Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:46.211.156.81 reported by User:Mac Dreamstate (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Oleksandr Gvozdyk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 46.211.156.81 (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]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments: An IP (several ‎46.211.xxx) and myself are edit warring over the inclusion of categories at Oleksandr Gvozdyk. I have repeatedly invited the IP to gain consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, since his edits could affect many hundreds of boxing-related articles, but he continues to revert and give rationales that have nothing to do with boxing.

We have clearly both tripped 3RR, but I consider the IP's conduct unreasonable and disruptive due their lack of willingness to engage in discussion when originally prompted. It was their content which needed consensus, but instead of starting a discussion to convince the Project of sweeping changes, they arrogantly chose to parrot my words instead – [9], [10]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Mac Dreamstate, if I was going to block the IP, I'd also have had to block you – their conduct has not been an excuse to break 3RR. 46.211.156.81, please start a discussion on the talk page. Use the WP:RfC process if you want outside input or request a third opinion. In the meantime I've restored the stable version so that WP:BRD is followed. Number 57 18:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, user MaxDream made 8 reverts! All interim champions are champions also. They all are listed in the List of current world boxing champions and should be included in the world champions categories. All acting presidents are included into presidents categories. All caretaker (interim) sports managers are included into sports manager categories. As of now, all interim world boxing champions already included into related world champions categories (not by me!). Try to check: Arsen Goulamirian (included!), José Uzcátegui (included!), Regis Prograis (included!), Moises Flores (included!), Reymart Gaballo (included!), Jesús Rojas (Puerto Rican boxer), and so on! 46.211.156.81 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
We both made nine reverts, so let's be exact. All you had to was start the discussion when originally asked, but you reverted anyway when I eventually did. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Number57, your stable version is wrong now. Check it again please. Stable version was before his removing of categories on 26 May. It was two months without edits, since March till May. Revert to correct version before 26 May removing. 46.211.132.73 (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • No, this issue started in March and you need to follow BRD. If you continue to revert when the protection expires without gaining consensus for your edits, you'll be blocked. Number 57 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
      • No, he must find a consensus, not me, because ALL interim champions (see above) were included in the related categories already before his edits. 46.211.132.73 (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
"ALL interim champions [...]"—that is flagrantly incorrect, and you're bludgeoning now. There have been many tens, if not hundreds, of interim champions over the past few decades, but never has there been a WP guideline to categorise them as full world champions. You've picked out a handful of articles that support your view, but there has never been any consensus for it. The consensus needs to be sought by you, if you want a Project-wide change. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Number57. As of now, after your "revert to stable version", only Oleksandr Gvozdyk is not included into champions categories among other interim champions (listed above). Where is the logic? 46.211.132.73 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The logic is that you're expected to follow WP:BRD. Start a discussion. Number 57 18:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion has been started, but this IP has a rather persistent editing style[11] – I'll just say that much. There's a whole WikiProject they need to convince, but they're not in the mood to wait. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:2600:8800:3981:78A0:1942:9889:BDFF:DFD9 reported by User:Mr Xaero (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Verne Troyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2600:8800:3981:78A0:1942:9889:BDFF:DFD9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "Verne. He really was cremated."
  2. 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC) "There many sources / references. Every single statement in this article are true."
  3. 19:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC) "I was afraid of this."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Edits to Verne Troyer */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

A resolution initiative was started by John from Idegon as seen here Talk:Verne Troyer#Reliable sources. Mr X ☎️ 03:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Note user is also edit warring on Joe Flaherty, adding unsourced, BLP violating material. Their editing style is particularly vexing. They added nearly 12,000 characters to Troyer, and it took them over 400 separate edits to do it. And not one single reliable source. Note that they used at least two separate IPs in the same range on Troyer, so if blocking is how this ends, it's pretty much going to have to be a range block. John from Idegon (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Note editor is reported at AIV, and Troyer is up for protection at RPP. John from Idegon (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • After a full night's sleep, this is still going on. Both the IP and a new user, JustinTee, are edit warring, with at least one additional editor removing the junk. There's been some ILIKEIT junk posted on the talk, but no attempt at discussion. And the IP is still at it on Flaherty too. Help. John from Idegon (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks (it would have just been one week, but an extra one added for calling John an asshole in an edit summary. However, John from Idegon and Jim1138, could you explain why you thought it was ok to break 3RR? Number 57 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
AFAIK, Jim didn't. I did, BLP. John from Idegon (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
I hope this ends it, but am not optimistic. It sure appears to me all is related. I'm sure this has more eyes on it, and Troyer is also protected for a while. Hope other editors also watch Flaherty. John from Idegon (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Misplaced optimism. User:2600:8800:3981:78A0:840F:E991:5B03:C79C is editing the same articles as the blocked IP, as is JustinTee. Pretty clearly block evasion. It's very hard to file an SPI from a phone and that's all I've got today. John from Idegon (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SPECIFICO reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: SPECIFICO warned)[edit]

Page
Dinesh D'Souza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC) "reverting to longstanding stable content. Please use talk to discuss any individual matters of concern and document proposed NPOV changes. Edits that obscure or inadequately convey RS narratives are not NPOV."
  2. 23:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 843859094 by D.Creish (talk) Sorry, we've been through this. It says he promoted conspiracy theories because that's what RS tell us. EOM>"
  3. 20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC) "/* top */ NPOV language per sources. Remove euphemism"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC) "/* D'Souza promoted conspiracy theories */ comment and support"
Comments:

