Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive370

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Failure to respond on talk page, WP:V violation at Frankfurt an der Oder, WP:ABF behaviour (Result: both editors blocked)[edit]

The user (198.84.253.202) constantly vandalizes articles despite the requests of many editors [5], [6], [7]. He removes the source for no reason, he stubbornly sticks to his own vision and beliefs against the sources, and does not want to agree to come to an agreement. He insults in the descriptions with a type of "Polish tag-team". LechitaPL (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Two clear 3RR violations (five or six reverts each within the last 24 hours). Number 57 17:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Rtc reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Blocked for a week)[edit]

Page
Placebo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rtc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to


Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846284945 by Alexbrn (talk). your arguments become more and more absurd. copyright law mandates the bias? LOL"
  2. 18:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "haha another lousy attempt to get biased language into the article that is not in the source. certainly if the paragraph begins with "the idea that placebo effects were clinically important" it can use the same term later on as well."
  3. 13:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "The source clearly says important, not worthwhile. This stubborn attempt ast defending this obviously biased, unsourced word is a clear proof that apparently this is not about representing the source but about spreading propaganda."
  4. 13:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846245829 by JzG (talk) It is an objective fact that this word does not match the source. There's nothing to misunderstand here."
  5. 19:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC) "please stop reverting all my edits just to get me into a formal violation and use discussion first. If you fail convincing me, you can still revert, but you should at least give me a chance to defend"
  6. 19:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC) "it's the word important, not worthwhile. Why do you keep twisting the sources?"


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[8]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

see Talk:Placebo

Comments:

Yeah, they're reverting everything I add, in their stated strategy to get those blocked who "dissent from mainstream science" (or rather what they perceive it to be). I have reveived half a dozen warnings on my talk page, apparently so they can argue I knew what I did. This is clearly gaming the system. Last time their attempt to get rid of me via a topic ban utterly failed. They're accusing me of troublemaking and being a timesink, and sealioning as if insisting on correct representation of the sources were a forbidden thing. What they are really saying is they don't want me on wikipedia because I disagree with their "scientific point of view" ideology (aka debunkism) criticized by sanger and me. Reverting my correct representation of the source for alleged copyright violation is bad faith. --rtc (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of a week as they already had numerous blocks for disruptive editing or 3RR violations. Number 57 18:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:122.8.230.42 reported by User:The Mighty Glen (Result: Blocked 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Aamina Sheikh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
122.8.230.42 (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 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC) to 16:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    1. 16:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 16:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 16:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846260372 by The Mighty Glen (talk)"
  2. 15:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 15:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC) to 15:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Now ok?"
    2. 15:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  5. Consecutive edits made from 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC) to 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    2. 15:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
    3. 15:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
  6. 14:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aamina Sheikh. (TW)"
  2. 15:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mahira Khan. (TW)"
  3. 15:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Mahira Khan. (TW)"
  4. 15:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aamina Sheikh. (TW)"
  5. 16:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "r"
  6. 16:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "r"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Explained in more detail at user talk page about WP:BLP, WP:VERIFY, and WP:NPOV. Editor responded there by accusing me of COI, and yelled at me on my talk page. Similar edit warring about "highest paid actress" at Mahira Khan. User:Ronz also warned editor about EW at talk page. TMGtalk 16:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've this ip at AIV for repeated WP:BLP violations and edit warring over those BLP violations. Working with biographical information requires the use of sources (and high-quality sources at that), or the content should be removed. None of the edits from this ip has included a source, nor indicated an existing one. There is a related discussion at Talk:Mahira_Khan#Puffery, which this ip has yet to comment on despite the edit-warring.--Ronz (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Disruptive editing. NeilN talk to me 16:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: The problematic IP is back. 122.8.241.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) --Saqib (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I widened the block to Special:Contributions/122.8.192.0/18 for 96 hours (evasion of the original block). EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Readsomescience reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Gold_Rush&diff=846222837&oldid=846046926

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Gold_Rush&diff=846308139&oldid=846285778

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Gold_Rush&diff=846333165&oldid=846311876



Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Editor has recently been blocked three times for edit warring on the same page. Within a few days after the last block expired the user resumed the same pattern of reverting.

