Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive382

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Colonestarrice reported by User:DrKay (Result: Advice)

Page: George III of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Colonestarrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5] undoing insertion of words "the United Kingdom of" between "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland"[6][7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9][10][11]

How is that a revert? I did not reinstate anything from my previous version. On the contrary, I appreciated that @Surtsicna: understood the issue and tried to find a compromise and I participated in the search for a compromise. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Already explained above. DrKay (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
"Undoing insertion of words" is a very creative alternative for removed, and removing and adding things constitute the normal process of editing, which is not really the same as undoing. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor inserted some words. You removed them. That removal is a revert. See Help:Reverting. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"An editor inserted some words. You removed them." – actually I didn't. Surtsicna's revision stated: "King of (the United Kingdom of) Great Britain and Ireland". I changed this to: "King of Great Britain and Ireland / King of the United Kingdom". So regardless of the fact that I did not revert Surtsicna's version to any previous one, I didn't remove United Kingdom nor King of nor Great Britain and Ireland either, I just changed their order and the formatting. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor inserted the words "the United Kingdom of" between the words "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland". You removed them. That is a revert whether you simultaneous perform another edit or not. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. WP:3RR policy explains further. CBS527Talk 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Colonestarrice is advised to wait for consensus. They seem to have broken the WP:3RR on 4 January at George III of the United Kingdom. There were four reverts starting with this edit. The dispute was about whether to describe George I as 'King of the United Kingdom' in the infobox. If Colonesstarrice intends to change the infobox again they are advised to get a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:4C4:4000:C420:110C:6C7C:E633:17DB reported by User:Linguist111 (Result: Rangeblocked 1 month; page protected)

Anchor Bay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:4C4:4000:C420:110C:6C7C:E633:17DB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "This is unfair! It was now Starz!"
  2. 02:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Annoying lier who likes to think Anchor Bay is now Lionsgate!

NO! It’s now Starz Distribution!"

  1. 02:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "This is WRONG! That’s it! Blocked from my channel forever!"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) to 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Removed: Starz

Rewritten: Lionsgate

This is Wrong! For the last time, Anchor Bay Entertainment was a home entertainment subsidiary of Starz Inc.! If I hear that it was subsidiaried by Lionsgate one more time, I will block you forever!"

    1. 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "And also it was NOT a production company!!! Stupid Lionsgate fantard!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (using Twinkle)"
  2. 02:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (using Twinkle)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User: reported by User:Chiffre01 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lander, Wyoming (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: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [13]
  2. [14]
  3. [15]
  4. [16]

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

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


Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 1 year for long-term vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Resnjari reported by User:Khirurg (Result: Page protected)

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Resnjari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877146646 by Alexikoua (talk) no its not. The article only notes that Armenian was used by an educated class. Nothing about the frontier districts. So its not mentioned in the article. Please don't remove sourced material on a wp:idontlikeit basis. Thank you. Make use of the talkpage as well if there is something of an issue."
  2. 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "precise. Harris notes Armenian and Slavic languages was being widely spoken, i.e in frontier districts. This is an important piece of information."
  3. 01:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "ok fixed issues with the previous sentence and placed the correct page number. Made article sentence conform properly to convey the source. I placed an extra weblink within the ref to the scholarly source as its accessible, so i thought no quote would be needed. Can place one though."
  4. 01:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877016670 by Khirurg (talk) no consensus for removal. Take to talk page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Breached 3RR before I became aware of it.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