Edit warring and blanket reverting at article under discretionary sanctions. Discussion has already been underway with little discussion on their part other than what seems to be an insistence that their version is the right version and further discussion is unnecessary. Because I was caught up in copyediting the article from top to bottom I had not realized the editor had blanket reverted all changes to the article I had made and demanded all changes to "long standing content" be halted and the talk page used first: "Reverting to longstanding stable content. Please use talk to discuss any individual matters of concern and document proposed NPOV changes. Edits that obscure or inadequately convey RS narratives are not NPOV." The blanket revert included the infobox image I had replaced for a much better choice. There has been no attempt by the editor to discuss the copy edits I made, just another revert of content. Aside from the DS vio of 1RR, disruption and removal of good copyediting that improved wording, style, and content ordering in the article, the blanket revert seems very much to be pointy in nature. -- ψλ 02:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you're reporting. You have jumped into a long-stable article and undone NPOV longstanding language and I reverted it and urged discussion on talk. Some of that discussion -- about the well-sourced longstanding content that D'Souza has advanced "conspiracy theories" has been amply demonstrated to you on talk with a long list of RS references from the talk archive. As to the more recent POV language of yours that I just reverted -- I don't know what you have to say about that because instead of replying to my request for your concerns on talk, you've filed this specious EW complaint. When you do a wholesale rewrite of a reasonably NPOV article that's been worked on by many editors over an extended period, you should not be surprised to be reverted with an invitation to the talk page. Pinging involved editors familiar with this content and sourcing @Jytdog, Snooganssnoogans, and JzG: — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talkcontribs) 02:42, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
^^^ Canvassing by SPECIFICO noted. ^^^^ -- ψλ 02:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Stop claiming the text you edit warred was "long-stable." It was first added today [12]. You restored it twice [13] [14] claiming falsely again in your edit summary it was "longstanding" and "stable." It wasn't then and it isn't now. D.Creish (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: FYI this article is not under 1RR restrictions. Also FYI "conspiracy theories" [15] In addition to all the sources previously provided to you when you first started your edits. SPECIFICO talk 02:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even if it isn't, what you did is classic edit warring behavior and is neither productive nor collaborative. It didn't even improve the article. Not to mention that you've barely taken part in the discussion on the challenged POV content in Wiki-voice that you are edit warring over. DS is still DS. I don't know what the result of this report will be, but I think you might want to reconsider the blanket revert you committed and revert yourself at the article. Talking about your objections at the talk page would have been a much better choice. -- ψλ 02:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict - I wrote this pre-ping) Numerous reliable sources (cited in the lede)[16][17][18][19][20] explicitly said that D'Souza promoted conspiracy theories (the conspiracy theories include D'Souza's promotion of birther conspiracy theories, lies about 14-yr old George Soros being a Nazi collaborator, false claim that the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville was staged by the left and so on). The editor D.Creish[21] reverted text citing these sources, falsely claiming that the sources did not say this at all and that we couldn't say in Wiki voice that D'Souza "promoted conspiracy theories". Winkelvi of course backed up D.Creish[22] even though D.Creish was in the wrong, encouraging an edit war over uncontroversial nonsense. It doesn't surprise me that Winkelvi now uses this opportunity to get an editor whom he has tussled with before sanctioned. For some context, Winkelvi has previously frivolously sought to get me sanctioned over content that relates to conspiracy theories in American politics (I'm sensing a theme)[23] and has even canvassed a fellow editor to find something sanctionable about me.[24][25] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
"and has even canvassed a fellow editor to find something sanctionable about me" Yeah -- that isn't what was going on, but I think anyone going to the links you provided can see that for themselves. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up, it's a falsehood, and it's really doing you no favors to be so fixated on something that happened weeks ago. Nor does it have anything to do with this report on an editor that isn't you. -- ψλ 03:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please explain your "reverting to longstanding stable content" edit summary. --NeilN talk to me 03:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what I did. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You are contending "Widely characterized as a provocateur and polemicist, D'Souza's films and commentary have been the subject of considerable controversy due to his promotion of false and unfounded conspiracy theories" is longstanding and stable? --NeilN talk to me 03:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe the edit summary you asked about was the one I wrote on my most recent edit in which I reverted a long string of edits to longstanding content immediately before this report was filed. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: You reverted to your own prior version which included an edit to restore the text in question. [26] This text was introduced within the last 24 hours, correct? --NeilN talk to me 03:47, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
It's quite telling that 18 hours after NeilN asked SPECIFICO a very direct question, she has found time to edit and comment elsewhere but not answer the question asked of her here. Hoping the report will get swept under the carpet and archived? Hoping Neil forgets all about it? Hoping the report will be declared stale and nothing will come of it? Only the editor being reported can answer, however...Neil's question is relevant and needs to be responded to. -- ψλ 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, are you going to answer my question? --NeilN talk to me 15:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I thought it had become clear that this complaint is without merit. First, there are only 2 reverts. The last one listed is a copy edit of wording that had been in the article for some time. Second, this article is not under the special restrictions of DS as for example they are applied to American Politics, so there's nothing wrong with reinserting content once the complaint that it's unsourced has been met repeatedly with abundant references on article talk and elsewhere. Third if I understand your specific question, while the exact words may not have been existing for a long time, the statement that the criticism of D'Souza is for his having presented conspiracy theories has been in the article for an extended period. The two editors who recently arrived may not have initially been aware of this, but by the time the citations were shown to them and there was talk page discussion of this, they did know. So you might ask them what rationale they had for continuing to re-write this to change the meaning to suggest that only critics believe that D'Souza has espouzed conspiracy theories. I did not state that I restored longstanding "text" or "edits" -- I said what I did, restore longstanding content, that is, the meaning of the text including a tweak I made that improved the language and of course which could have been challenged by anyone who felt that it did not improve the language. Indeed, my tweaked language is still in the current version of the article, so I don't think that was controversial. If you review the history of the article and the talk page, you'll see that I engaged on the talk page before this complaint, whereas OP only appeared considerably after me to cast an !vote without addressing the substantive issues including sourcing that I and @Snooganssnoogans: provided. So we have 2 reverts by me on a 3RR article. My reverts were accompanied by responsive engagement that addressed the stated concern of the editors who were attempting to change the statement that critics were responding to conspiracy theories promoted by D'Souza, and we have a complaint by an editor who did not respond except belatedly to say that he did not approve of one of a long list of RS citations. I won't comment, for the time being, on OP's recent behavioral patterns that has been covered by at least one other editor in this thread.
NeilN, I now see that I was mistaken in thinking that you no longer were concerned about the substance of this complaint. Is there any further response that you need from me? For context, I'll also add that this article is one among a number of others I've edited, for example Stefan Molyneux and G. Edward Griffin in which individuals with non-mainstream views are described as such in their WP articles and where the articles are regularly visited by new editors who try to remove well-sourced consensus descriptions of the individuals as holding extreme views. This appeared no different to me and I think it fits a common pattern of such edits. The D'Souza editor does not call him a "conspiracy theorist" and I saw nobody propose that in this recent series of edits. As I'm sure you have seen, @MelanieN: took the time to review this disagreement and suggested text [27] that conforms to the statement that Snooganssnoogans and I both restored from the recent reverts and which embodies the longstanding and well-sourced consensus that the DCreish and Winkelvi sought to remove, namely that the reactions to D'Souza's films is due to conspiracy theories that he has in fact presented in his work -- and not to the critic's opinions that he presented such theories. My subsequent copy edit of that is not at issue here. Please let me know if there's any further response you require. I don't see a well-formed AN3 complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