  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Edit warring on the same article for fourth time in less than two months. NeilN talk to me 03:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:104.249.227.78 reported by User:CataracticPlanets (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page
United States Navy SEALs in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
104.249.227.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Please actually read the talk page discussuon rather than constantly reverting."
  2. 22:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846310937 by Ryanoo (talk)"
  3. 22:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846292253 by Ryanoo (talk)"
  4. 19:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Again, please discuss controversial edits especially if a BLP issue exists."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United States Navy SEALs in popular culture. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This IP has repeatedly reverted other users (4 times today). Urges discussion in edit summaries, but continues to revert anyway without discussing anything. May have also used other IP's in the past to make the same reversions; edit summaries show a similar wiki-lawyering style and knowledge of Wikipedia policy while simultaneously ignoring that policy to revert the article to their preferred version at all costs. CataracticPlanets (talk) 01:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 5 days. Consider using WP:BLPN to debate whether to include the negative material. It is not obvious that this article is the place where SEAL misbehavior would logically go, even if we do include it. This is a popular culture article. Though I suppose 'Depiction of SEALS in pornography' would be a topic that might be included if sufficiently important and if sources discussed it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out the user who reported this made zero attempt to review the talk page or participate in a discussion on it. Blindly reverting and ignoring BLP is not acceptable. Thank you for protecting this so an actual consensus can be reached. 104.249.227.78 (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Coldcreation reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Page protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14] Already warned by User:Kahastok. Coldcomfort also posted a 3RR warning on my talk page, demonstrating their awareness of the issues involved.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15] This is an example of a long-running dispute (see Talk:Museum_of_Modern_Art over a different Picasso painting), and most if not all the nonfree images discussed have been removed.

Comments:Coldcreation reverted to restore a nonfree image late yesterday, and has reverted three more times despite removal of the image by three different editors. Coldcreation is ignoring BRD principles, the application of NFC standards to removal the image reflects policy, consensus, and practice, and the inclusion was justified by a patently invalid us rationale, cut and pasted from the rationale for an entirely different article. (Coldcreation claimed the image supported critical commentary regarding modernism in art, but the article on the city of Madrid included no such discussion). An open-and-shut case. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (a pretty cool user name) neglects to mention that the dispute is over the inclusion of probably the most iconic and the second most recognizable painting in Europe, Picasso's Guernica. There is a discussion now occurring on the Madrid talk page which covers this disagreement. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) The fact that there is ongoing discussion about the file's non-free use does not mean WP:NOT3RR is in effect. Looking at the edit history of the article, it appears that Coldcreation was WP:BOLD in adding the image which is fine; however, once the image was removed the first time for a policy-based reason (you might disagree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's reason for removing the file, but those calling the removal vandalism need to read WP:NOTVANDAL.), Coldcreation should have then either started a discussion on the article's talk page per WP:BRD or at WP:FFD instead of engaging in edit warring. There is no automatic entitlement for non-free use; so, if someone disputes the validity of the use, then it's the burden of the person wanting to use the file per WP:NFCCE to convince others that the file belongs in the article. This is no different from a content dispute in that sense. The file was not in any danger of being deleted (it's being used in the stand-alone article about the painting which seems fine), and the subsequent removing and re-adding by other editors would've been avoided if Coldcreation had done this. In addtion, the article wouldn't have needed to be protected by NeilN making it impossible for anyone other than an admin to edit it. For sure both sides could've probably done things a little differently here, and probably nobody needs to be blocked over this since the protection has basically ended the disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Of particular importance here is that Coldcreation deliberately created a spurious use rationale for use in this article (and one other), then asserted that the existence of any article-specific use rationale prevents removal of the image from the article. Coldcreation also made no attempt to substantively refute NFCC#UUI #6, which is clearly controlling. Four reverts, of three different users, is a clear-cut 3RR violation without any attempt to justify the edit warring violation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
      • The image had been on the page for awhile when Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed it, and then Cold Creation added it back. The question of including such an iconic and internationally known and honored image on the page of the city on which it is held would seem to be ripe for a larger talk page discussion. This is Picasso's Guernica, not some minor 21st century art piece exhibited on a neighborhood street or being pulled down by nine-year-old children. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm not seeing the file being used in this version here immediately prior to it being added by Coldcreation with this edit, but WP:NOBODYCOMPLAINED is not really a valid justification for non-free use even if it was; Neither is WP:ITSHISTORIC or WP:JUSTONE when it comes to this particular use of the file. Simply copying and pasting a rationale for one use and changing the article parameter for another use, which seems quite obviously what was done here, doesn't really provide the valid separate specific rationale reqiured by WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCCE. Moreover, regardless of the reasons for wanting to use the file, nothing justifies edit warring to continue to re-add it after it had been removed multiple times by multiple editors. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
          • Randy Kryn's claim that "The image had been on the page for awhile" is less than candid. Randy humself added the image to the article on May 22, 2018. He did not provide an article-specific use rationale for the page, and undisputed NFCC violation. I removed the image, uncontroversially, on June 3, about 10 days later. On June 16, Randy posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual artssking for help in creating the necessary use rationale. Only one editor responded, saying she "wouldn't know how to make the case for a painting to be used on an article about a city or country per non-free use rationale". On June 17, without discussion, Coldcreation created several phony use rationales for the image, cutting and pasting text from the rationale for a different article which plainly and undeniably did not apply to the article they added the image to. They then knowingly violated 3RR, edit warring to restore the image despite its repeated removal by multiple users. It's not at all evident that this behavior should go unsanctioned, given the deliberate intention to violate both 3RR and NFCC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected NeilN talk to me 02:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Agent007R reported by User:Bojo1498 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Ranveer Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Agent007R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
  2. 15:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
  3. 15:10, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
  4. 12:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Early life and education */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ranveer Singh. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

