Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive378

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Ginjuice4445 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ginjuice4445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Excessive citations. Separate "notes" section reformatted as references, as references for this point should be treated like every other reference in the article"
  3. 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866183419 by Ixocactus (talk) The language of this paragraph has changed significantly since the "edit war." There is not consensus for your changes. Sort this out on the Talk page."
  4. 20:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866178215 by K.e.coffman (talk) Please provide a reason for this change before undoing it."
  5. 16:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Restoring WP:NPOV to first paragraph"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Edit warring again */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Ginjuice4445 has resumed their push to change wording in lede to be more flattering to the topic. This is following a previous block for edit warring a few days ago. When I pointed this out, Ginjuice4445 denied that it's edit warring, saying that it's just clean-up.

The article has, coincidentally, become much more active and high-profile since the previous block, as it's connected to the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting.

There are very many posts on the article's talk page about this issue from many editors, including Ginjuice4445. Consensus for these changes has clearly not been reached. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is absurd. Edit 1 adds citations and changes no language. Edit 2 was fixing references.
Edits 3-5 are a content dispute. I reverted no more than three times per WP:3RR. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Edit 1 is contrary to the discussion on the talk page, where your interpretation of these sources has been challenged. Further, you had already tried to add those sources earlier today with only slightly modifed wording: [1].
Edit 2 was a continuation of changes you had already tried to make earlier today: [2]. This edit was reverted. Repeating a change in content is edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Edit 1, these are new sources. Last time I checked the definition of a revert was undoing another editor's work. Adding a reference that supports a statement in the article without changing the statement is not a revert.
Regarding Edit 2, this was the end result. If the admins have a problem with that cleanup - someone who took the anti-gab viewpoint decided that there needed to be not one but two separate sections for references in this article - then I'll take a block. Again, not undoing anyone's work.
Regarding 3-5, the language materially changed overnight given events in Pittsburgh to be far more extreme. The first of these edits was accordingly not a "revert" to the edits from 48 hours ago but an attempt to temper the new editors' contributions and bring the lede of the article back to WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginjuice4445 (talkcontribs)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – Five days by User:Mz7. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:BDMKK (Result: Both editors warned)[edit]

Page: Talk:Jair Bolsonaro (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Coltsfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&oldid=866208775

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866209198&oldid=866208775
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866215036&oldid=866214430
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866215036&oldid=866214430
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&diff=866224943&oldid=866223373

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Coltsfan&diff=866226554&oldid=866226486 (user removed my warning saying I was trolling)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jair_Bolsonaro&action=history

Comments:
User:Coltsfan is clearly on a political activism pushing his biased opinion and trying to censorship Wikipedia. He has been doing a disservice to the article Jair Bolsonaro. Please can someone check his recent contributions there? BDMKK (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Just an FYI: user BDMKK has been blocked indefinitely on his native portuguese wikipedia for trolling, use of proxies, sock puppetry, bias editing and use of Wikipedia for political activism, even to the point of a fellow editor feeling 'harassed'. I stand by what i said that talk pages should be used for discussing the content of the article itself or to talk about subjects related to said article, not for political activism or trolling. Coltsfan (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    Coltsfan, other than BLP violations or other blatant violations of policy, there is no valid reason to repeatedly remove other editors' posts from talk pages. Edit warring like this is disruptive, and is in no way justified by the ad hominem argument above. Bradv 03:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Again... a article's talk page is a place to discuss the content of said article. Is not a forum, not a blog, nor a place for you to discuss world wide problems or talking about conspiracy theories or anything not related to what's in the article. And as you can see, Bradv, people over there (like this fella) don't look much interested in what's in the article, are they? It's a gross violation of WP:TPG. Coltsfan (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Coltsfan, I don't disagree with your point, but it doesn't justify edit warring. Per WP:REFACTOR, If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. Bradv 18:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jorrojorro reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jorrojorro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866117060 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Still post ing unsourced content without edit summmary after recent block and subsequent warning by blocking admin. Charles (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week by User:AlexiusHoratius. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jimmy everett reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