This user has re-instated the text " the Armenian and various Slavic languages were widely spoken, in particular within border districts" 4 times in the last 24 hours. In addition to a brightline 3RR violation, it's also a WP:CLOP violation. Khirurg (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Did you warn/remind Resnjari before reporting him? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
No i was not warned or reminded by @Khirurg.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Khirurg also states that the content was CLOP yet they themselves added [17] the same content to the article. When i restored the content, i overall kept @Khirurg's phrasing and sentence structure [18] and no one brought up CLOP at that time.Resnjari (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ktrimi991 is tagteaming with Resnjari edit-warring to restore a clear WP:CLOP violation to a featured article. I think he should be blocked as well. Please note also both Resnjari and Ktrimi991 are frequent edit-warriors and have been reported and warned at this noticeboard multiple times. In this case, edit-warring to restore CLOP in the article is a new low. By the way, CLOP is still in the article, after Ktrimi991 edit-warred it twice. For example, despite the clear warning in my edit-summary, he cluelessly reinstates it almost unchanged for the second time; the first time he also ignored my first CLOP warning. What concerns me also, is the ability of these editors to understand what WP:CLOP is, let alone not to tagteam to edit-war it into articles. Dr. K. 00:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Resnjari: Initially content on languages of the empire had been in the article for some time and was removed by @Khirurg [19]. Later it was reinserted by @Cinadon30 [20]. @Khirurg reverted [21] @Cinadon30 and wrote "rv (revenge revert?), this has nothing to do with nomenclature). I reverted @Khirurg [22] as the edit was something personal toward another editor and not about content, i asked the editor to use the talkpage. Then @Dr. K. reverted that edit on OR issues [23]. At further examination indeed there were OR issues and my next edit altered the sentence to reflect the source [24] and remove concerns. @Khirurg then deleted [25] the sentence stating that those things were covered in the article and then right after that readded [26] the content moving it to the language section. That's fine. Then @Alexikoua removed [27] the content stating it was covered in the article and i reverted [28] the editor and said it was not. @Alexikoua then reverted [29] by also additionally saying that it was "inappropriate generalisation". I reverted the editor as the reason was insufficient for removal of RS content [30] explaining in the edit summary that it was not covered in the article and invited @Alexikoua to discuss on the talkpage. Later @Dr. K. reverted [31] on CLOP grounds and notified me of a 3RR warning in their edit summary. After that as no one used the talkpage i opened up a thread on the issue [32] and invited @Dr. K. to take part. Through the whole process i forgot that there were multiple reverts until @Dr.K. reminded me in their edit summary. After that i no longer made edits and focused my attention toward the article talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing WP:CLOP from an article requires no discussion. This CLOP is self-evident and it still stands in the article. Your edit-warring partner mistakenly thinks he removed it. But it is still there. If you understand it is CLOP, then remove it. Otherwise, at a minimum, your partner should be blocked because he doesn't know what constitutes CLOP and, despite that, he reflexively edit-wars it into the article, going so far as to give edit-warring warnings to editors who explain to him what is CLOP and that he is adding the CLOP into the article. It is obvious he has no idea as to what constitutes CLOP. Dr. K. 03:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There was no engagement from your part in the talkpage at all, and i pinged you as well in good faith so you don't miss it. On the edit summary you first noted that the matter was about OR issues with the content [33]. I took those concerns seriously, found the book and located the page where the content was from. I provided a reference and proper attribution for it (previously missing) and adjusted the content accordingly [34]. The content is not plagerised and there is only so many words that can be substituted to write a sentence in ones own words while keeping with the source. The edit involves important information about the status of language among the commonfolk of the empire in the borderland districts, information that is glaringly lacking from the article. Also i do understand that it is a feature article however that too does not preclude further edits to a page, especially on the topic of the Byzantine empire where scholarship is massive and continuously published every year. The purpose of the edit is to make the article better and informative for a reader. And please don't call other people "my partner" and so on. If other people have edited the article or have it on their watchlist its their business. The article does not fall under WP:OWNERSHIP of any editor. Our contributions here are to the betterment of knowledge for this project, hopefully done in a respectful manner without mudslinging.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Like I said in my previous reply to you, this CLOP is obvious, so no engagement is required from me on the talkpage. Your pinging was, threfore, useless. As far as partner, when one strikes 7 minutes after I reverted your CLOP and reinstates the CLOP, what do you call him? And then strikes again, after what 9-10 minutes. Partner is as good a name as any other. Buddy could also be used. But I digress. Dr. K. 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I reached out to you in good faith. How you interpret that is your business. How you view or refer to other editors is also your business, i guess. Looking at the page history the editor to whom you refer to has edited the article in the past. People have the article on their watchlist and is not under WP:OWNERSHIP.Resnjari (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't know what the reference to OWN is all about, but I still think the timing and frequency of the other editor's response to restore an identified CLOP was a bit too much of a coincidence and a lot out of line. Dr. K. 05:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
My point is that the article is open to anyone to edit, provided the content of the edit is relevant to the topic. On the issue of CLOP. There is nothing in the article about language usage of the commonfolk of the borderland districts. A sizable part of the geopolitical history of the empire was shaped by events and populations of those districts. The sentence was written to convey the content of the source. The sentence is about language usage. There is only so many words that one can substitute for how it is written in the source while honouring the context of the scholarship. I ask how does one substitute words like Armenian without running into CLOP issues? Is there another way of saying Armenian? Hence my pinging you in the talkpage for further consultation and discussion.Resnjari (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I understand. But you cannot have a meaningful conversation when someone else insists on restoring the CLOP come hell or high water. First, CLOP gets removed, then CLOP gets discussed. Not the other way around. It isn't about the use of the language names. It is about the terminology and syntax of the CLOP'ed sentence. One has to alter it sufficiently so that it does not resemble the terminology and structure of the original. Dr. K. 06:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I wrote it as best i could. As i said there is only so many words that one could use in substitution while staying true to the source. Comparisons with the sentence i placed and the source itself shows this. Also after @Khirurg reinserted [35] the content back into the article i overall kept to that editor's phrasing and wording [36], [37]. On reverts, other editors themselves gave all sorts of reasons for removing the content with @Khirurg for example first removing and then placing it back. What is one to make of that apart from thinking what is going on with regards to that editor while with others is this about wp:idontlikeit. I did suggest multiple times in my edit summaries to use the talkpage and that was before CLOP was brought up as a reason.Resnjari (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll work on a CLOP-free formulation and will present it later today. Hopefully, and it's hard to have to say such obvious and commonsense thing, I won't see that atrocious CLOP sentence back in the article when I return. Dr. K. 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The sentence at the very least would need to incorporate context/information of the source on the matter. @Khirirg has expressed in an edit summary within the article that they are ok with the material [38] of the source.Resnjari (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Note to administrators: Though i don't know what will happen here with me, the original dispute over the sentence about languages and the commonfolk of the border districts has been resolved in the article via an addition by @Dr.K. [39].Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