All of this user's edits have been to this page. bojo | talk 15:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TyMega reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]
  4. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Comments:

Either can't understand talk page messages or has chosen to ignore them. Looks like deliberate disruption now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Problematic editing on multiple MOS-fronts (after multiple warnings) – I've just spent about 10 minutes "fixing" some of their most recent edits, and I didn't even bother to go further back where I'm sure there would be more. Block seems in order here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: BMK has agreed to stop editing)[edit]

Page: Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24] 23:01, 18 June 2018 (Undid revision 846455355 by Fig wright (talk) irrelevant)
  2. [25] 01:23, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846480683 by Barbarossa139 (talk) there was no lawsuit, just the threat of one, so there was no)
  3. [26] 03:21, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846494155 by Dervorguilla (talk) Removed per WP:WEIGHT)
  4. [27] 03:24, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846494563 by Dervorguilla (talk) ref is not repeated, so name is not required) [This rv stops me from using the ref in the lead.]
  5. [28] 04:00, 19 June 2018 (Undid revision 846495151 by Dervorguilla (talk) article already says "advertisements", "two" is unsourced)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]

Comments:
One of the user's colleagues then warned me on my Talk page about my 'disruptive editing'. Dervorguilla (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Ok, wow. This is a first – I wouldn't have expected Beyond My Ken being reported for 3RR, and the diffs seem to show them to be crossing the bright 3RR line. I think Beyond My Ken should clarify why they believe their crossing the line is okay – or perhaps they just forgot the rule momentarily (it happens, to experienced editors too – I've also done the deed). Let's await their clarification. Lourdes 10:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ooops. Just checked BMK's block log. They've been blocked multiple times in the past two years for edit warring and 3RR. In this light, the current reverts are not excusable. I would recommend an immediate block to prevent further disruption from BMK, and till they clarify on their talk page what in heavens are they thinking? Lourdes 15:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The OP is a POV-pusher who has been attempting to skew the article from neutrality. Politically opposed to the SPLC, which they feel is a left-wing otganization, they jumped on the issue of its settlement with Maajid Nawaz and took steps to paint it in the worst possible light (see talk page). The issue was settled when MalikShabazz re-wrote the relevant section for a neutral presentation. The current report is a WP:BATTLEGROUND action intended to punish me for preventing the OP from pushing their political POV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have much of anything else to say, so I won't be watching this thread. Either my actions were justified as a de facto acceptable exemption in preventing an article from being skewed out of neutrality, thus helping to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, or they weren't, and I'll expect a block. I have placed a notification in the relevant talk page discussion in case anyone involved there would like to confirm or dispute my contention.
    Finally, I would like to say that I think it's asking a lot of Wikipedia's long-term editors to help maintain the neutrality, accuracy and integrity of the encyclopedia, while also preventing them from taking the actions necessary to do so. Further, the use of processes such as WP:EWN as retaliation for doing the right thing is to be decried, and should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And there is an ongoing discussion, which does not give you the right to ignore policy. You edit warred, and just becasue you do ot agree with content is no excuse (taking them to ANI would have been the proper course).Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment -- As the filer stated, I first warned Dervorguilla for edit warring, but retracted my warning and replacing it with a reminder about disruptive editing.