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

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

None, but I added a welcome message, explanation of the issues, warnings and a request to use the talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Reverted now by 4 editors including myself. No response on his talk page or the article's. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

And again just a few minutes ago, still no attempt to discuss.[8] Doug Weller talk 12:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:PericlesofAthens reported by User:Makedonija (Result:Page protected for 3 days )[edit]

Page: Cleopatra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PericlesofAthens (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866441283
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866438192
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866438910
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleopatra&oldid=866440312 , however this one was not "undone" just edited to remove

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

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

Comments:

Protecting the page for 3 days, Makedonija's hands aren't clean here, they've been reverting/undoing as often. *Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Doug Weller talk 12:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

While my hands aren't clean, I at least stopped at 3 whereas this user kept on going (not to mention the user's inflammatory message left on my talk page and outright refusal to engage on the Cleopatra talk pages. I would expect Doug you to at least enforce the rule. Macedonia (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The message was after I protected the page, so I obviously couldn't take it into account. I'd rather not block either an experienced user (you) or a very experienced user, both with clean block records (mistaken blocks don't count) when I can just protect the page. Doug Weller talk 14:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:*Treker reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: *Treker (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]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template talk:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

Comments:
Unfortunately, *Treker seems to think that personal attacks in edit summaries and on the talk page are a way to push their edit through. MarnetteD|Talk 17:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Greywin reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
2018 Freiburg gang rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Greywin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866635727 by NatGertler (talk) rev vand, repeated removal of sourced material; the main suspect has become a public figure, so WP:BLPCRIME does not apply"
  2. 15:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866634971 by NatGertler (talk) This is relevant information about the case; no one is blamed as a person, but information about the suspects are decisive for the reader's understanding; rename the section to "suspects"; above that, he has become public figure by mentioning in the press, even his father gave an interview"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC) to 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    1. 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866557127 by NatGertler (talk) WP:RS decide, what is connected or not, not users"
    2. 15:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866632438 by NatGertler (talk) Restore section about perp, now the name isn't mentioned anymore"
  4. 00:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866542636 by NatGertler (talk) The connection is made by the sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on 2018 Freiburg gang rape. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */ new section"
Comments:
User NatGertler is repeatedly trying to remove sourced material about a suspected rapist to deny unwanted information, if someone wants to block me for it, so be it.--Greywin (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I had a look at the page in question, and it would appear that Greywin is using an unusually broad definition of WP:WELLKNOWN to reinsert material that violates WP:BLPCRIME into an article about a crime. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
As I said on the talk page: Plenty of sources name him (without surname, which I did't use either), so he is a public figure, not only in my opinion (and a supected gang rapist determined by a DNA probe, who should have thought about if he wants to be a public figure before committing a gang rape on top of that!). But the suspect is not even named anymore in the article. So it doesn't matter, if he is or not. It's relevant information about the case, which you obviously want to deny, because you just don't like it.--Greywin (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
If the only source of notoriety a suspect of a crime has is being a suspect of a crime they are not covered under WP:WELLKNOWN - this is what I mean by unusually broad definition. You have no clue what I do or do not like. But I will tell you this: I don't like POV pushing edit warriors so maybe stop at 5RR, OK? Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
He's now up to six reverts here and refuses to listen to anybody at talk, can we please have a short-term block? It's the only way this'll stop. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It's the only way the unwanted information can be removed. So please block everything quickly! It will be a better world afterwards! :)--Greywin (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected It's not apparent to me that Greywin is entirely in the wrong here, so I have protected the page instead. To the talk page, please. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Piccadillysquare reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Blocked indefinitely)[edit]

Page: Operation Cedar Falls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piccadillysquare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15]
  2. [16]

and also on Operation Piranha:

  1. [17]
  2. [18]

and then moved the delete info from Operation Piranha onto Batangan Peninsula where it is already covered:

  1. [19]
  2. [20]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I advised on my revert that this should be discussed on talk Page rather than edit-warred.