You broke 3RR and knowingly violated WP:CLOP at a Featured Article you have contributed nothing to, only chaos. You added material about Language into a section about Nomenclature. This is disruption and incompetence. Not only that, but about a month ago you said "lessons were learned" regarding your past blocks for edit-warring. I expressed skepticism at the time [40] and it looked like I was right. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is on my watchlist. That does not preclude any editor from editing the article. On nomenclature the initial content was there. I had no problem when you moved it to the language section [41] in the form that you wrote it. No one mentioned CLOP regarding your edit or the form of phrasing you had for the sentence. I kept that form and did not break from it.Resnjari (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I didn't have access to the source at the time, and assumed good faith that it wasn't WP:CLOP. But you did have access to the source [42]. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually that does not suffice. In good faith when i readded the content [43] not only did i place a page number (previously missing), i also added a weblink to the reference for any editor to consult themselves as i wanted others to check too. In that same edit i also noted this in my edit summary. When you first deleted the content [44] and right after readded it [45] with the whole reference, it too included the weblink to the source. How can you say that there was no access?Resnjari (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Khirurg does not come here with clean hands as he breached en:BRD. At the top of that, his edit summary was irritating.[[46] Not respecting BRD and being aggressive in the edit-summaries, most often results in edit wars and accusations of pov-pushing. At the December 30th, Khirurg made a number of edits, I reverted one of them and he was fast to re-revert mentioning "revenge" by me (but very slow on taking it to the Talk Page to establish consensus). Khirurg and I share a different perspective on a number of topics, and this is the normal, obvious and expected cause of the reverts. Should I accuse him whenever I get reverted? This shows lack of WP:AGF. Worth noting that Resnjari did try to use the talk page (twice before he got a respond), so he is not a "revert"-maniac. Having said that, I believe that all involved users at the edit war (including me), we should all be warned against edit warring and follow a 1-revert rule for a week or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari recently displays stubborn wp:OWN (with BRD breaches and POV pushing) instant reverting in a variety of articles. Unfortunately talkpage participation to calm down this "enthousiasm" is not enough (he dismisses as "trolling" anything against his POV [[47]][[48]]). This 3rr violation is unacceptable for an editor that participates in this project for more than a couple of years. I believe that a short term block is warranted since it will calm down this enthousiasm and make him participate in correspondent discussions in a productive way.Alexikoua (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually no. On the Origins of the Albanians page two thirds of the recent edits that were done to the article were mine to begin with. After you removed images of Albanians from the page i asked you politely [49] in the talkpage to elaborate as to why. Your reasons were very concerning where race was used as a rationale (no other editor there said such things). The following comments of yours @Alexikoua speak for themselves:
  • "They look like typical Caucasian people & nothing can be added without concensus" [50]
  • "Images of typical Caucasian people prove nothing." [51]
  • "It appears you misunderstood something: Caucasian is widely used as an alternative for white people." [52] -in that same edit to prove your point you included a map from the discredited work about races by Carleton Coon
  • "Cartel Coon was born in 20th century (LOL). I assume you need to present a decent argument in this topic and to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics. Such pictures are unaccaptable in genetics section & non-Albanians can also raise Albanian flag or any other flag." [53]
  • "Agree with Khirurg nothing useful from this recently added pictures. I have the feeling that the motive is somewhat racist here: genetically pure Albanians can raise the national flag, white race characteristics etc. etc." [54].
  • "It's a good step we agree that typical white people in modern western style clothes are not helpful in an article about a specific ethinc group." [55]
Whatever disagreement about aesthetic issues one might hold over images in an article, using the reason of race is not cause for removal. Anyway as a discussion on the talkpage was had, editors noted to you [56] that the stable version was best until things were resolved. I did the responsible thing, reverted my edits and to do that was to go back to the stable version of the article of the time [57] until such time as a resolution could be found, which later happened. I have explained this to you over and over again (in some of the diffs you cite there show). What you took from that is your issue.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am worried with Resnjari's tagteaming with Ktrimi that does not only damage the featured articles, but also is POV pushing in a number of articles with politically sensitive content in them. A blatant case of this is the Albania-Greece relations where Resnjari is not only accepting Ktrimi's POV demands, but also backing him unconditionally, causing the later to become more arrogant and stonewall talk page discussions. The admins are ought to do something about that. We had to even call for a RfC just to get ourselves unstuck from the stonewalling attempts of Resnjari and Ktrimi who are using WP:CONSENSUS in a very abusive WP:OWN way, which every time is used to block any content they don't like, from being added to the article, with the logic of: "If we don't agree, the content won't be added". Please someone do something about these editors. We have had it enough. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Its very disappointing that such a misrepresentation of talkpage discussions and the process of consensus on the Albania-Greece relations are used here. @Ktrimi991 was the one who got page protection from administrators [58], [59] after attempts to push POV by other editors into the article were made. Not only that it was an administrator who intervened [60] to stop unilateral POV additions of content to the article while complex discussions where being held in the talkpage. @Ktrimi991 was the one who also added a 3 option to the current RFC and it was you reported him at ANI [61] over that and later being advised over there [62] that nothing wrong was done and was part of usual practise in such things. As for the other things, words like "abusive" in no way go toward building good faith and is sad. What more can one say apart from its really disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Don't even try portray yourself and Ktrimi as being the victims and the ones who respect Wikipedia's rules. You both violated several other rules and before I intervened to the dispute. Have you forgotten how Ktrimi in fact broke the 3RR rule? Have you forgotten my warning to him on his talk page [63]? and article protection was raised by Admin EdJohnston [64] right after I messaged him [65] on his talk page. Not that it matters, but get your facts straight.
Thing here is, both of you aren't seem to be regretting anything about your attitude and actions. THIS is what is disappointing. The Admins can access the History log and make their own conclusions about your actions. Here I am merely pointing to the problems you have caused to other editors who tried to contribute to the articles without your constant reverts and stonewalling. You should be disappointed with yourself, not me.
You are noted as a capable editor, you have contributed to Wikipedia, and we appreciate your work on Balkan topic areas such as Bosnian, Macedonian and Albanian articles. But your attitude and behavior is what causing all this grievance to other editors. If you want to talk about disappointment, it is the fact that you aren't learning from your previous bans. Have you forgotten what the admins who banned you, have advised you??? You really should DROP this behavior. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️ | contribs 📝) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, no. @Ktrimi did it first in getting administrator protection and informed you [66] of that when you did so later yourself. Time differences in diffs draw that out. Its disappointing the language and tone you have used here. Please also avoid loaded language like "being the victims" etc. I nor @Ktrimi991 ever stated this. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has with certain editors. Indeed administrators can access the history log of any page and the edits speak for themselves. My attitude and behavior can be subject to interpretation as i see you have demonstrated, but wp:idontlikeit reasons of other people's edits do not suffice.Resnjari (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
It's suprising that the editor in question instead of offering a sencere apology is now "launching a full offensive" accusing dozens of editors. I doubt if this wall of text can turn him immune towards cryslat clear 3rr violations.Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As i said before this thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors. Misrepresenting my words as accusations against other editors and so on is disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
You are not immune against endless edit warring and especially 3rr violations. Experienced editors usually accept some responibility but it's really weird you believe that this pattern is constructive by bulding an encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As i said previously and will reiterate to you again. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors.Resnjari (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This thread is filled because there is a violation Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule and the specific case is quite clear. Instant reverting inevitably lead you to such violations.Alexikoua (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
As i said previously and will reiterate again. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors.Resnjari (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – Five days. The alternative would be blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: No action)

