Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive390

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:98.230.75.223 reported by User:Jamez42 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Embassy of Venezuela, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Embassy of France, Washington, D.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.230.75.223 (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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
  9. [9]
  10. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
IP violated WP:3RR after restoring their preferred version five times, which has been previously reverted by four different users. Such changes are not referenced and have not been discussed in the talk page. Similar changes were made in the articles of other diplomatic bodies in Washington DC, such as the embassies of France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden and the Apostolic Nunciature, in which the IP restored again their version after reverts in the former two. Quoting one of the first edit summaries: "Edited to represent that there are many claimed ambassadors, just like in Venezuela. be consistent and follow the laws Wikipedia"; my drawing parallels with other unrelated articles, this also seems like disruption to demonstrate a point. Jamez42 (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours 331dot (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:160.39.234.40 (Result: protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

According to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy.

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact.

Annalisa Merelli's article, which contains the statement that has been disputed by multiple editors (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), falls under the category of "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces". Furthermore, Merelli is not a specialist or recognized expert on the subject under discussion. Therefore it seems to me that, according to the rules, the disputed statement should be attributed to the author in the text of the article and not represented as fact. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. You both reverted three times, so 3RR was not violated. Please continue to try to reach consensus on the article talk page. Sorry, I did not get a chance to read all the background provided here, so I can't comment beyond this — but I did feel like quick action was needed here. El_C 04:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This exact thing has been discussed many times by IPs and SPAs, for years, with the exact same arguments. There is no real reason anyone would read all of this sealioing nonsense without a good reason. In addition to the current batch on the talk page, a good percentage of the four archive pages is also about this. This RFC from July 2018 was mainly about this issue. This has also spilled over into ANI and NPOVN and probably some other places I'm forgetting. Not once have any of these IPs or SPAs introduced a single source which even hints at the idea that the disputed line is incorrect, or that it's even seen as controversial by other academics. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Merelli is not an academic, specialist, or recognized expert on the subject. How do you propose to demonstrate that Evola didn't make a particular statement? Citing all of his known writings? From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion:

While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Furthermore, your insinuation that only "IPs and SPAs" have disputed the statement is a lie, albeit irrelevant. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C, please read the talk page section I linked to. This has already been discussed there. 160.39.234.40 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
This has already been covered by the RFC — and this is not the venue to discuss this further — the place to do so is on the article talk page. But as also mentioned, I am finding your arguments to be increasingly tendentious. Again, please don't use "lie" here and elsewhere as that is an assumption of bad faith — use "false," instead. El_C 17:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kazemita1 reported by User:Alex-h (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kazemita1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 23:57, 12 May 2019
  2. 12:40, 13 May 2019
  3. 15:21, 13 May 2019
  4. 15:22, 13 May 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21], [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

I think this is unnecessary, since my edits and discussions in the talk page clearly shows how we as a group are moving towards consensus. As a matter of fact as I had stated in the talk page, I was convinced by the editors on the other camp that they are right in saying the content should not be placed in the sexual abuse section; rather in the human rights violation section. Moreover, I attributed and neutralized the sentences to meet them in middle ground. The response from the other camp of course was always a blanket reverse of course. I also did my due diligence in terms of reliability of the source by inquiring from the WP:RSN. Sadly, the other camp weighed in and denied an independent voice from commenting.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Actually, there's only three reverts here, so 3RR was not violated. I, however, have warned the user recetly about edit warring, so that's what the block is for. El_C 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:179.180.114.29 reported by User:Grayfell (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Category:Military dictatorships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
179.180.114.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 896989707 by Grayfell (talk) Stop edit-warring."
  2. 02:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 896988730 by Grayfell (talk) Maybe consensus should be gained for adding the category instead, since this was the first time it was added."
  3. 01:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 896980817 by Grayfell (talk) The category is for Totalitarian states, not all Military dictatorships are totalitarian, Totalitarian is not the same as Authoritarian."
  4. 23:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 893255212 by TheAlderaanian (talk) Not every military dictatorship is totalitarian."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Category:Military dictatorships. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is more complicated than I initially thought. IPs in this range/geolocation have a history of strange edits surrounding categorization of fascism and overlapping topics. Some are fine, but many are confusing or alarming. This is one of at least a few examples of the editor trying to delete a category by removing all entries and blanking the page. 179.180.97.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 177.98.184.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 179.186.154.173 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are almost certainly the same editor, and have all been reverted for this behavior. The editor has also edit-warred a lot at Fascism in Europe, which User:El C fully-protected a few days ago.