Comments:
Piccadillysquare, a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user, (SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette) adopts the same approach of edit warring rather than discussing controversial edits on Talk pages in order to push their POV that US forces massacred numerous Vietnamese civilians. Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The revision I made to the Cedar Falls article as far as I'm concerned addressed your issue by clarifying quite clearly, that it was in the control of the NLF, as you said I was trying to inject POV. None of what I wrote was POV and was taken directly from the citing article, that is written by Jonathan Schell cited throughout this page. This was not just a revert as it accomodated your clear and strange issue with the matter.

I'm going to stop editing the second set, and accomodate your odd issue with it being included on that page specifically, despite actually discussing the operation quite clearly. Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

User is attempting to draw me into an edit war, by suggesting I edit the main page and finding unreasonable reasons to revert my other edits. He suggested that I copy it onto the Batangan Peninsula page instead of on the Operation Piranha page, which I did. Now he is reversing these edits too on reasons which are not entirely clear. [21] and here [22] Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You just don't seem to get it. If someone reverts your edits you take it to the Talk Page, not edit-war. Mztourist (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It'd be great if you raised the issue with me first instead of just declaring I'm some other user and start harassing my edits. I have difficulty seeing how they are my POV or any other issue since your issues aren't properly clarified. I literally just dig through sources already used on the page and put in more details to create context since they aren't entirely clear to me, none of it is my opinion or POV on the matter. Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
It'd be great if you followed WP:BRD rather than edit-warring everywhere. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Just going to point out that user reporting me engaged in a clear 3R violation. [23], [24], and here. [25]. I am not going to debate the matter further nor defend myself from further charges made from the user on this issue specifically since its a general waste of time to put in this much care over something this insignificant and pedantic, so I will just await admin comments. Piccadillysquare (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

suggest you actually read WP:3RR Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

User:AntanO reported by User:Arasksk (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&oldid=866272854


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&type=revision&diff=866382293&oldid=866357149
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&type=revision&diff=866390515&oldid=866389994
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&type=revision&diff=866000642&oldid=865824723

Comments:
User AntanO has reverted new adds multiple times for this page. See History here

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vairamuthu&action=history

I tried to discuss the reverts to understand further to resolve in talk page.

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AntanO#Vairamuthu_edits_removed._Readding
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vairamuthu

See AntanO Talk page version diffs history since some of my comments on talk page also were deleted

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AntanO&diff=866395278&oldid=866394829
  • Also I was borderline bullied that I will be blocked because I was engaging in edit war. But in reality my NPOV adds with proper citations were being reverted in a speedy manner by AntanO who was the one engaging in edit war. Perusing the edit history, starting around 10/12, when the personality (whose biography is in dispute )was accused of sexual harrasment, I can see updates regularly reverted in a coordinated manner to provide a curated positive biography over factual biography that is supported by relevant and credible citations. This appears to be a blatant attempt to protect the personality and marginalize the metoo movement and the victim. There was no slander or non factual references and conclusions involved. proper citations for the allegations were presented including the official video response of the individual. Afraid, this amounts to censorship in wikipedia.
I changed the header line of this report to show it's a dispute about the *article* called Vairamuthu not the talk page. User:AntanO made five consecutive edits on 30 October, so there was no 3RR violation. Unless more information is supplied, this will likely be closed without a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
AntanO was leaning on the BLP WP:3RRNO exemption so I think this is not actionable. Their attempts to discuss with the filer were pretty unnecessarily aggressive (e.g. "do you have problem to reading?" [26]) but I think this is more language barrier than deliberate incivility. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know the context of allegations and politics related to Vairamuthu that well connected by a user towards me as your politics and bias and favoritism which is more sensitive if someone know the context. But I never aggressively response until the user ignored my note to discus at the articles' talk page. --AntanO 18:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I am a relative newcomer here and trying to make updates with relevant citations and without any agenda. Sensitivity is a relative thing. The BLP personality Vairamuthu is not a politician or government official. He is a poet and movie song writer now accused of sexual harassment by multiple women and there is no politics involved and question of sensitivity does not arise when updating with factual and relevant citations without conclusions or prejudice.No OR here either.A simple google news search on the name will bring pages and pages of results on this topic yet Wiki updates have been removed regularly since Oct 12. User's Aggressiveness came too quickly when I justified my update with citations and when the user was unable to defend the revert and already threatened I will be blocked in wiki?