As to my reverting the same text that had recently been reverted by Snooganssnoogans: Such multiple reverts by different editors to restore sourced information that's been removed by advocates of the article subjects - advocates who feel this well-sourced information is unfavorable to the subject of the articles -- is widespread and uncontroversial practice on WP. Here is the history of another article [28] where you can see me doing the same thing in sequence with @Doug Weller:[29], @Neutrality:, @Evergreen Fir:, and @Grayfell:. If Winkelvi is claiming that this 2RR report shows me tag-team edit-warring with Snooganssnoogans, then the same logic would implicate all of us who do the same thing to restore well-sourced RS-verified statements of fact on many other articles. Murder of Seth Rich is another article where I have done the same thing in sequence with other editors over an extended period of time. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN, I fail to see how mention of the articles SPECIFICO mentioned in response to your concerns has anything to do with the current issue or what the OP brought here as a vio of edit warring. I do consider it a very poor straw man argument that brings absolutely nothing to this discussion and further draws attention to the behavior of edit warring which was initiated by the OP. Atsme📞📧 23:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, if you didn't understand, why didn't you just ask me to clarify -- maybe even on my talk page. I mentioned those articles by way of examples that editors such as myself and many others routinely revert to restore settled content (again, not always exact words,) when editors newly arrive and attempt to alter statements they do not like in BLP articles relating to fringe opinions. The article that's the subject of the current complaint is in that respect the same as -- and received the same editing response as -- many others, where editors are accustomed to restoring the meaning of the article that is watered down, eliminated, or flatly contradicted by editors who don't like to see what they feel is unfavorable characterization of the BLP's views. My point was that my response was a fairly routine and rarely scrutinized sort of edit -- particularly in cases where editors patiently provide (as both I and another did in this case) the RS references that support what's restored. I know you're sensitive about G. Edward Griffin, but his name does come up from time to time in various contexts, and here it was only to make that point about WP process and not about Griffin himself or about you, since you've were not, until now, involved in any of this current matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I am not “sensitive about G. Edward Griffin” despite your attempts to make it seem that way in this discussion, which you have done on another occasion regarding an unrelated topic. I am dismayed that you would even mention those 2 highly controversial BLPs to support your edit warring argument, and worse yet, that you would respond by making it appear that I am sensitive to Griffin. Your responses are very telling and indicate your lack of understanding as to why your behavior consistently crosses the line. We have all managed to get along at controversial articles despite our disagreements but for some reason, you keep pushing the limit. It’s the kind of behavior that raises the bar from disagreement to disruption. You need to try harder to get along and stop the disruptive (and rather crafty) behavior of hiding your POV pushing under the guise of “long standing”. Atsme📞

📧 14:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, we'd all be interested to hear your comments if you think there is any valid 3RR complaint to be made against me relating to this D'Souza incident. Such comments and evidence would be germane to this thread. So you have any reason to believe that Winkelvi's complaint is a well-formed 3RR complaint and that it has merit? If so, this is the place to share your view. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, NeilN was rather generous by extending only a warning to you. That BLP is subject to DS, and it might even be that it falls under AP2 sanctions as well considering the political implications regarding what (1) landed him a felony conviction, (2) resulted in a pardon, and (3) the topics that made him notable. A bit of friendly advice from me to you - drop the stick, tell Neil thank you, and try a bit harder to avoid getting yourself into these predicaments. Superlatives and contentious labels like what you attempted to edit war into that BLP - "provocateur and polemicist", and "baseless conspiracy theories and other false narratives" - true or false/fact or fiction - it is what I consider lazy writing and the kind of terminology that turns readers away...and gets editors blocked or TB. Seriously, it's time to move along. Atsme📞📧 03:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Note to patrolling admins: Hold this open please. I'll be re-reading the above in the next 6-12 hours and then there will probably be a formal warning. --NeilN talk to me 04:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned While the article is not under special editing restrictions, it falls under the post-1932 AP topic area and so extra care must be taken when editing. Being a veteran of this area, SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. [30], [31] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed. NeilN talk to me 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Shall I comment on your warning here, or if not what is the appropriate location? SPECIFICO talk 14:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:171.50.180.203 reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: No action as IP has self-reverted)[edit]

Page: Proto-Indo-Europeans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 171.50.180.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 DS-alert: diff

Comments:

Same IP has been adding same problematic info at Proto-Indo-European homeland. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion in the talk page. I believe the reference should remain. I have not seen any evidence of the study being contradicted by another study in a peer-reviewed journal. - User:171.50.180.203 —Preceding undated comment added 06:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have explained at your talkpage, User talk:171.50.180.203#June 2018, what the problems with your edits are, including links to further explanations and previous discussions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The IP has self-reverted. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked As they've self-reverted Number 57 11:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Harshrathod50 reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Veere Di Wedding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Harshrathod50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Per WP:MOS."
  2. 10:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "See the talk page. No consensus neither proper rationale for inclusion of these artists here. The discussion is being led astray by bringing other stuff."
  3. 12:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC) "This infobox is for film and not its soundtrack album. All the artists related to soundtrack album have been credited in the infobox of "Soundtrack" section."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Veere Di Wedding. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Music parameter */ re"
Comments:

After the user began a talk page discussion about the inclusion of music directors in the film's infobox, he refused to garner consensus for what he deems the parameter should say. Instead, he kept reverting with incorrect and sneaky edit summaries. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Harshrathod50 has not broken 3RR Number 57 11:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Sredina reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 15:05, 1 June 2018
  2. 15:37, 1 June 2018
  3. 15:40, 1 June 2018
  4. 15:43, 1 June 2018

User was warned once they'd reached three reverts, but made a fourth w

They have previously been warned not to edit war on this article, but seem to have some serious WP:OWN issues (for example, threatening to remove all their contributions if they are stopped from editing, or undoing changes from numerous other users.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]). Number 57 14:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

User User:Number 57 gives himself the right to edit everything only the way he likes it, edits by all other editors are always reverted or fixed in the way that it is made in his way, which is simply immature. Sredina (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Is anyone actually going to deal with this? Sredina is still (blindly) reverting on the article.[40][41] Not sure how a report with a clear breach of 3RR (four reverts in under an hour) can be ignored for three days. Number 57 11:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Number 57: Both of you are edit warring. You had to self-revert a couple days ago to avoid breaking WP:3RR. Why not ask for a WP:3O? --NeilN talk to me 12:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I stopped at three reverts during the original dispute and made a mistake the following day which I immediately undid. I can't see why a very clear breach of 3RR isn't resulting in any action – it's really frustrating for editors who try to stick to the rules and basically says to those who don't that it's ok to ignore 3RR as a bright line. Number 57 13:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
And now Sredina has broken 3RR again today:
  1. 11:54, 4 June 2018 Reverts several elements of the table that was under dispute on 1 June back into the article
  2. 12:43, 4 June 2018 Reverts again
  3. 12:50, 4 June 2018 Reverts again
  4. 14:14, 4 June 2018 Reverts edits by LukeSurl
Several of their reverts are also blind reverts that they then have to undo again (e.g. this). Number 57 13:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours @Number 57: You technically stuck to the rules after the self-revert. Admins will not quickly block if one editor has four reverts and the other has three and neither has used the article talk page. Both editors are equally guilty of edit warring; one just happened to hit four reverts first. Today, another editor got involved and Sredina continued to revert so now they're blocked. NeilN talk to me 13:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Wikii6B reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page
Whataboutism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wikii6B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 844412394 by Binksternet (talk) WP:RSUW"
  2. 18:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "The section on "use by American politicians" is misnamed as it discusses at length only one politician. I am concerned about Russian influence in the editing of this page. Russian intelligence may be editing this page to sow discord in the American body politic. I recommend deleting all political references in this entry and locking the page for editing."
  3. 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 844405887 by The Mighty Glen (talk) There is nothing to talk about. This is an encyclopedia entry on logical fallacies, not on Donald Trump and the made up conspiracy of Russian collusion. You've been warned."
  4. 18:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 844404276 by Iggy the Swan (talk) The web page describing logical fallacies is not the place for you to criticize political opponents. Thank you."
  5. 18:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Use by Donald Trump */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Whataboutism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The editor in question is clearly reading the edit summaries asking for discussion at the talk page, since their own edit summaries read, in order:

  • User:Iggy the Swan: Reverted 2 edits by Wikii6B (talk): Unexplained content removal
    • User:Wikii6B: Undid revision 844404276 by Iggy the Swan (talk) The web page describing logical fallacies is not the place for you to criticize political opponents. Thank you
  • Me: Reverted 1 edit by Wikii6B (talk): Rv edit-warring deletion of referenced content. Please take it to the talk page if you believe it should be removed, thanks
    • User:Wikii6B: Undid revision 844405887 by The Mighty Glen (talk) There is nothing to talk about. This is an encyclopedia entry on logical fallacies, not on Donald Trump and the made up conspiracy of Russian collusion. You've been warned
  • Me: Reverted 1 edit by Wikii6B (talk): Rv edit-warring deletion of referenced content. Please take it to the talk page if you believe it should be removed, thanks.
    • User:Wikii6B: The section on "use by American politicians" is misnamed as it discusses at length only one politician. I am concerned about Russian influence in the editing of this page. Russian intelligence may be editing this page to sow discord in the American body politic. I recommend deleting all political references in this entry and locking the page for editing.
The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikii6B has also violated 1RR at Abortion statistics in the United States with two reversions in the same day.[42][43] It looks to me as if this person is here to further a political agenda, not improve the encyclopedia. I would guess this is also block evasion by an earlier account. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
W6B has reverted again on the Whatism article, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
and again. –Davey2010Talk 01:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
and again - I shan't revert as they're obviously not going to stop and I feel it'd be more sensible for an admin to revert or whatever, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 03:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

This is something like 8 reverts in 12 hours, on a highly contentious political topic. Some block is necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. User:Wikii6B's edit warring is blockable even though the neutrality of the article might need further discussion elsewhere. The newness of the account, the aggressive editing and the colorful edit summaries do suggest the possibility of socking. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Wakari07 reported by User:Wingwraith (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Portal:Current events/2018 May 29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wakari07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not personally as this edit warring was brought to my attention by a third party who has been in direct correspondence with the reported user here. Having said that, the article's editing history shows that Wakari07 has already been reverted by two separate IP accounts (107.5.200.111 and 50.200.75.129) which should have been sufficient enough of a warning for that user to stop edit warring.