    (Ok, wrong template and don't feel like putting in the right one, but please look at it, specifically this section, numbers 1,3 & 5)

    As the editor was making edits that were what was in my opinion, disruptive. For example tagging {{Failed verification|date=June 2018|reason=Hauslohner doesn't seem to support this claim.}} when the FBI source is right there(first on the source list) and states exactly what is in the sentence tagged. There's no way one could make that failed verification tag and have checked the sources listed. Then he tagged another sentence that had two sources, one again was the FBI source but he focused on the other source. Both of which confirm the sentence he tagged. There was discussion going on the Talk page, but the editor continued to make changes without consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment When considering whether any action is necessary in response to this complaint, I recommend reviewing the dirsuptive editing at the article during the past 24 hours by Dervorguilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), which bordered on trolling. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
And again the response to that should have been ANI, not edit warring. If someone holds up a big sign with "TRAP" written on it do not walk under it, you do not have a Sonic Screwdriver.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, since BMK has agreed to take a two-week break from editing the article. I suspect that such breaks may be enforceable by blocks. If problems with this article continue nevertheless, admins should consider imposing a lengthy period of full protection, to ensure that people discuss the points in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TheKinkdomMan reported by User:GhostOfDanGurney (Result:both users blocked 24 hours )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:
I tried to initiate a civil discussion on his talk page, but the user is being very patronizing and talking as if I'm some 12 year old who just discovered Wikipedia yesterday and threatened to get me blocked upon me trying to tell him that I was adding a reliable source. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note:As this report was being filed I was commenting in their discussion on The Kinkdom Man’s talk page warning them that they were both very obviously edit warring and asking them to initiate a discussion lest I block them both. Neither party has behaved ina manner that reflects well on them here. I am hoping the lesson has been brought home that edit warring is always wrong and they will both agree to back down and discuss properly, but if other admins see it differently that’s within their discretion. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted once then I messaged the user after I sent them a message they didn’t respond right away they kept adding a un reliable source which I reverted and then they messaged me when I was explaining on my talk page which I was civil and they clearly weren’t you can see I was trying to help this user but me getting punished for trying to help is clearly bull so why is that TheKinkdomMan talk 20:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

This user never initiated anything as You can clearly see through my edits and messages I messaged this user first after I reverted my first time then they messaged my talk page which You can see here [38]TheKinkdomMan talk 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You still have failed to mention why you continued to revert my edits after I added the source to PWInsider. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah , this is not inspiring a lot of confidence, you don’t seem to understand that nothing you are saying is an excuse for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As I point out that i reverted because of this user kept adding a source that isn’t reliable which I stopped reverting to message back on my talk page which I understand that I broke a rule however I was trying to help this user in the process but every time I tried to explain they shrugged it off TheKinkdomMan talk 20:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

All I was doing was adding the PWInsider link while keeping the other one. Unreliable as it is to the community, it was supported and 100% backed up by the reliable source. You still removed the link to PWInsider on two separate occasions. I don't think I'm the one needing "help" here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
None of this matters The reliability of the source or sources is something to be resolved through discussion, as I’ve said. Edit warring, which you were both doing does not resolve anything. This being a perfect example of why it is not tolerated. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Which, as I said, I tried, and was met with attitude and being talked down to by a brick wall. Hence why we're here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As I tried to resolve the dispute I said I wouldn’t report this user do to the fact they have 500 and something edits and I said they should check out WP:PW/Sources and they said they didn’t violate any rules when I said they were braking 3RR and I sent tbem the shortcut WP:3RR and they sent back a message that was very uncivil you can check it out here from my talk page [39] TheKinkdomMan talk 20:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Ok, I don’t know what else I could’ve done to get through to the two of you, so now it’s block time. Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Er22chi reported by User:Zazpot (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: GNU Privacy Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Er22chi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Single-minded addition of the same spammy promotional paragraph and external link - promoting a piece of non-notable, proprietary software - as was previously added repeatedly to the same article by a succession of IP editors. (So single-minded that this might be a bot account. I also wonder if the piece of software being promoted might be malware, due to the editor's persistence in re-adding the link promoting it.) Was blocked for 48 hours but repeated same edit yesterday, a couple of days after block expired, and again after that (despite a warning from User:EdJohnston). Has never replied to or otherwise acknowledged any talk page messages. Clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia.