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

Page: Persecution of Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Note tag-teaming with another user so he's AT 3 rather than over. Here's the other user's two reverts from today.

  1. [71]
  2. [72]

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

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

I found out about the use of a WP:FRINGE source to state the assertion that Christians are currently being persecuted in Denmark from the fringe theories noticeboard; as I have past experience dealing with attempts to insert anti-islamic content into Wikipedia and experience with political WP:FRINGE articles I offered to help. After one revert, Dr.K. put up an editwarring notice on my talk page. They are at three reverts with two more from their partner in this tag-team action. Khirurg.

When I cautioned Dr.K. over edit warring they invited me to file this claim rather than self-reverting what amounts to a fifth revert between two users with a preferred version of the page which violates WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Simonm23 should be WP:BOOMERANGed for making unfounded accusations. Khirurg (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The diffs are right there. And both of you have past blocks for edit warring so I suspect you know that tag-teaming isn't allowed. Simonm223 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It's always a conspiracy when more than one user reverts you, isn't it? Khirurg (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Several people have told you at the fringe theories noticeboard to remove the disputed source. And yet, you throw around boomerang threats instead of reverting to a non-WP:FRINGE version. And frankly the battleground mentality of the two of you as suggested here when I was at ONE revert or here when Dr.K. had the temerity to call my action edit warring for a second time despite the fact I didn't go to a second revert or here where you called me an edit warrior for my one revert should be sufficient evidence of edit warring behaviour from you. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Helpful advice: You actually have two reverts. This [75] is a revert, because you removed Dr.K.'s addition. Between yourself and Cinadon, you have 4 reverts. So, I can just as easily accuse you of tag-teaming with Cinadon36. After all, you both loudly declare the same POV on your user pages. Khirurg (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I have also warned earlier today Dr.K. about edit warring.[76] Even more disturbing than the edit warring is that he does not respect WP:BRD and does not try to establish consensus in the talk page. An example from the article: Dr.K added a text based on on a questionable source on January 6th .[77] I reverted him citing some of the problems of the Source and instead of going to Talk Page, he re-reverted again[78]. I was then forced to open a section in the Talk Page asking about Hudson Institude. Dr. K. replied "The Hudson Institute is a reliable source. If you disagree, ask about it at RSN" Maybe Dr.K.feels too certain that tag teaming with Khirurg will give him the upper hand and ultimate the win the edit warr. I have seen Khirurg and Dr.K. defend the same edits in other articles, far too often. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I would caution you of making declarations about knowing what other users "feel". As far as tag-teaming, I could just as easily say the same thing about you and Simonm23. After all, both of you loudly declare the same POV on your respective user pages. Khirurg (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, I was referring to the strategy employed, not Dr.K's feelings. As for tag-teaming, it is obvious whataboutism. I wont bother answering any further. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This is the interaction history between me and Cinadon36 as you can see, excepting this conflict and a few high-traffic noticeboards we frequent, we almost never interact. Now this is the interaction kistory between Khirurg and Dr.K. - so when I suggest tag-teaming I don't do so lightly. Unlike Khirurg I'm not proposing these two tag-team because they're both any particular political ideology (believe it or not, not every Socialist knows every other Socialist) but rather because they're acting in concert on this page, as they have done on many other pages in the past. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit interaction tool is all you've got? Did you know that both me and Dr.K. have been editing for more than a decade? You're just block fishing and WP:BULLYing at this point. Khirurg (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure the accusations of tag teaming are valid, we often end up reverting an edit to someone esles preferred version. Dr.K. has reached 3RR, but we have all made that kind of mistake, But they have been blocked before (sorry did not see that). But I think this may be premature as they have not beached 3RR yet, might have been best to let them.Slatersteven (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And with this [[79]] I say they do need a sanction as clearly they do not see what this did as problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven, you believe someone should be sanctioned because you had a confrontational attitude on their talk page and they removed it? ~ GB fan 20:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Leave witchhunts for another day. Don't misrepresent my actions. You pompously came to my talkpage to tell me to read 3RR and then advised me to "think hard" about my course of action. Sorry, I don't accept fake crisis management advice delivered in a presumptuous manner. There is no crisis and I don't have to "think hard". I saw blanking of reliably-sourced information without discussion and with dismissive edit-summaries from the filer of this report who also engages in bad-faith accusations against me about tag-teaming and I reverted. I hate to disappoint you, but I did not breach 3RR, I do not intend to, neither did I make another revert after the whole section got removed. Dr. K. 20:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I asked you to read 3RR, and then said to think hard about what you were going to do next. You will note I even said above you had not beached 3RR, which is why I warned you to be careful. You did (however) do this [[80]], the very sort of thing I was talking about. That is what I was talking about, think carefully before doing anything that might be not viewed in a positive light. Ohh and you do not have to have breached 3RR to be seen as edit warring, that is just a bright line that means you have if you cross it. You can be sanctioned for edit warring if you have not beached 3RR if it is deemed your actions indicate you intended to (such ass making 3 reverts and then waiting 24 hours to make the fourth, and other dodges).Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Your answer still indicates to me at least, that you have not understood how you came across in your warnings on my talk, although I do not doubt your good faith given your reply. I also don't understand how you can lecture me about 3RR cf. Ohh and you do not have to have breached 3RR to be seen as edit warring, that is just a bright line ... after I told you above that I hate to disappoint you, but I did not breach 3RR, I do not intend to, neither did I make another revert after the whole section got removed.. Do you seriously think I'll be waiting 24 hours to do more reverts in the middle of so many discussions and edits? Obviously, you have no idea about me. So, please, no more of that. Dr. K. 21:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
And, for the record, since you mentioned my block log for edit-warring, first, that was approximately ten and a half years ago; second, I was reverting an IP which was adding a hoax name at Greek name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The IP was adding the name "Iasperos" as equivalent to Jasper. The problem is, there is no such name in Greek. It is a hoax and it is unattested by any reliable source. Dr. K. 06:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a heads up. A thread on the Fringe Theories noticeboard [81] has been opened up on the matter and by the look of things the editors are noting that those sources appear to be fringe. Maybe that content based on those sources should not be in the article and is POV after all. The discussions though are ongoing.Resnjari (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined to take action. As there is now extensive talk page discussion with no further disruption from any of the three parties involved, blocking at this point would be punitive rather than preventive. Also it seems other editors have gotten involved in cleaning up the article after identifying sources as fringe, so full-protecting the article wouldn't be productive either at this point, although that still remains an option (and the venue for that is WP:RFPP, not here). ~Anachronist (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Tantan08 reported by User:Alucard 16 (Result: blocked)