Comments:
The user has been previously warned for his/her edit warring here and here; the latest round of edit warring shows that the user has not learned from the previous warnings and should in my view at the least incur a block for this transgression. Wingwraith (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Notice that my edits are motivated. There was a stable version, with two competing propaganda sources (which is, in my opinion, better than just one "final" source; the Reuters synthesis is a bit too one-sided for my taste). There is ongoing talk on the relevant talk page. For now, I 1RR'ed Wingwraith's edit *after* he reported me for 3RReditwarring. Wakari07 (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Now I'm at 2RR. Where does this end. Wakari07 (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a bit going on here; the ANI resolution in March (implemented by @Swarm:) doesn't seem to have resolved the animosity between these two editors. I feel that the Syrian news agency is more reliable here than the Daily Mail on this topic, but that doesn't justify edit-warring. Why can't a compromise source be used (maybe Deutsche Welle). The fact that Wingwraith was canvassed here and reverted Wakari07 twice is concerning, and the fact that Wakari07 continues to edit war after replying here is even more concerning. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Prospective administrators should note that the user per this edit has in light of the exchange above knowingly and willfully violated the 1RR restriction to which our interactions are subject. Wingwraith (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@Power~enwiki: I didn't revert Wakari07 twice, I reverted him once (in line with our 1RR restriction and WP:CONSENSUS) while s/he reverted me twice. (here and here) Wingwraith (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
The proposed Deutsche Welle compromise source doesn't include the citation I feel is essential to adequately represent the Syrian government motivation for recognizing the 2 breakaway states. I propose to keep the two competing (Syrian and US) propaganda sources so that the reader can make up an own mind on this extremely sensitive issue. But of course, it doesn't hurt, and I agree to add the third source to the blurb as it stands. Wakari07 (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

From my short time editing on the Current Events Portal, I feel that real issue isn't this one article, but a pattern of pulling news directly from WP:PUS, specifically state run media in countries with low or no freedom of the press. Wakari07 often is quite unwilling to accept any form of criticism or push back about this. A sort of "my way or the highway" kind of attitude.

A couple examples:

His/her attitude in this way, doesn't seem to be improving either.

S/he does add other news items from other sources as well, but this "my way or the highway" kind of attitude makes editing on the Current Events Portal rather difficult, even when making what seem like simple edits. If I notice that Wakari07 is the adder for an item I'm about to edit, I often find myself pondering if its worth making the edit and dealing with potential pushback.

Example of a seemingly simple edit made difficult:

As I have mentioned before, I've only been active as an editor for a couple months now. I've already had a couple minor misunderstandings about the rules here, but I want to get better at this. So, if I am wrong, or in the wrong, about anything here please let me know.

(also, in light of my edit being mentioned at the top and the credibility of Daily Mail being brought up, I just want to note this edit I made before the noticeboard process began) Spoonlesscorey (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Spoon: I especially notice that on 31 May and 1 June on your talk page, you and Wingwraith talk of "get around that if you decide to force the issue", and going for a "nuclear option", after you call me on his talk page, a "familiar charterer [who] is making a fuss", a "disruptive editor"... and accuse me of "vandalism" in an edit comment where you want to normalize the infamous Oliver North (that issue was settled by reverting to a bare skeleton blurb). While I may be many things in your collective imaginations, I know for myself that I'm here to build a reference tool, an encyclopedia. I rest my case. Wakari07 (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as its been over 24 hours since anyone has posted here, I'll chime in again. First regarding Wakari07's comments about my correspondence with Wingwraith. He facilitated the WP:RFC here, and seems to have a good understanding of how things work here. So I solicited his advice rather someone else whom I had less experience with. I don't see how it is an issue to ask for advice, especially when asking about how the rules work.
Next, yes there was mention of "forcing the issue" and the "nuclear option" that Wakari07 brings up. This something that was only mentioned, I really don't think that's how we've arrived here. I originally only requested another WP:RFC.
The question of vandalism accusations. This was my first interaction with Wakari07 and his/her comments that accompanied the edits seemed rather curt and obtuse. I read this as a kind of horseplay. I did not assume good faith, and for that I apologize. I genuinely though someone was just messing with the page. Clearly Wakari07 dislikes Oliver North. And that's totally ok. I think the "skeleton blurb" was a fine solution since his history had little to do with with the news of his appointment, and I'm not sure we would have found a drastically different solution if we brought this to the talk page anyway. (also at that time I didn't know individual days had their own talk pages on the portal)
I also see that Wakari07 continues to source news from WP:PUS even as this discussion goes on:
  • [58] (even though this is a Eurasia Review article it looks like a cut and paste from a SANA article)
I've, for the most part, refrained from editing things Warari07 has touched, as I do not wish to needlessly escalate things here.
Perhaps I just need clarification on this. But it is my impression is that citing WP:PUS mostly should only happen in special cases where there is good reason. It isn't something that is normal. I feel like this would be especially true in situations where a WP:PUS is the only primary source. For reasons I've mentioned before here. I'd really appreciate input from an admin, or at least someone other that Wakari07, on this question. Spoonlesscorey (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:173.77.0.185 reported by User:Pyrope (Result: Blocked for 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Stilton cheese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.77.0.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 18:43, 1 June 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 16:56, 3 June 2018
  2. 08:43, 4 June 2018
  3. 09:22, 4 June 2018
  4. 13:08, 4 June 2018
  5. 13:34, 4 June 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:27, 15 January 2018

Comments:

User persists in attempting to add mention of a one line, throwaway, inconsequential mention of this cheese from an Ian Fleming novel, despite at least three other editors (self; Terry Foote; Nedrutland) pointing out that this is almost a textbook case of trivia (cf. Buffy and the wooden stakes, per WP:CULTURALREFS). User insists that this is "no more trivial or pointless than other present references,"[59] a patently untrue statement given that the other inclusions are a poem written by G. K. Chesterton that uses the article subject's character and place of origin as major themes; a significant recurring character in a series of books being named for the article subject; a fragrance specifically designed to evoke the scent; an entire episode of a sitcom on a major national TV network centred around the article's subject and its production; and an assessment of the article subject's place in British cuisine made by a major cultural commentator of the 20th century. A full explanation for the removal of this content was given months ago (see diff above) but this went unacknowledged, although it did seem to have quieted the editor at the time. However, despite this and a string of lengthy edit summaries they now claim that they have have had "insufficient response."[60] This being the case, could someone else please take a look and give a fully sufficient response to one side or the other? Ta. Pyrope 21:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks It turns out that this edit-war about Stilton cheese is far from being the whole story. For a long time the editor has been editing disruptively, dismissing concerns expressed by other editors, and edit-warring on various articles. I have blocked for only 2 weeks as a token warning shot in the hope it will get the point over. In view of the long period over which the disruptive editing has taken place, I would have blocked for much longer had it not been for the fact that the editor has not previously been blocked, as far as I know (certainly not on this IP address.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Pjl u2 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pjl u2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

[61] [62] [63] [64]


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned at [65].

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See also Special:Contributions/24.76.172.121. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Solved. User got indeffed for WP:NOTHERE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:202.62.18.53 reported by User:VulpesVulpes42 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Comparison of traffic signs in English-speaking countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.62.18.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [67]
  2. [68]
  3. [69]
  4. [70]

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

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

Comments:This guy just straight up ignores evidence and sources, and keeps reverting to an unsourced version, which is immensely annoying. I did not want to take this this far, it was truly a last resort.

VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Theklan reported by User:BallenaBlanca (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 19:38, 4 June 2018
  2. 23:40, 4 June 2018
  3. 10:49, 5 June 2018
  4. 12:18, 5 June 2018

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74] [75] [76] [77]

Comments:
This user has been warned by another editor User talk:Theklan#3RR but he continues refusing to comply with the Wikipedia policies and making a personal free interpretation of them. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 11:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The editors who reported and warned are acting in a perfectly co-ordinated way, and they have also done more than 3 reversions to the article, without consensus in the talk page. Furthermore, they are violating consensus and commons sense, pushing the limits of WP:POV and breaking WP:BUREAU again and again despite this has been discussed with them in a very civilized way. -Theklan (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Theklan, I see that you are using the talk page which is good. But you can't be breaking WP:3RR while doing so. Will you voluntarily agree to not edit the article for a week? --NeilN talk to me 13:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

NeilN Of course not! The article has been reverted again by BallenaBlanca and RichardWeiss, who are acting in perfect harmony to break common sense and push Wikipedia. Will you ban them also for editing in a week, protect the article and restore the version before they started to break consensus? We have been discussing their behaviour in the talk page for days, we have even voted, but they continue with their disruptive behaviour breaking the consensus in the talk page. Consensus that is only broken by them. -Theklan (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Theklan, Ballena and I are not "acting in a perfectly co-ordinated way" and nor have I engaged in edit warring over this point or indeed on this page, ever. Please stick to the facts rather than making unprovable accusations. Theklan is new here and has not edit warred since I warned him so IMO should not be blocked for edit warring. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
No, there's not a "perfectly co-ordinates" behaviour. I think you are acting too fast not be be noted that you are co-ordinated, breaking articles about Catalans, Basque people, Quebecois, Flemish or other people only because you want to impose your agenda. I'm asking and admin to restore Carles Puigdemont article to the first edition before the problem started and protecting it so RichardWeiss and BallenaBlanca can't follow on with their agenda. -Theklan (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes reported by User:Paul Siebert (Result: )[edit]

Page: Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Per WP:ARBEE the article is under 1RR
User being reported: My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) This user has been duly notified that the article where the violation occurred is under WP:DS

Previous version reverted to: before the first incident: [78] and , before the second incident: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

First incident:

  1. 1st revert, 22:42, 30 May 2018
  2. 2nd revert, 01:37, 31 May 2018

Second incident:

  1. 1st revert, 15:27, 3 June 2018
  2. 2nd revert, 22:19, 3 June 2018

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

  • A warning about a second violation: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

First incident:

I created a talk page section devoted to the breach of NPOV, where I noted that 1RR violation was committed by MVBW; MVBW's refused to self-revert; the dispute continued; more; I request MVBW to self-revert again; MVBW's refuses; I was trying to persuade them to self-revert; final MVBW's refusal to self-revert.

Second incident:

A fragment of the talk page discussion [81] (the whole discussion is too long and frequently returns to the original argument, which makes difficult to keep assuming a good faith)

MVBW's talk page discussion:

Vanamonde warns MVBW about 1RR violation, and MVBW refuses to concede it, Vanamonde explains the violation was not technical, MVBW blames Vanamunde in abusing admin's privileges, I am explaining MVBW that Vanamunde is acting as a user, not an admin, provide diffs of MVBW's second violation and request to self-revert. MVBW rejects any accusations and advises me to ask uninvolved admin's opinion.


Comments:

It is possible to argue that the first incident was not a 1RR violation, because the section was not deleted but moved to the bottom. However, that changed the content, and other users (including me) objected to this move (see a diffs of a talk page discussion above), because that would give an undue weight to some viewpoint at cost of another one. Therefore, despite it was a move, it was a significant change.

The second incident was related to two different sections of the article. These two parts are logically connected (the texts in the lead and the main article related to the same issue), and these MVBW's reverts served to the same goal: to remove or minimize any mention of criticism of one source (The Black Book of Communism, aka BB) despite numerous evidences of a widespread criticism of this source presented on the talk page. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say these two reverts were unrelated. In addition, the first revert changed the lead, where even a single word matters. That means not only these two reverts are a technical breach of the 1RR restriction, they significantly change the article, and they are a part of long lasting attempts of MVBW to act against our neutrality policy. The whole discussion on the article's talk page is too long to be placed here, and, since it regularly returning to the original point, I come to a conclusion that the problem cannot be resolved without an external help.