For context, here is evidence that editors other than me also regarded the edits concerned as spam:

Click to view
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. [40]
  2. [41]
  3. [42]
  4. [43]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [44]
  2. [45]
  3. [46]
  4. [47]
  5. [48]
  6. [49]
  7. [50]

and these are the IP editors' insertions, which you can see are in (almost) all cases identical to the above:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]
  4. [54]
  5. [55]
  6. [56]
  7. [57]
  8. [58]
  9. [59]
  10. [60]
  11. [61]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. [62]
  2. [63]
  3. [64]
  4. [65]
  5. [66]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

As noted above, the insertions were noted as spam by multiple editors. As such, there isn't really anything to discuss on the article talk page. ("Shall we include spam in the article?" "No. It's against policy and a bad idea anyway." would be the only conversation to be had.) However, I did alert Er22chi to my concern that they were posting spam, by contacting them on their talk page (they did not reply):

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

Comments:

In an effort to get to the bottom of this case of vandalism, I also sought an SPI investigation into Er22chi in relation to the IP addresses that made (near-)identical edits to those made by Er22chi prior to GNU Privacy Guard receiving semi-protection. Unfortunately, that SPI request was denied. Zazpot (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely – User is not getting the message, and has no other interests. I had given a new warning which had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A bicyclette (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [71][72] (1st set of cancellations starting at 01:48, 18 June 2018)
  2. [73] (2nd cancellation at 15:45, 18 June 2018)
  3. [74][75] (3rd set of cancellations starting at 21:14, 18 June 2018)
  4. [76][77] (4th set of cancellations starting at 01:21, 19 June)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war NVA/VC casualties & Talk:Vietnam War#NVA/VC casualties

Comments:

I originally made an attempt to reduce the over-inflation and messiness of the infobox here [79] by moving most of the info from the column to the notes section and providing appropriate note-links. Subsequently, A bicyclette made a series of constant reverts of my attempts to find a compromise solution, mostly didn't reply to my attempts to discuss the issue and didn't acknowledge the 3RR warning.

He first reintroduced the info to the infobox's column that I moved to the notes section, leaving two sets of the same text in the infobox and overinflating it even more. Later, he moved the notes section into the column, going against the established template on infobox notes (putting them at the bottom of the box). He subsequently cancelled out (in whole or for the most part) all of my later attempts to try and keep the most relevant info in the column but trying to trim it down, leaving almost the same info from the start in the column.

All the while, I was attempting to discuss the issue with him, initially on his talk page, getting once only a brief reply and no further. I also copied our discussion from his talk page to the article's talk page, at this point warning him that he made 3 reverts in less then 24 hours, linked him Wikipedia's policy on 3RR and asked to give a chance to other editors to engage on the dispute. He didn't acknowledge my warning he was about to violate 3RR, again didn't engage in any discussion and canceled me out a 4th time. I myself stopped editing at this point since I was getting reverted constantly and wasn't getting any replies (except a few edit summaries). I then placed a warning on his talk page that he violated 3RR and asked him to cancel his last revert, to which I finally got a reply. He argued he didn't commit a revert, but that instead he simply reinserted information I had removed. This showed me that he didn't read the 3RR policy that I linked him before when I warned him he was about to violate 3RR. I once again asked him to read 3RR, quoted it to him that edits that undo other editors' actions in whole or in part counts as a revert, and once again asked that he cancel his last revert and discuss the matter further. He again didn't reply and continued on editing elsewhere. EkoGraf (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