I believe as long as I follow the BLP policy - which I did in the first place (NPOV, V, OR) I can go back and add the content that was twice removed. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arasksk (talkcontribs) 21:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: User:AntanO is warned that their edits of Vairamuthu are not covered by the BLP exception to the WP:3RR rule. If AntanO removes this material again without getting a prior consensus on the article talk page they are risking a block. Your question at the BLP noticeboard is confused and seems not to show understanding of Wikipedia's BLP policies. If you are not clear on the matter, ask an experienced contributor or an admin for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss at question at the BLP noticeboard? --AntanO 20:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
As an admin who is watching the edit-warring complaints, it isn't my job to reach a conclusion on what should go in the article. But you are expected to get consensus for your own changes. I take note that you just removed an admin warning from your talk page, marking it as 'POV'. Be aware that this doesn't earn you much sympathy if the dispute continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Coltsfan reported by User:BDMKK (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

Page: Manuela d'Ávila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Coltsfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]
  5. [32]
  6. [33]
  7. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've been trying to resolve with arguments but once again ([36][37]) this user engages in an edit war.

Comments: Coltsfan has been tracking my contributions and tend to revert my edits that challenges his left-wing activism. BDMKK (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Alterations made without sources can be reverted, based on WP:V policy, and the WP:3RR was not broken. Plus, on the same matter, BDMKK was blocked indefinitely on portuguese wikipedia on the same context for using proxies IPs to revert people who reverted him, in order to engage in WP:NPOV. It's worth checking out. Very similar behaviour. Coltsfan (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Is this enough source for you? Are you really using an ad hominem argument to justify your WP:4RR? By the way I've been disputing the arbitrary block on the Portuguese WP. Like yourself, there are many left-wing activists there trying to push their biased POVs. BDMKK (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
First, no it's not enough (see WP:WPNOTRS). Second, it's not common practice on articles of politicians to put the political spectrum of their party (unless is absolutely relevant). Go to the articles of Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Theresa May, Scott Morrison, etc, for instance, the political spectrum of their party is not cited as it's not relevant there. And third, stop accusing everyone who reverts or disagrees with you of "activism" or whatever, that nears WP:PA and evidences WP:NPOV. Coltsfan (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Please don't come down like a ton of bricks and try to focus on improvements, not rules and do not bite the newbies with your gaming and wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not censored and an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. Please stay calm, refrain from your drama, let go from your ad hominem attacks and remember, Wikipedia is not about winning. BDMKK (talk) 01:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Result: Filer User:BDMKK blocked 48 hours for personal attacks on the noticeboard: "Coltsfan has been tracking my contributions and tend to revert my edits that challenges his left-wing activism." "Like yourself, there are many left-wing activists there trying to push their biased POVs." It does not come as a shock that BDMKK was indef blocked on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where one of the charges against him was POV-pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @EdJohnston: I'm tempted to block indefinitely. The block on pt.wiki was for socking, and a check here shows that there is extensive logged-out edit warring and at lease one additional account (GematriaAnswer). This is a POV warrior who has no intention of abiding by our requirements for collaborative editing. Thoughts?--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that BDMKK is already socking here on enwiki, I agree that indef is the right action. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:OnceASpy reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Antifa (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OnceASpy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [39]
  2. [40]
  3. [41]
  4. [42]
  5. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:

  • In addition to the diff above, other attempts have been made to try to discuss this with them on the talk page and it has degenerated into accusations of "activism" and other deflections. When I suggested going through it line by line to see which bits are good and bad all I got was accusations. I would also point out that several different people have removed the content that OnceASpy is insisting on but this has made little or no impression. They do seem to see themself as "the only boy marching in time with the music". --DanielRigal (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week, clear reverts at 02:45, 01:56, 01:35, 01:06, 22:25, 20:04. Previously warned, previously block on same article. Kuru (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Mztourist reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [47]
  2. [48]
  3. [49]
  4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This user has a long history of POV edit warring concerning the behaviour of the Korean Army in Vietnam. See his talk page at User talk:Mztourist#South Korea in the Vietnam War.

Comments:
I am entitled to revert sock edits. The last edit I made was to revert the sock after they had been blocked. My "long history" is of defending various Vietnam War pages against POV pushing socks, most recently: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette. I am frustrated that an Admin has decided to try reporting me for edit-warring while completely disregarding the underlying socking here. Also I had put the page up for AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre before the Admin and the sock made their edits to the page, both of which relate to the use of "purportedly" rather than "reportedly" which had been stable since June and which tie into the whole issue of whether or not any massacre took place. Mztourist (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Ɱ reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Briarcliff Manor, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]

Diff of edit warring: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57], User_talk:Zackmann08#Geobox

Comments:

User has repeatedly indicated that they WP:OWN the article because they have contributed to it extensively. The article is the ONLY one on WikiPedia about a settlement that is using a Geobox (see: Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type which pages are automatically added to). I tried to have a civil conversation on the matter on my talk page (see: User_talk:Zackmann08#Geobox) but user has repeated refused to hear that and insisted that since he maintains the article he gets his way.

  • When warned abotu WP:OWN, the user reverted the edit on their talk page (obviously his right) with the comment that they are just maintaining the FA status [58]
  • User has repeatedly invoked WP:IAR to ignore policy in order to get their way.
  • Template:Geobox#Other_guidelines clearly indicates that the template is deprecated and should not be used.

--Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't break 3RR, the geobox template still works, and works better than the infobox template. I wasn't told there was any deprecation prior to this interaction, nor ever shown the discussion for it. The geobox template is superior because it has many parameters that the infobox template does not yet have, and it also formats better, with smaller text, fewer lines between sections, and other details. There should be no reason why I cannot use that template, even if it's not recommended for use. Is there a policy that I cannot use a deprecated template? There is the policy IAR, that if anything stops Wikipedia from improvements, ignore it. And Zackmann08's edits are literally removing content from that article. Therefore I am reverting him until he can restore all of the content, whether it be by adding parameters to the infobox template, or by finally dropping this silly dispute and letting this template be used on this article. When I added it, there were other settlements using geobox; I guess most of them have now been switched over, and nobody has realized the harm in that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Zackmann08 is WP:NOTGETTINGIT and edit warring here just as much as me. I warned him on his talk page as well: diff. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - this is a pure content dispute on a featured article. If Geobox is deprecated then work together to replace it with infobox. Work together to preserve info in the geobox which can't be displayed in infobox, if that's what needs to happen. Both of you are experienced enough here that you should be able to work together on this. If not, well, you know what happens next. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Foxboogiebrown reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Bit less bitey, chaps)[edit]

Page
Foxy Brown (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Foxboogiebrown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866945873 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
  2. 16:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866893881 by John from Idegon (talk)"
  3. 22:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866839452 by XLinkBot (talk)"
  4. 21:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Foxy Brown (rapper). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Foxboogiebrown is obviously a Foxy Brown fan trying to improve the article and obviously hasn't had WP:BLPSOURCES explained to them. A bit less templating and a bit more assuming good faith, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Skslaw reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: Filer warned)[edit]