Page: Pinoy Big Brother: Otso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tantan08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

  1. 03:34, December 31, 2018 - Oenix2nd changes article to implement a new infobox and moved the data from the old, now deleted infobox, to the Housemate table. (See these discussions for more info here for TfD and here for project discussion on suggested implementation
  2. 19:57, January 5, 2019 - Oenix2nd reverts a series of edits back to a version that is similar to the above with one of the concerns raised that Tantan08's edits removed sources.
  3. 10:50, January 6, 2019 - In an effort to resolve dispute I made a series of edits which restored all deleted sources while integrating contestant profile links into the table. I left out the "Origin" column of the "Housemate" table due to MOS:ICON. I consider this to be like a "reset" of the article to fix issues that were done by edit warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 07:25, December 31, 2018
  2. 18:37, January 1, 2019
  3. 21:52, January 5, 2019
  4. 21:55, January 5, 2019
  5. 23:55, January 5, 2019
  6. 08:32, January 6, 2019 - First violation of WP:3RR see below
  7. 17:52, January 7, 2019 - While not a violation of 3RR this starts essentially edit warring as the user has not responded to any dispute resolution methods used.
  8. 07:55, January 8, 2019 - Un-involved IP reverted Tantan08 on 19:48, January 7, 2019 back to last stable version. Subsequently Tantan08 reverted this editor on 07:55, January 8, 2019.
  9. 07:55, January 8, 2019 - Starting with this edit no one else has reverted Tantan08 edits but they keep inserting fake contestant profile links that they have been asked not to put into the article for security reasons (see below)
  10. 16:34, January 8, 2019

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

  1. [82] With this edit on 08:32, January 6, 2019 Tantan08 violated WP:3RR by reverting Oenix2nd's revert to disputed section (Housemate table) and deleted sources again. (3RR violation)
  2. [83] Tantan08 ignores the fixes I put in place and ignores this message I left on his talk page that the links he is using for the contestant profiles that use the domain are invalid since that is not an official domain used by the broadcaster ABS-CBN. When I clicked on one of those links it tried to install a browser hijacker that my anti-virus software caught and stopped. The correct domain for entertainment programs from the broadcaster is (By this point this is blatant edit warring and disruptive editing.)

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

  1. 10:06, January 3, 2019 - User warned by Anonymuss User that their edits might not be constructive (user forgot to sign warning).
  2. 19:49, January 5, 2019 - Oenix2nd leaves a message on the talk page without a warning inquiring about Tantan08's recent edits. Tantan08 doesn't reply to this.
  3. 21:57, January 5, 2019 - Oenix2nd issues a Level 2 warning.
  4. 00:17, January 6, 2019 - Oenix2nd issues a 3RR warning.
  5. 00:45, January 6, 2019 - Oenix2nd started a RfC trying to resolve the dispute via community input because all other forms of trying to discuss the matter with Tantan08 has failed. As of this revision of 08:18, January 8, 2019 Tantan08 has made no attempt in responding on the article talk page. Looking at the user's contributions they have no intent of trying to resolve disputes by discussing them. Instead they insist on reinstating the info no matter what.
  6. 10:18, January 6, 2019 - My note asking the user not to use links from (see above).


  • There are way more edits prior to 03:34, December 31, 2018 but this is when the warnings started. Tantan08 is clearly not here to discuss issues/disputed edits with other editors. Their behavior is showing signs of WP:OWN in that they keep removing sources they feel don't belong, keep reinserting links claiming they are "contestant profiles" despite potential security concerns and reverting anyone who changes the "Housemate" table to a version they don't like. At this point we are way beyond 3RR here and are in edit warring/disruptive editing after multiple attempts have been made to reach out to the editor. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 08:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
No violation of 3RR yet I am convinced they are edit warring. Has never made a talk page post. Never used edit summaries. User needs to learn to edit collaboratively. Blocked 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:2601:681:5000:3516:D80C:DB3E:7A88:1AEC reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Geoffrey Chaucer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:681:5000:3516:D80C:DB3E:7A88:1AEC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Please keep it this way. It seems more normal. I don't think that I'm trying to hurt the England English people, but I think most people find it as a mistake."
  2. 19:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "I made the word "recognised" the right spelling in U.S. language."
  3. 19:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "I am not disrespecting the language, I just think people read it better that way."
  4. 19:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "I am not disrespecting the language, I just think people read it better that way."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Geoffrey Chaucer. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


The article's under PCP, but this anon is still wasting (three) editors' time and energies. ——SerialNumber54129 20:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. It's not just 2601:681:5000:3516:d80c:db3e:7a88:1aec, but also 2601:681:5000:3516:9dc1:e740:a562:cd33 (same /64 range, same individual using it). I've blocked the 2601:681:5000:3516::/64 range for 31 hours. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC).