PS I have found that the editor in question was previously warned on this noticeboard for edit warring very recently. Considering the actions taken here as well (continued edit warring), not long after he was warned on the noticeboard, I find this troubling. EkoGraf (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I reintroduced 1 or 2 lines which were removed. I kept some of the original modifications, but there should be continual reference to the body count issue given its due importance. I'm fine with removing references to the cambodian and laotian civil war on this matter, but removing or re-writing the text so it appears less critical of issues like counting civilians as enemy combatants in a military infobox is what I have sharp disagreements with.A bicyclette (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A bicyclette, the reintroduction of those lines, after I removed them, is what constitutes a revert. If you removed the references to Cambodia and Laos (part of your 4th revert), which is unnecessary and redundant since the Vietnam War is generally considered to include those two theaters of operations, that would be a first good step. However, as part of your 4th revert, you also reintroduced the bodycount link (which is unnecessary since basically/literally everything that is in that link is already stated in the brackets). EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This is far from the truth given that the body count discussion is far more detailed, using a range of sources. It should be retained given the controversial nature of US claiming civilians as enemy combatants. Retaining Laos and Cambodia ought to be maintained, given they are also listed seperately in seperate boxes/conflicts, and all of them were against groups unlisted in the final tally (Royal Lao, FANK, etc.).A bicyclette (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
A bicyclette Cambodia and Laos wars have separate articles, but these closely-linked conflicts are historically (and on Wikipedia) regarded as part of the overall Vietnam War. The final tally does in fact include Laotian casualties. It doesn't include FANK, but not because it is separate, but because there is no figure available and Cambodian military casualties are actually mentioned as unknown. But back to the main point of the problem here, which you haven't acknowledged or rectified, is that you violated the 3RR policy and didn't try to engage in constructive discussions on resolving the problem until you were reported for the violation. The current discussion you are having should have been made on the article's talk page during the time I was trying to talk to you and before the 3RR violation. I am again asking, for the third time, that you cancel your 4th revert and engage on the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think you are right, if you do not have consensus you should not revert.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems the editor has continued editing the article and not replied further to either the 3RR violation here or to a new (last) attempt at discussing a compromise for the issue on the article's talk page (both of which for he was pinged). So basically he is not responding to any attempts at a discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 31 hours. A bicyclette appears to think that the 3RR rules do not apply to them, because they believe their edits are "right" - and have continued editing the article without discussion. Therefore, a block is clearly necessary here. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mowapro reported by User:jooojay (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Hossein Zenderoudi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mowapro (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. [diff] 17:30, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,248)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (→‎Biography) (current) (Tag: references removed) [80]
  2. [diff] 17:27, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,248)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed) [81]
  3. [diff] 17:25, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,247)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed) [82]
  4. [diff] 17:21, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,375)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎ (Tag: references removed) [83]
  5. [diff] 17:06, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎[84]
  6. [diff] 17:03, June 18, 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+1,864)‎ . . Hossein Zenderoudi ‎[85]

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

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

Comments:

This is my first time posting to this board or having this situation, so please let me know if I'm doing something incorrectly. Some of the content added and deleted to this article make it seem like the person editing may be a possible COI.

User:Geofjarvis reported by User:Arjayay (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Prisoners' Advice Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geofjarvis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [87]
  2. [88]
  3. [89]
  4. [90]
  5. [91]
  6. [92]
  7. [93]
  8. [94]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] [97]

Comments:
User is not participating at the COI noticeboard, just continuing to edit-war - There are multiple earlier edit-wars, these ones listed above are just some of todays - Arjayay (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Should have been blocked some time ago today. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Ahmedabdelraziik reported by User:Jake Brockman (Result: Blocked 31 hours)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [98]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [99]
  2. [100]
  3. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:
The editor has created articles for Kholoud Waleed and Kholoud waleed, a Kuwaiti social media personality, on several occasions. Each time, the article as CSD deleted for either promotional contents or lack of notability. A different person of the same name exists, a Syrian journalist. Following deletion of the former article, the journalists article was moved from Kholoud Waleed (journalist) to Kholoud Waleed as per COMMONMAME. Since then, the editor made several attempts to replace this contents with the same contents about the other person which was deemed CSD worthy. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

And it continues [104].Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC) And again [105], a block is needed and fast.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC) And another [106].Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NeilN talk to me 15:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Mrnobody1997 reported by User:Midnightblueowl (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: British National Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrnobody1997 (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. [107]
  2. [108]
  3. [109]
  4. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