Page
Hollywood Forever Cemetery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Skslaw (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 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) to 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    1. 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Brent Cassity never had any ownership interest in Hollywood Forever Cemetery, individually or as part of any company."
    2. 18:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Neither Brent Cassity or his father had anything to do with Hollywood Forever, and there is not support or authority for the allegation that any "ponzi" scheme money was used at Hollywood Forever, which constitutes slander and defamation."
  2. 17:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Brent Cassity was never an owner of Hollywood Forever Cemetery and there is no support or authority for such a statement."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC) to 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    1. 17:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ All references to Brent Cassity or Forever Enterprises being a part of the ownership or investment in Hollywood Forever Cemetery is incorrect. Further, any allegation that any "ponzi" money was used to fund the acquisition or renovation of the cemetery is without authority or support, but is also defamatory of Tyler Cassity, which violates Wikipedia"
    2. 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ Any allegation that the cemetery was acquired or renovated using "ponzi" scheme money is baseless, without authority, and defamatory; and violates Wiki's own policy against biographies of living persons."
  4. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ These entries are incorrect and defamatory. Brent Cassity had no ownership interest in Hollywood Forever, Doug Cassity, the father, had no ownership interest in Forever Enterprises nor did the company make any investment in the cemetery, and there was never any finding that any money from a "ponzi" scheme was used to purchase Hollywood Forever."
  5. 16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* History */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Hollywood Forever Cemetery. (TW)"
  2. 16:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hollywood Forever Cemetery. (TW)"
  3. 17:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hollywood Forever Cemetery. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Keeps removing/changing sourced information, and falsely calls the ponzi scheme section "defamatory" when it's sourced and verified. Refuses to follow WP:BRD. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This edit is a good edit adhering to WP:BLP correctly by taking out contentious information sourced to tabloidesque gossip. Frankly I'm more likely to block Kirbanzo for recklessly restoring BLP violations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User:MusenInvincible reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: diff their 1st edit, 16:12, 26 October 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff 06:26, 29 October 2018
  2. diff 08:14, 30 October 2018
  3. diff 15:06, 1 November 2018
  4. diff 15:08, 2 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff, for edit warring on another page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Opened section Talk:Muse_(disambiguation)#Edit

Comments:

This person has some significant behavioral issues, as you can see if you review their talk page and even just the edit notes in their contribs. What is above is a very clear edit warring violation on that article. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding - my initial edit war warning to them diffed above, had been about their editing at Genesis creation narrative, where we have:
  • diff 07:33, 29 October 2018
  • diff 15:00, 1 November 2018
  • diff 16:16, 2 November 2018 (after I posted notice of the case above)
Their response to my edit war notice, was this lovely thing at my TP. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 5 days for long term edit warring. Previous block was for 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Aydinyol reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Azerbaijani language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Aydinyol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "I have sources for my claim, you cannot delete it."
  2. 17:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "a missourced edit was removed"
  5. 01:58, 1 November 2018 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Notification */ comment"
  2. 19:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Notification */ phrasing correction"
  3. 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Azerbaijani language. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Refuses to engage in discussion in the article talk page and continues to edit war to reinstate their prefered text. Multiple editors have tried to engage only to be met with resistance. zchrykng (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't find zchrykng a fair referee. He was completely biased and I don't accept his judgement. Without reading my sources, he deleted my edit and kept the changes of the party which was in war with me. So biased and unfair. I am sure he never even read my sources and my edit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinyol (talkcontribs) 20:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Aydinyol's behaviour looks like a WP:NOTHERE editor likely with WP:CIR issues. While everyone can make a mistake when it comes to identify reliable sources (me the first), Aydinyol repeatedly adds back his "sources" which have been described as unreliable by several other users, refuses to engage in a constructive discussion on the ground that he claims to be a "linguist" and keeps edit warring against more experienced users than himself to push a nationalistic agenda. Obviously, this user has not been a net positive for the project until now.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
My source is a work by Nizami Xudiev one of the most prominent linguists, Neither you nor other referees can read Azerbaijani and still try to edit this page although you are not linguists! Scientifically immoral!. So, you are not entitled to discredit my source. ( This part is a private message to Wikiviviani: you and I best know that you are trying to say that south and north Azerbaijani are different to misguide world about the reality of oppressed Azerbaijani people in Iran. It is 2018, you cannot hide the reality of the Azerbaijani nation. Keep making your compatriots more fierce enemy of you and Iran! Soon you will need to get a visa to travel to Tabriz!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinyol (talkcontribs) 23:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You're not helping your case with that kind of comments. Wikipedia is not the place to expose your dreams about "visa for Tabriz" (only your dream for now and very likely forever). Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi EdJohnston, i opened a case about this user yesterday, just to let you know about it in order to prevent duplicate sanctions for Aydinyol. Take care.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I left a note at ANI since there should be no need for two actions on the same report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:R.A Huston reported by User:ChiveFungi (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Liv Hewson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R.A Huston (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:01, 9 September 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 13:10, 3 October 2018 revert ChiveFungi
  2. 11:16, 6 October 2018 revert Atlantic306
  3. 13:03, 30 October 2018 revert Atlantic306
  4. 09:27, 31 October 2018 revert Atlantic306
  5. 15:05-07, 31 October 2018 revert Sro23
  6. 11:55, 1 November 2018 revert ChiveFungi
  7. 12:19, 1 November 2018 revert ChiveFungi
  8. 12:24, 1 November 2018 revert ChiveFungi
  9. 11:09, 2 November 2018 revert Toddy1