Since User:My very best wishes maintains they are not edit warring and advised me to ask uninvolved admin's opinion on that matter, I reluctantly came here.

before posting, I formally notified MVBW about DS, but they do not take this request seriously: [82]. Taking into account that MVBW posted the same note on my talk page [83], I assume they are aware of these rules. MVBW is currently active, [84], but I see no sign they are taking my request seriously.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Reply. Sorry, it was not my intention to edit war on this page. I made many edits on this page recently, probably more than anyone else [85], but made probably only a couple reverts (I think). Speaking about diffs by Paul,

"First incident":

  1. 1st diff - that was removal of sourced text, but not to any previously existing version; no one recently inserted text that I removed. The removal was previously discussed on article talk page, and Paul agreed to remove it [86] - see edit my summary (or at least it was my understanding that Paul agreed).
  2. 2nd diff - that was move of the text to a place where it never was before; see my edit summary. How this can be seen a revert?

"Second incident"

  1. 1st diff - this can be viewed as my revert; it was previously discussed on article talk page, Paul agreed [87] (or at least it was my understanding that Paul agreed), and no one else objected.
  2. 2nd diff. Here is it after an additional automatic edit by bot. My intention was not to undo anything, but to reduce redundancies and explain/summarize more clearly for an ordinary reader what the sources tell. Note that the 2nd paragraph essentially repeats the first. Hence I merged two paragraphs together and rephrased three points of the criticism. That version or anything even remotely close to that version never existed in the history of the page. How it can be seen a revert?

As a note of order, Paul has already complained to Arbcom about the same [88], and it was rejected by Arbcom. He also started this thread, which I think was a talk page guideline violation on his part (but it was about very same edits). I asked Paul do not do it before [89].

I do not care too much about this page and voluntarily agree not to edit it during at least a week. However, honestly, I think this is actually a "battleground" request by Paul, given all his other actions. My very best wishes (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Re: "that was removal of sourced text, but not to any previously existing version; no one recently inserted text that I removed." MVBW has already been duly informed that removal of a significant amount of a text is a revert [90], so I see no reason why they pretend they are unaware of the revert policy.
Re: "The removal was previously discussed on article talk page, and Paul agreed to remove it" Yes, I agreed, provided but only provided, that more prominence will be given to this subject, which has never been done. I already explained this misunderstanding earlier [91].
Re: "move of the text to a place where it never was before; see my edit summary. How this can be seen a revert? " Again, a revert means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. The text has been removed, which means the previous action was reverted.
Re: "it was my understanding that Paul agreed)." The understanding was wrong, and I explained that repeatedly on the talk page. The diff provided by MVBW explicitly says that I proposed to add two sentences describing a controversy, whereas MVBW removed the mention of controversy completely. My words were taken out of a context and blatantly misinterpreted.
Re: " Here is it after an additional automatic edit by bot. My intention was not to undo anything, but to reduce redundancies" That is not true. One reference to an important source was removed completely, the explanation of the flaw in statistical method was removed, and the statement that this method leads to a systematic bias towards high values was removed, and replaced with the statement that the method was inaccurate. This changed a meaning significantly, and this change was biased.
Re: "Paul has already complained to Arbcom about the same" That is not true. I never complained myself, I commented on someone else's complaint. I supported it because I thought another user's complaint was justified.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
In both "incidents" my 2nd edit (2nd diff) does not reverse any previous edits, and it was not intended to reverse/revert anything. To the contrary, those were edits directed toward finding a compromise: moving the materials to a more appropriate place and rephrase of a newly inserted material to make it more understandable and consistent with the sources. You may think that my edit "changed the meaning significantly". But even if you are right, that was not a revert. First edit in the first "incident" arguably was also not a revert. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
In addition, when I simply posted a DS notice on your talk page [92], you promised me some kind of a retaliation [93]. Is that what you are doing here? My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
A recent post at your talk page demonstrates other editors disagree with your interpretation of your actions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
With regard to that [94], I was unaware of the recent change in the DS policy, and I didn't know that formally you were allowed to put this notice even if there were no actions from my side. However, I still believe it was an unprovoked and unfriendly act. You perfectly know (since the times when you were editing under a different name) that I was aware of WP:ARBEE, which was initiated after your conflict with another user, and I knew about restrictions applied to the users who are editing in the EE related area. Therefore, there were no practical reason to inform me about a subject we both are perfectly aware of, so I had a reason to consider that your act as non-friendly. With regard to "retaliation", I can only respond: "You say".--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
It was you who filed this request. I did not do anything. BTW, you did not answer my question. In this edit you said to me: "you are persistently pushing us towards" ANI filing (this filing?). Who are "us"? My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:‎OxfordLaw reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: OxfordLaw warned )[edit]

Page: Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎OxfordLaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [96]
  2. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:
Hi, user OxfordLaw broke the 1RR rule when he edited two times within 3 hours this article : Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. Moreover, the reported user makes WP:BATTLEGROUND comments in his edit summaries, example : [100], i quote : "Moreover as an Iranian you are hardly neutral in this dispute given the Saudi Arabia-Iran proxy war. I as a Italian am neutral on the other hand". Please note that this editor has a long list of warnings on his talk page and has already been blocked. More, OxfordLaw has also broken the 1RR rule here : [101], [102]. I would appreciate if an admin could take a look at this user's editing profile who seems to be WP:NOTHERE, according to me. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about in regards to some 1RR rule but I merely corrected obvious and continuous vandalism. The Al-Jazeera article does not contain a single evidence of proof whatsoever other than empty Houthi claims which cannot be a source on its own. Moreover Al-Jazeera is a state-owned propaganda channel (at best) owned by the Qatari state/regime and this news channel has an extensive history of making up false news against their political opponents (Qatar's rivals) whether it be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE or numerous other countries, especially since the Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy conflict began in June 2017.

Moreover removing the most neutral source on those entire Wikipedia pages (Yemen Data Project) without reason cannot be considered as anything other than vandalism.