Comments: Comparatively new editor (since February 2018) whose edits appear entirely restricted to the topics of the far right in Britain and Islamism in Britain. Their comments on both the article talk page and their user talk page reflect a classic refusal or failure to "Get the Point" ([113], [114], [115]). They do not appear to be malicious in their edits, but refuse to comprehend how Wikipedia works and persist with their edit warring against three editors (myself, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, and User:Grayfell). From the nature of their behaviour and style of their written comments it is possible that the editor is a child or young adult (perhaps the latter if born in 1997 as their user name might indicate), so I suggest any sanctions be delivered gently. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Agree the editor seems new (due to their expressions of surprise about our policies) but they are editing high-profile articles. They've been here since February and we do expect people to come up the learning curve. It is especially puzzling that they have reverted stylistic improvements to the lead; suggests WP:CIR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:126.41.53.121 reported by User:Vmavanti (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Park the Van (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [116]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments:
This user has been given many warnings but has chosen to respond with insults in Vietnamese and using multiple IP addresses.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:205.251.151.42 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked (31h), semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Trump administration family separation policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 205.251.151.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [130]
  2. [131]
  3. [132]
  4. [133]
  5. [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Comments:
IP account, obviously not a new user based on edit summaries and Wikipedia policy knowledge (so most likely a sock). Edit warring on the basis of spurious reasons. I believe the article was semi-protected until recently and the hijinks began when protection expired (so semi-protection is prolly a good idea too).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 31h and article semi-protected. Black Kite (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

User:WrongAnswerTryAgain reported by User:GoodDay (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Comments:
Forgive me, but I'm not very good at linking diffs. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:208.44.170.115 reported by User:Woodensuperman (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Moe (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.44.170.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Moe_(band)#Band_name_in_lead_sentence]

Comments:
User is forcing their version of a page, despite a failed RM. --woodensuperman 15:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Disruptive editing - withdrawing the move request because of "bigotry" and then insisting on keeping "The correct title of this article is moe. (band). It appears incorrectly here due to technical restrictions." NeilN talk to me 15:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: A suspiciously new user account has just popped up and commented on the talk page. Is that permitted? --woodensuperman 15:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Blocked one week for socking. --NeilN talk to me 15:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:ScepticismOfPopularisation reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC) "``````````````````(I won't revrt again-only reason i reverted is to respond to the comment below) DEFINITELY NOT "one person's personal opinion" or any sort of opinion for that matter-please read both sources. And I already took this to the talk page, this below just invittion for her to actually participate herself."
  2. 10:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC) "(Don't worry, I won't revert much further from this) Why not? Please explain on the talk page. There is no section called "significance", and this should article should show why he's relevant/important, as all articles do/should do."
  3. 07:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC) "Added supporting source. 1. "The founder" in ths context means the exact same thing as "a particular founder" 2. Read the source (not a personal opinion), along with the new source I just added."
  4. 04:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC) "If you actually bothered to read the source, what it says is actually displayed right here and right now, and it says:"THE three mighty founders of western culture, Socrates, Jesus, and Plato". "the" does ot necessarily mean "unique", it in fact usually means "particular"-both Greece and Rome are THE foundations at the exact same time. This is acually the EXACT wording in the source, and your comment says more about your ignorance than about the quality of the wording"
  5. 01:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 846812956 by HiLo48 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Note that editor has been blocked recently for edit warring and warned after that block for the same thing.[146] Doug Weller talk 10:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Stopped edit-warring as the top-most diff in the lead tells. Why this had to be reported here, I have no idea.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
So, Doug Weller, I believe you are mistaken. It is pretty clear that I was blocked only once, WAY back from my skirmish with the subtly biased Joshua Jonathan (that guy should seriously be reported for COI) over at Origins of Christianity, and this warning was not from a report about that articleScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Wow... You really don't get it, do you? You, and your behavior, are in question here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
You, and your behavior, were never the point of any of the comments above. I merely corrected Doug Weller's report. Why are you even commenting, you have barely anything to do with this discussion.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Editwarring to make a point isn't acceptable either, and it's clear that's what you were doing from your edit summaries. And I didn't say you were blocked more than once, I said you've been blocked and warned. To make it more explicit, you were blocked for a violation of 3RR on May 23rd by User:Seraphimblade. On May 29th User:EdJohnston gave you a warning for editwarring at Jesus. You have ignored that and editwarred at the same article again. Stopping doesn't make you immune from a block, and the earlier warning doesn't seem to have had any effect. Doug Weller talk 11:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have been part of this story. I was recently discussed by this editor thus: "...HiLo challenged it for nonsensical reasons; if you check the edit history you will see that". Early in discussions I seriously wondered if WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED has some applicability here. Clearly this person is a strongly believing Christian. Nothing wrong with that in isolation. But he/she seems unable to recognise that Christian beliefs cannot override Wikipedia's policies on sourcing. And he seems to have serious problems with recognising common English usage. The expression I was attacked over was "a particular founder". I suggested it wasn't good English. Then he insisted that "THE found of western civilisation" was not a singular usage. He apparently didn't mean it was only Jesus. Communication with this editor is very difficult. He uses a different version of English from the one I know. HiLo48 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I just copped some more from ScepticismOfPopularisation.... - "Please cite the grammatical rules I violated with "particular founder"-or are you just here to get attention? Your comment is absolute proof that you are biased in this regard; what you say here therefore doesn't count." HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