User: reported by User:Velella (Result: 3 months)

Snow Golf (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
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877634642 by Velella (talk) This is not a press release or an ad IT IS FACTUAL history. The history in the referenced article is the same history that is here. Hitting colored balls and playing a hockey with golf balls is not present day snow golf invented by Tina. THIS is NOT GERMANY and you are not NAZIs you are not allowed to rewrite history or BAN the truth with lies. DO NOT UNDO this or you will be charged."
  2. 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877621800 by Velella (talk) THIS IS HISTORY AND FACTUAL NOT PROMOTIONAL-STOP trying to rewrite history"
  3. 20:11, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877614791 by Dorsetonian (talk)"
  4. 20:01, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 754939231 by Velella (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Snow golf. using TW"
  2. 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC) "edit warring"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


appears to be User:Snowgolf block evading. Same content, same pattern of arguments  Velella  Velella Talk   22:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

user is also resorting to personal attacks in edit summaries [84] Dorsetonian (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months due to a history of several other recent blocks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyjukilo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 72h)

Page: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyjukilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 2019-01-09T10:41:51

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 2019-01-09T14:33:30
  2. 2019-01-09T15:15:49

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2019-01-09T15:26:13

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 2019-01-05T07:43:39


1RR violation. User previously warred for the same content and was given two warnings on the subject. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

See talk page Hyjukilo (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Solved. The current version is fine! Hyjukilo (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that pretending to be an admin to 'close' a AN3 discussion is at best, trolling, aren't you? Tsumikiria (T/C) 21:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 72h as an obvious 1RR violation, about which the editor was aware; this is the second EW violation inside four days, I suspect a third block may be significantly longer. Black Kite (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Lpouer4832xs reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: warned)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lpouer4832xs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* 116th Congress */ Her vote to fund ICE is notable, given that she has repeatedly spoken out in favor of abolishing the organization."
  2. 02:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* 116th Congress */ She voted to fund ICE, but later said, "The president should not be asking for more money to an agency that has systematically violated human rights. The president should really be defending why we are funding such an agency at all. Because right now, what we are seeing is death. Right now, what we are seeing is the violation of human rights.""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 03:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Dirt */ new section"
  2. 03:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Dirt */ echo"

Page under 1RR restrictions. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Ugh. What a silly move on Lpouer's part. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Lpouer4832xs is hereby warned (in case they did not know before) that this article and many others are subject to a WP:1RR restriction. Any further violations will result in a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:What doing reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: blocked)

List of Doctor Who home video releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Woman Who Fell to Earth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
What doing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
List of Doctor Who home video releases
  1. 10:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
  2. 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
  3. 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
  4. 10:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Thirteenth Doctor */"
The Woman Who Fell to Earth
  1. 10:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Home media */"
  3. 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. 10:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Home media */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC) "/* The Woman Who Fell to Earth */ new section"

Continued unexplained removal of a specific home media entry from two pages, continuing despite being pinged in a discussion and warned for deleting without reason and not using edit summaries. The editor seems to show no intent to respond in any manner. -- /Alex/21 11:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked. 24 hours would be the standard duration for a first block, but they often don't log back in for a couple of days so it might go unnoticed. Blocked for 60 hours, but user can be unblocked as soon as they indicate a willingness to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: decline)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mikrobølgeovn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [85]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [86]
  2. [87]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]


The user has broken 1RR rule in the article Template:Syrian Civil War infobox which he knows is there.

I have been talking with this user for the past week about the original content he's trying to place into Syrian Civil War infobox. He has opened a incident board for me to get some administration to intervene but no one has. The user has deliberately reverted anyway 2 times in the past 24hrs and has broken the 1RR rule of the article. Which he knows is there as per the discussion which took place with him. Jim7049 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I accidently violated the 1RR rule earlier today (I got the time zones wrong), but reverted my own edit right away as soon as I realized (in fact, I self-reverted within a minute). There was no intention on my part to violate the 1RR, and my self-revert should redeem this short-lived mistake. In any case, I guess we are both guilty of gaming the system by reverting each other just outside the 24 hour frame. May I suggest that more users get involved in the not-so ongoing discussion? Protecting the template might not be a horrible idea either. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
This is still edit warring. Also you have reverted less than 24 hours after I reverted so it might still violate 1RR. Jim7049 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
As I explained, that was a mistake that I fixed right away. And if I'm edit warring, then you are too. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
The fact that you reinserted the disputed change two hours later, rather suggests that the self-revert was not to correct your mistake but to further game the system. I am considering a block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I suppose we've both been gaming the system by reverting each other just outside the 24-hour time frame, narrowly avoiding violating the 1RR. If anything we both deserve to be blocked for edit warring, though I would hope that wouldn't be necessary. How about I promise to refrain from further edit warring, with Jimbo or anyone else, with or without respecting the 1RR? I don't have a history of gaming the system, and this won't become a tradition either. Block or no block, I just might take a self-imposed break from anything relating to the Syrian Civil War, while hoping that the RfC runs its course. Come to think of it: since I already have your attention, couldn't you take a look at the talk page? I think me and Jimbo have both said everything we have to say on the subject, plus a lot more. Regards, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I have decided not to block at this time, but I will watchlist the template and also monitor both of your contributions for a while. If any silliness recurs, then blocks will follow. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Best, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: both blocked)

Portal:Current events/2019 January 8 (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
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877740328 by TomCat4680 (talk)clearly you hate President Trump and you never got over the fact that Hillary lost...but she and soon she will be in Guantanamo where she will hang for her crimes...stop it"
  2. 16:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877739574 by TomCat4680 (talk)you might not see how it is disrespectful but it is so stop it."
  3. 15:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877736001 by TomCat4680 (talk) there is an article called "President Donald Trump" and you are being disrespectful to refer to him without the word "President" before his name...stop it."
  4. 15:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Both users blocked 24 hours for edit warring. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