As for my harmless comment about your own SELF-PROCLAIMED descent and identity (Iranian), what I wrote is kind of accurate given the history of those Wikipedia pages. Iranian users have a long history of disrupting those pages and similar pages related to Arabs. Most likely vice versa too BTW. I on the other hand am completely neutral as a Southern European. However I have been interested in Yemen for over one decade and I have visited the country thus the conflict interests me and I try to follow it. BTW for years (ever since March 2015) the same Wikipedia pages (infested by people with an agenda - no names mentioned) have hilariously claimed that only 350 Houthi rebels/terrorists have been killed which is absolutely hilarious when their casualties are in the 1000's by all neutral accounts. Whether killed by the Yemeni military, anti-Houthi rebels or the Arab coalition.

If Al-Jazeera, PressTV and similar state propaganda channels are used as sources, we might as well use state owned news from Saudi Arabia who likewise (most likely) make outrageous claims that cannot be backed up by facts unlike for instance my NEUTRAL source (Yemen Data Project) or common sense (no way have only 350 Houthis been killed since September 2014) as claimed for YEARS on those Wikipedia pages. A clear sign of bias.

BTW those Yemen maps should also be updated. The Yemeni army and the Arab Coalition are on the outskirts of Hudaydah and less than 40 km away from Sana'a proper.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

As for my previous edit warnings, I was by all accounts right and correct in what I was doing (as it turned out) and this has nothing to do with what is going on currently.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your comments about the nationalities of other users are completely irrelevant, i am Iranian but this does not mean that i'm biased about any topic here. Also, you should have given your arguments on the talk pages of the articles instead of edit warring.---— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikaviani (talkcontribs)

Moreover I find it hilarious that certain editors here (including this Iranian user who opened up this complaint against me) considers an empty Al-Jazeera article that contains no proof whatsoever other than Houthi claims and empty (unsubstantiated claims) as some kind of "holy grail" while my neutral source (Yemen Data Project) is deleted. We know that Houthi casualties have been in the 1000's as per the Yemen Data Project and countless of other sources (a simple Google search will confirm this as well as simple logic (3.5 years of fighting against a much stronger adversary) but their casualties are given as "unknown". Meanwhile Saudi Arabian casualties (although officially given as around 500) are DOUBLED due to an unsubstantiated Al-Jazeeera (of all media) article! That's rather "interesting" and then I am going to pretend that this users identity (Iranian) does not play a role whatsoever here. I am sorry but I am not buying it.--OxfordLaw (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Kindly take a look at this ‎EdJohnston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --OxfordLaw (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You were taking sides in this edit warring while you are not a party to this edit conflict. You took part in this conflict in favor of the unsubstantiated (Al-Jazeera article) Houthi rebel claim and thus against the Yemeni government and the Arab Coalition, Saudi Arabia included, which given your self-proclaimed identity and the current KSA-Iran proxy war, I took as a sign of bias which you cannot blame me for, given the disruptive history of Iranian users on those 3 Wikipedia pages and Arab-related context on Wikipedia. I am sure that Arab users are guilty of this behavior the other way around as well. I do not know as I am not an editor on Middle Eastern topics in general at all. I just have an interest in Yemen and Arabia and its ancient history and a few current day affairs.

Lastly, I explained all of my edits in detail while the other party did not explain anything. That's not exactly a sign of cooperation.--OxfordLaw (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Anyway those Wikipedia pages are highly biased and have a long history of ridiculous claims in regards to this conflict. The current maps used are a perfect example of this. As explained by the Hudaydah and Sana'a examples.

A NEUTRAL source that could be used are the maps originating from Risk Intelligence which is based in Denmark and a neutral party again (just like the Yemen Data Project that I used).

https://twitter.com/riskstaff?lang=es --OxfordLaw (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Don't know where to begin. First of all Twitter is not a Source. Secondly, Two important international media; The Independent and Aljazeera have reporter KSA losses higher than 1,000. Dont tell me The Independent its a Houthi related media.

OxfordLaw you have been blocked in the past for editing in Saudi Arabia Articles. Stop your un constructive behaviour.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, the fact that i'm Iranian does not mean any bias in my edits. Al-Jazeera and the independent are two reliable soures, whether you like it or not. Also, you should read a tuto about how to properly indent a thread on Wikipedia. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned OxfordLaw has now been notified of applicable general sanctions and should be fully aware of the editing restrictions in the area. Further violations or calling good-faith edits vandalism will likely result in a block or topic ban. NeilN talk to me 3:07 pm, Today (UTC−4)

User:Kavitha Swaminathan reported by User:Abesam (Result: Both blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Thoothukudi massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kavitha Swaminathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user has vandalised my talk page, has made personal attacks and baseless accusations and also has repeatedly vandalised the article by adding factually incorrect information irrespective of repeated warnings. I have also created a section in the talk page of the article. The editor seems to be unaware of many Wikipedia policies

Edit warring is done by User:Abesam. Without making any discussion in talk page User:Abesam removed entire content. I wonder if he can make threatening messages in my talk page and replying to him would become a vandal or personal attack. User:Abesam is calling others edits without even looking at the citations which is uncivil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitha Swaminathan (talkcontribs) 19:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks against editors. The paragraph that you are adding and the citations that you are providing for the said paragraph are not at all relatable. Your paragraph says one thing and the citations speak of something that is totally different. Refrain from adding factually incorrect content deliberately. Admins, please go through the history of the issue to know who is at fault. Abesam (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Abesam has straight away provided me with threat to block me and has completely deleted a paragraph without any explanation.Please be specific about what i say and what that citation say. POV pushing byAbesam. What i have said and the citation i have provided is same. Provide equal chance for debating rather than threatening to block user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavitha Swaminathan (talkcontribs) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

User:82.113.123.4 reported by User:G.scaringi (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Democratic Party (Italy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
82.113.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 03:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC) "See above"
  2. 01:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC) "This section is defunct because it is empty. And I will erase it by all means necessary."
  3. 00:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC) "It goes away"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Democratic Party (Italy). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User:213.205.194.242 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
List of Ackley Bridge characters (edit |