By " common English usage " you mean "common English demonstrations", as numerous sources demonstrate.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
HiLo, none of the stuff you said is of any relevance to this discussion.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
After looking at their history, I have a sneaking suspicion that ScepticismOfPopularisation is the latest sockpuppet of User:Gonzales John. After seeing this latest edit-warring, I'm in the process of combing through the edit histories for an SPI request, but the subject areas seem to overlap quiet a bit and the edit-warring behavior is the same. Just thought that I would throw this out there in case others are seeing the same thing. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep. I was thinking the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I first edited here on July 2017. I only started edit-warring nearly a year later, May 2018. If I really were Gonzales John, who appears to have been blocked before I started editing, I would have been edit-warring right from the start.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan, from my experience editing with you I would not trust you to tell the truth. I get this vibe that you are desperately trying to get me blocked because I was a "nuisance" to you.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't think he is GJ. GJ is a liberal Christian, SOP seems conservative (religiously). Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
ScepticismOfPopularisationhas also been edit-warring at Classical_music to put "Catholic monks developed the first forms of modern European musical notation in order to standardize liturgy throughout the worldwide Church", I can't be bothered to add up whether the editor went over 3 reverts in 24 hours, see the revision history [147] and even edit-warring on another user's talk page, see [148]. He or she is clearly pushing a POV and makes unacceptable personal attacks such as the one HiLo48 has quoted on this page Your comment is absolute proof that you are biased in this regard; what you say here therefore doesn't count. I don't know if admins can hand out indefinite blocks based on this page but this editor is clearly not here to build an encylopedia , wastes a lot of editors' time and should not be allowed to continue imo.Smeat75 (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Accusing someone of bias, like accusing someone of COI, is not a "personal attack"-if you yourself are accusing me of bias right now.By "wasting a lot of editor's time" you mean "adjusting oneself to complaints and making productive initiatives to the concenrs of fellow editors". Pro-Catholic is not always or necessarily the same as POV-pushig; your comment only shows COI on your part. No one considered that "POV" until you came along. As wp policy says, that is not POV as I productively adjusted the content and added more sources per his complaints . Besides Catholic monks really did do that stuff a all scholars-Christian or non-Christian- would agree. I saved that page from the incompetence of fellow editor show owould denyeven something all book son the subject would support just because edit is pro-Catholic~

Admit it, you are just desperately trying to get me blocked because you just "don't like" my edits-this COI is unproductive on your part and harmful tot he encycopedia.

I trust the admins enough to know that they will see that I actually made productive compromises, and when that got turned down, I adjusted myself and made another, completely different compromise, and so on, until we solved each of our concerns.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

  • This needs to go to ANI so we can get a topic ban. ScepticismOfPopularisation's misreading of the one source they cited, failure to understand WP:BURDEN or WP:TERTIARY are not useful. And I see this isn't the first instance of edit warring in the article! Add in their just plain childish responses of "I have the sources right now but I won't show them to you because I'm going to bed now but I'm gonna keep posting for hours after saying this" and we have an editor who doesn't need to be editing this topic (doesn't matter what the topic is, any editor who behaves that way with a topic isn't thinking clearly enough to edit it). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

See [[149]]. That edit is very clearly what I did.

  • This needs to go to ANI so we can get a topic ban. ScepticismOfPopularisation's misreading of the one source they cited, failure to understand WP:BURDEN or WP:TERTIARY are not useful. Add in their just plain childish responses of "I have the sources right now but I won't show them to you because I'm going to bed now but I'm gonna keep posting for hours after saying this" and we have an editor who doesn't need to be editing this topic (doesn't matter what the topic is, any editor who behaves that way with a topic isn't thinking clearly enough to edit it). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

gain, misreperesenting what I said. You show the same desparate ttempts tog et me bto get me bannd. Tht of what is aid is that I wn't be able to post tall of my many sources right now, whethe ror not I am actually going to bed (cant distinguish the spirit from the letter, eh?) And I never misrepresented or misread any source in all actuality-you must know that.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)