(For clarity, two editors are blocked: User: and User:TomCat4680, but not the person who filed this report, who was just a bystander). EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Sricsi reported by User:IndianBio (Result: warned)

Joanne (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sricsi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877784358 by IndianBio (talk) I'm not a fan of edit waring, but I still don't see your reasons or any valid points, besides you not liking anybody else changing your arrangements of photos."
  2. 21:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877783991 by IndianBio (talk) I don't see any debate concerning the photos. Everyone has just as much right to change them as you. Feel free to start a debate, and I'm looking forward seeing your valid points on why should we use low quality photos."
  3. 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877782109 by IndianBio (talk) Me uploading the photos has nothing to do with not using subpar, cropped photos of performances when we have clearly better options. Feel free to start a debate on the Talk page, as you reccommended to me for doing so."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 21:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) to 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 21:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Update with greater quality photos of performances from the era"
    2. 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Performances */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Joanne (album). (TW)"
  2. 21:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Image-related vandalism in articles on Joanne (album). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Note to reviewing admin. User has started discussing in article talk page now with me and another user so please consider the edit warring report if it can be pardoned. —IB [ Poke ] 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


This is not the first time the user has resorted to Edit warring and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. See Talk:Joanne_(album)#Image_edit_warring as well as this. Per WP:BRD it was explained to the user to raise discussion in the article's talk page and achieve consensus against changing images, but continued to do so even going as far as to comment "I'm not a fan of edit waring" and still warring. The images which the user is edit warring on were present in the article from the time it was nominated for GAN ie from June 2018. —IB [ Poke ] 21:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This is also not the first time User:IndianBio got involved in edit warring just as equally. Truthfully, I don't see a reason for starting a debate over replacing low quality photos, when my Edit summary clearly states my reasons in doing so. Moreover, if he has the right to change photos without starting a debate any time he decides to do so, why am I the one who is only allowed to do that with first opening a Talk page discussion, and why am I the one who gets warned by him with being blocked from editing? --Sricsi (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sricsi, simple reason is WP:BRD. You came out of nowhere (you had not even edited since Feb 2018) and changed a long-standing set of pictures present in the article (since it was GA nominated), and got reverted. The correct process for you was to discuss in the talk page and NOT edit war. —IB [ Poke ] 22:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Why do you expect me to start a Talk page debate every time I change anything in the article? I don't expect you to do that, because I trust your skills, and you also use Edit summaries. You could have given your opinion in the Edit summary upon reverting, but besides your personal reasoning, you did not say a word about the quality of the photos, or what is your reason of reverting it back, besides not liking your previous arrangement. Instead of warning about blocking/reporting, you could have also used the time for opening a Talk page debate, if you really feel the need for that, and I would have given my opinion there instead of spending the time on talking here. --Sricsi (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Sricsi, again read WP:BRD. You changed images to pictures uploaded by you, do you not think anyone would think that as a crappy reason? As I said before, long standing images (including infobox profile pics) are always required to be discussed. Its not as if anyone else had a problem or was subject of controversy. So pardon me, but onus in this case lies with you. —IB [ Poke ] 22:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I really don't care if I uploaded a photo or anybody else, I only care about the quality. And like 80% of Gaga's photos are uploaded by me, so I already see them everywhere, but that doesn't mean I am not happy to see other photos uploaded by anybody else, if they are of quality. --Sricsi (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment. The "onus" is really on both editors to go to the talk page and lay out one's reasons for reverting. (WP:BRD-NOT: BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once.) The one who starts the discussion first is typically the one that gets the most sympathy by the admin that reviews an edit warring report. Since a discussion seems to be underway now at Talk:Joanne (album)#Images, I think blocks would be counterproductive, so I encourage both editors to continue discussing potential alternative images and make changes only after you both agree. If you don't agree, then the default is the status quo ante (i.e. the way it was before the dispute)—alternatively, try to seek a third opinion or outside dispute resolution. Commenting here not as an admin, but a fellow editor, since I've done work with IndianBio in the past. Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Per comment above, this report is declined at this time, but both editors are warned not to edit-war in future. With thanks to Another Believer for diffusing the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Silbof reported by User:Coltsfan (Result: blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

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

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

Blocked 24 hours. Has also been blocked on commons for bad behaviour there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Midwestman1986 reported by User:Mvcg66b3r (Result: Blocked)

Don't split the conversation. Also, no WP:ADMINSHOPping. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cut and pasted from WP:ANI.

Midwestman1986 has only been on Wikipedia for a few weeks; now he's trying to take it over. He's been changing lead paragraphs on Kansas City TV station articles the way he sees fit. [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] I change them back and he keeps changing them back, saying they unsourced when they don't have to be sourced. He also keeps misspelling on edits and edit summaries. Now he has the nerve to cuss me out. I heard of "biting the newcomers"; this newcomer is biting me! He is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It might help if you could show us a diff of him "cussing you out". Alephb (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Two edit summaries: [99] [100] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I started a section on the article's Talk page after reviewing each of your edits, you might want to discuss it there rather than here (since both of you were edit warring). Schazjmd (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I specifically left a reference showing the location of the TV station being in Fairway, Kansas. Yet he insists on leaving the location as Kansas City Missouri which was before 2005. it said it broadcasted to Kansas City Missouri and Kansas City kansas. I replaced that with Kansas City metropolitan area. Kansas City Kansas is smaller than cities like Overland Park, Kansas which also gets broadcasted by the news station too so I added Kansas City metropolitan area. Here is the link for its location in fairway, Kansas and phone number is (913) which is a Kansas area code. Most of this page is unsourced so I removed a few sentences and added sourced information. By all means I wouldn’t remove stuff if it was sourced. He keeps removing sourced information I added and just did it again. And now the location still says Kansas City Missouri, which is not correct At all.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talkcontribs) 01:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kansas City MO is KCTV's city of license; its studios were located there before moving across the state line in 1983. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I would debate the notion that this user is WP:NOTHERE. Troublesome and most likely unaware of our policies and guidelines but I am assuming good faith at this stage. The user should be made aware of both our edit war and personal attack policies. In any case, this is more of a content dispute. IWI (chat) 01:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Now Midwestman1986 is ranting on his talk page, misspelling "Missouri" and making a certain Adam Sandler quote. [101] Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC

No, you literally just logged out and put that message on my page, stop being a little liar and trying to frame me. I put on the KCTV page that it is located in fairway Kansas and liscensed by Kansas City , Missouri. I’m going to change it back in a day or so and you better leave it. Saying it’s location is in Kansas City Missouri is a lie. Why do you keep putting Kansas City, Kansas? It also serves Overland Park, Kansas, which has more people than Kansas City, Kansas. You’re clearly just doing what you want. Kansas City metropolitan area is much more accurate.

It wasn't me; I'm still logged in. I really thought you did it, and I'm sorry. As for KCTV, it's in Kansas City MO because it's their FCC-assigned city of license (not Fairway, not Overland Park). Their studios are in Fairway. Cities of license and studio locations are different. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure you didn’t do it... anyways I get that it’s liscensed in Kansas City, Missouri but that doesn’t change the location. That’s why I wrote” it is located in fairway, Kansas and liscnesed by Kansas City, Missouri. Their front office is in Fairway, Kansas, their phone number is a Kansas phone number, and their studios are in Kansas. They are in fairway Kansas and broadcast to the Kansas City metropolitan area. And they are liscnesed by Kansas City Mo. it’s that Simple I’m changing the location to fairway Kansas tommorow. It’s where it is, it’s what their phone number is and it’s where their office is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midwestman1986 (talkcontribs) 03:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Mvcg66b3r, I warned you six days before that you're in the wrong place. This goes on 3RR if it had gotten out of control, not here, and all I'm seeing is you templating and being hostile to an editor because they don't know how WP:TVS edits articles and infoboxes, and not explaining anything. Once again, read the warnings listed above the edit box about what is appropriate to post on ANI. This certainly doesn't meet that. Learn to use user talk pages before wandering into WP: space.
Midwestman1986, we usually only list the major cities served that are part of a metro area's official name in the infobox from an official source, rather than suburbs that may be unfamiliar to a reader just coming in. I know there are definitely cases where...let's say Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, or Bloomington, Minnesota both have considerable populations in the Twin Cities. But we only usually list Minneapolis and St. Paul because a basic reader will know those are definitely the major cities in the Twin Cities. Here, yes, Overland Park is about a quarter larger in population than KCK, but it's mainly a suburb only known within the Kansas City area. People are more familiar with KCK and KCMO than they are Overland Park, which isn't really written about beyond the basic suburban sense as a suburb of the Kansas Cities. I know it's definitely a very annoying Rodney Dangerfield/"no respect" issue for Overland Park or Fairway, but in these articles, we can't overload an infobox with all of the largest cities a station serves or their studio location (which is best left in the lede, or top paragraph of the article), we have to list what's officially named to define a metro area, with the only leeway otherwise given for a city of license like KMCI's Lawrence, Kansas. I hope this explains a bit why the infoboxes and ledes are written the way they are, and I apologize if your introduction to editing wasn't positive. Nate (chatter) 03:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, but Kansas City is different than any other city. Overland Park has almost 2 times as much population density and more business density than Kansas City, Missouri and more than Kansas City, Kansas. The most densely populated county is Johnson County, Kansas which has 600,000 people, which is more than Kansas City, Missouri and contains neither KCK nor KCMO but is still considered “Kansas City”. It’s all connected and indistinguishable unless you know on what streets city borders are. I really think you should make it Kansas City metropolitan area as most of the wealth and almost half the population is in Kansas. And so are the stations phone numbers, offices and boardcasting studio. Basically everything but liscnesing.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User: reported by User:INeedSupport (Result: Blocked)

Evanescence discography (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
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878049904 by Ss112 (talk) In the past, streaming did not exist, so SNEP ="
    2. 17:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878049859 by Ss112 (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878048282 by Ss112 (talk)"
    2. 17:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878048025 by Ss112 (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878044891 by Ss112 (talk)"
    2. 17:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 878044603 by Ss112 (talk) SNEP chart is sales+streaming. is sales only."
  4. Consecutive edits made from 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC) to 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 875216631 by 2804:14C:5F80:9C19:F8CC:28C6:407E:4AF6 (talk)"
    2. 13:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 875216308 by 2804:14C:5F80:9C19:F8CC:28C6:407E:4AF6 (talk)"
    3. 15:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 856041657 by Ss112 (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
  2. 17:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Warning made by @Ss112: before my warning.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Content Dispute */ new section"

I don't think this IP editor is going to see reason nor engage in discussion. They didn't heed the warnings I issued before INeedSupport, nor what I said in my notes to the article. I reported them at WP:ANV as it was becoming purely disruptive (and my several reverts did nothing to curb their behaviour), and I also noted at WP:RFPP that I'm quite sure I've seen this user both on Evanescence discography before and other Evanescence articles, where they have also extensively reverted in the belief that they are always right. There's really just no getting through to disruptive editors. Ss112 18:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

User:David Eppstein reported by User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Result: decline)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. [102]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff Current talk about article cleanup: linkcurrent version where David Eppstein is missing in action.

User David Eppstein keeps reverting the entire cleanup of the article because they doesn't like a few lines of prose. Will not discuss it on the talk page, doesn't want to fix problems themselves, keeps reverting leaving messages in the edit summary diff