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:13, 31 October 2018

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Liv Hewson#Liv Hewson is gay

Comments:
The user made one comment on the talk page and continued edit warring without discussing taking into account the feedback they received or further discussing the issue. They edited their own talk page to remove the 3RR warning [59] with an edit summary of "please dont". --ChiveFungi (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

User's edits are to state that Liv Hewson is gay/lesbian, citing sources such as Instagram and/or Twitter. The editors who the user keeps reverting have objected saying that the article needs reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey if you don't want to engage in an "edit war," maybe stop needlessly removing factual information from a wikipedia page. Straight actors have their personal lives on pages, referencing social media posts, but a gay actor can't? That's a ridiculous double standard, not to mention homophobic.R.A Huston (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Of course gay actors can have their sexuality mentioned (see the good article John Barrowman to pick one random example), but if other editors disagree if it's appropriate for this article, then a discussion needs to happen at the talk page. Which is now ongoing and the reverting has stopped for the minute, so no admin action required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thats the point, there has been no mention of appropriateness or relevance, just deleting, even though elsewhere on that very article Twitter has been used as a source for personal information. It's a ridiculous double standard. R.A Huston (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Dizagaox reported by User:Amaury (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Dizagaox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866852506 by Geraldo Perez (talk) NO. If you can't accept a professional critic calling it a music in laymen terms, you shouldn't be involved with this page."
  2. 23:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866792183 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
  3. 15:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866789762 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Watch the movie. There are songs sung throughout the film. Debating this is like debating whether it's animated."
  4. 12:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 865095824 by Geraldo Perez (talk) It is a musical, fool."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

diff

Comments:

Warning at User talk:Dizagaox#November 2018. Discussion on the matter has been started at Talk:Teen Titans Go! To the Movies#Not a musical, but editor refuses to discuss. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support block – ignored Talk page discussion, ignored warnings at user Talk page. Trying to take a term used in passing at a single source to try to force through a change that is against consensus (and is pretty much WP:OR). Definitely merits a block to prevent further disruption. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:KellyHillMinister reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page: Kelly Hill, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KellyHillMinister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61]
  2. [62]
  3. [63]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Comments:
User apparently lives in the community and according to their username is the Minister? Ever edit they have made has broken the page in some way. While the information may be correct, they are breaking the page left and right. When I tried to discuss the issue with then on their talk page I was met with the following responses:

  • Excuse me but would you please stop deleting my edits you are not from our community our town or even for our state so mind your own damn business
  • you are not from our community you have no idea about our community you don't have any information and history about our community nor our town or our state you don't live here you don't have no right to undo my edits about my community so mind your own damn business before I file a complaint against you
  • I put everything that I know that is 100% accurate and true on hear about our community in which I live in and I'd appreciate it if you would leave it alone and not change it I have been here 43 years and my family's been here for at least 80 years I know pretty much what I'm talking about how many people live up here and who's been here for years originally and who hasn't been I know dates so I'd appreciate it if you would leave what I did alone thank you

The user is clearly inexperienced and I would have been happy to help them make edits, but their responses demonstrate they have no interest in making positive contributions. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note after once again having to remove page breaking edits by this user, I have now added the information for them. Hopefully this will put the issue to rest... That being said I think some sort of action is warranted? Not sure what the best course is. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
So a different user (LakesideMiners) reverted another edit by KellyHillMinister and they immediately reverted it with the comment Zacmann08 you better stop and you better leave well enough alone right now or I'm going to file a formal complaint against you stop changing my stuff you don't live here you don't know this place you don't know nothing about this area. And I mean it nowI am going to take further action first thing Monday morning I'm going to contact both of those offices and we'll see if this is on the website when I'm finished. It wasn't even me who reverted the edit. User clearly doesn't get it. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Also see threatening comments left on the talk page [65]. --Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I updated and I fixed Kelly Hill West Virginia to draw in more family and friends from our area and I updated it and yes I put Kelly Hill Community Kanawha County Clendenin West Virginia and I put the ZIP code and the four digit area number and how many people live in our community and the area codes for our state and I shared this with Facebook we have at least 500 people that are from this community from 1900 to present if they type stuff in they will be able to find this and see and keep returning to this site and then I'll spread the word thank you and have a blessed day sincerely yours Reverend Matthew Jr Myers KellyHillMinister (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked – by User:Edgar181 for making legal threats, perhaps due to this edit. See User talk:KellyHillMinister#November 2018 4. EdJohnston (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

User:2601:102:8201:1D8B:98B3:ECE0:C934:33D2 reported by User:Maguirej03 (Result: )[edit]

Page
Fred Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:102:8201:1D8B:98B3:ECE0:C934:33D2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at parade */"
  2. 01:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at Parade */Political activist removing key details, painting racist picture by ommitting key details."
  3. 01:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at Memorial day parade */Correction"
  4. 00:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* 1927 arrest at Memorial Day Parade */Important context ommitted"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 01:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Fred Trump. (TW)"
  2. 01:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Caution: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Fred Trump. (TW)"
  3. 01:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference. (TW)"
  4. 01:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Harassment of other users on Fred Trump. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 01:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Language edits to 1927 march section */ new section"
Comments:

Ignoring AGF requests to use the Talk page before changing the language of the article, personal defamation of myself through the edit summaries. Don't want to enter into an edit war, please intervene! RPP also requested at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Fred_Trump John Maguire (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:73.98.45.163 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Candace Gingrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
73.98.45.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867040815 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  2. 06:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867026684 by Jim1138 (talk)"
  3. 03:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 867016944 by NatGertler (talk)"
  4. 00:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866889443 by NatGertler (talk)"
  5. 05:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 866571661 by NatGertler (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Candace Gingrich. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP's only edits are to change page to avoid subject's preferred pronouns. No involvement in existing talk page discussion of pronoun use, which has continued during these edits. Talk:Candace Gingrich#Pronouns (Twinkle isn't letting me enter this in the Resolution Initiatives, for some reason.) Nat Gertler (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

User:CBG17 reported by User:188.174.31.233 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Sylt Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CBG17 (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]

Comments:
The dispute is over an airline route which the airline officially confirmed on Facebook is cancelled and is also no longer shown on the official booking site. However, the user ignores any comment on the edit summaries or his talk page - or briefly stating the airline confirmes the resumption which it clearly didn't without providing another source - regarding this and engages in edit warring as he has done before with other users.

  • (Non-administrator comment) Does not look like a WP:3RR violation to me since @