanwhile the people removing long-established accepted evidence in tandem with no consensus are free to report me and continue ignoring my attempts to discuss midway. That's great. I guess arguing for dates being treated like they're treated everywhere else on the wiki makes me a maximalist. Good to know. Really good to know.

Still waiting on your response on the talk page. BedrockPerson (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

As this policy makes clear, you don't have to go over 3 to violate this policy. Your intention to force the retention of these dates in the infobox is clear and is the exact same thing you did last week, that led to a week long block. You learned nothing from that break, which was intended to get you to reconsider this behavior. Admins reviewing here will understand this. Jytdog (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
What is different here is last week I changed consensus and was the perp. Now, I've made every attempt to deter edit warring, I was the one who messaged you both asking for discussion and not back and forth reverting, I was the one who opened the talk page discussion, and I'm the one trying to preserve consensus! Aleah's gone over 4 reverts, do you think I'm going to report him? No! Do you think this is how I wanted my first fuckimg day off a block for this exact thing doing this? No! I don't want anyone to get in trouble! I just want to preserve the article's quality! It wouldve been totally fine if you had simply moved the dates somewhere from the info box, but no, you deleted it completely and erased several sources. That I can't accept! BedrockPerson (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
This "waiting for your response on the talk page" and "I was the the one who opened the talk page discussion" are both absolutely false, Bedrock. Jytdog opened the talk page discussion forty-five minutes before you. I commented forty minutes before you joined us. Do not accuse us of being unwilling to discuss -- I request that you strike out that false comment. You also carried out an reversion edit while misleadingly marking your edit as minor, despite the fact that you've been warned about falsely marking your edits as minor. The fact that you do this on the first day off your last block, and the fact that you are now engaging in misleading behavior both at David and here are worrying. Alephb (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
That was made before the this incident even began. How was he inviting me to discuss a compromise an hour before the situation for the compromise even began? BedrockPerson (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's review the timeline. Here's your first revert of the day [87], timestamped at 15:29. Here is your second revert, timestamped at 16:45 — [88]. After you reverted twice, here's Jytdog opening up a conversation on the talk page at 17:14 — [89]. Here's me joining the conversation at 17:19 — [90]. Here's you claiming you were the one to open things up on the talk page: [91]. That is false. We both commented before you did on the talk page, about the exact issue you were reverting on, and the idea that you were the one who stepped in to prevent "back and forth reverting" just isn't true. I request that you strike out the false comment, and that you no longer use "minor edit" status during editing conflicts. Alephb (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – Two weeks. Suggest opening an WP:RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:78.60.222.230 reported by User:31.192.111.189 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Go Vilnius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.60.222.230 (talk · contribs