At Talk:Fascism in Europe (Here) the user says "I was blocked, yes, but then again, so was you." I cannot figure out which IP was blocked. This looks like it's been a pattern for at least a few months. Grayfell (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I removed the category because it is not appropriate to add it there, military dictatorships aren't automatically totalitarian, the category is for totalitarian states, but most military dictatorships aren't even totalitarian, so what is the reason for adding it? I don't know why you are picking up completely unrelated cases to use as an argument, I suppose you realize that your case for this one is weak, and I have no reason to lie that I was blocked in the past, honestly it seems to me that you're just biased against IP users, I would argue that there is a better case for edit warring against you when it comes to this one. -- 179.180.114.29 (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
You can argue all you want, but you were edit warring. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, it's getting a bit much to keep up with all of your IPs. Can you not just register an account, so everything is limited to one username? Yes, I agree with you on the content, but you did violate 3RR, which I know you to be aware of. El_C 03:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
El_C, I'm feeling you. I dropped a rangeblock on this one: this has been going on for a while, and I'm sure I could find another range or two to block. I don't want to--if this user would play by the rules (and getting an account is not a prerequisite, but it makes a lot of things easier) they'd probably be a very positive contributor. Le sigh. Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Le sigh, indeed. Keeping up with these various IPs in the Fascism et al. articles has been... difficult, to say the least. I've added a comment to Category talk:Military dictatorships, which is what should have been done prior to this edit war flaring up. El_C 06:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:37.35.144.72 reported by User:IanDBeacon (Result: 48 Hours )[edit]

Page
Málaga Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
37.35.144.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897105718 by IanDBeacon (talk)"
  2. 20:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897105025 by IanDBeacon (talk)"
  3. 19:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "All routes bookable on Ryanair's website. Fully sourced and verifiable information."
  4. 13:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Ajf773 is vandalizing future destinations maliciously; all routes are bookable via the Ryanair website"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. (TW)"
  2. 20:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Málaga Airport. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has also violated 3RR on about two other pages, including AIV and Doncaster Sheffield Airport. IanDBeacon (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alex.osheter reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Gab (social network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Alex.osheter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897118987 by Jorm (talk) They did not remove it, check the diff. Also, and why did you undo my change with it without concensus?"
  2. 21:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897102719 by Jorm (talk) Why demand discussion in the talk page if you're not going to discuss? "This is perfectly fine and acceptable" is your subjective opinion, and does not change the fact it is OR, which is not welcome on Wikipedia."
  3. 19:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897098832 by Tsumikiria (talk) See talk page."
  4. 19:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897056775 by Jorm (talk) Talk page is cluttered enough, this does not warrant a talk. It's OR and should be corrected to the real quotes."
  5. Consecutive edits made from 10:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC) to 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. 10:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Combining quotes is WP:OR. I edited the quotes to show them as separate."
    2. 12:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Added "for""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gab (social network). (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Cleaning up some OR */ cmt"
Comments:

5RR against consensus for the same content that was largely opposed on talk page. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 22:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus in the talk page. I made a minor edit, to clear some OR and it was reverted. The reason given was this required a discussion in the talk page. At first I disagreed, but after seeing two people revert my proposal, I decided to add it to the talk page. My revert at 19:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC) was unjustified, and I shouldn't have done that. I should have waited for the other editors to pitch in. Seeing that in the three hours that the discussion was up, the person who urged me to discuss it ghosted. I messaged the other user, also no response. I decided to revert again, and that was immediately reverted by the same user. Not to assume bad faith, but from the looks of it, it seems they do not want to discuss it further. The final revert is unrelated, as it reverted Jorm's revert because he did not read the diff from an edit by another user. Alex.osheter (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Reverting on behalf of another user was still a revert, which added to that 3RR violation. There was a unanimous consensus for that particular clause you're objecting. It wasn't OR by any degree. Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 22:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
That's not at all what I was contesting, and it's not what I changed. Please see 19:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC). Alex.osheter (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I count four reverts. It doesn't matter that one of the reverts isn't the same as the others, that's still a violation of 3RR. El_C 00:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: malformed)[edit]

Page: Lavender Hill Mob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts: On April 17th, Contaldo added the details of the Lavender Hill Mob's founder's death to it's article, to wit: "Robinson dies of AIDS in 1992." Just a few hours later, I reverted him, saying in an edit summary that this detail was not relevant. With no explaination, Contaldo reverted. I removed it again, with the same explanation. I also started a discussion on talk where I further explained my rationale, and reminded Contaldo of WP:BRD. (NB: We have had the BRD discussion many, many times, including recently on his talk page.)

A conversation took place there, with each of us reverting the other along the way (mea culpa). Throughout all of the discussion, however, Contaldo exhibited WP:IDHT. Even after I pointed out that there was WP:NO CONSENSUS to include the material, he still refused to listen by reverting once again, saying in a summary that I should "Demonstrate there is no consensus..." I would have thought that the multiple reversions and the discussion on the talk page made it clear there was no consensus, but he continued to add the material again and again, sometimes without going to talk.

There are several examples of Contaldo's efforts to push through his own preferred version on this article, but this is representative of them all. It is clear that an edit war is taking place. I am partially responsible, and take responsibility for it as I thought he might listen to reason. However, I can now see that Contaldo will not stop without outside intervention. He has been warned and even blocked for this behavior in the past: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.. El_C 02:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Firstly I have to say that I haven't been blocked for editing warring in the past (it should also be noted that the references to BrianCUA above suggest other editors but was actually a previous name used by Slugger). Second I have to point out that I complained a few days ago about Slugger O'Toole for WP:HOUNDING - they are clearly upset about that and trying to find a grievance against me. Actually proving my earlier point about feeling harassed and intimidated. On the issue of Robinson dying from AIDS - I think this point is relevant to the article. I have engaged with Slugger to explain why and they have not been able to point to any guidance that would not permit the point to be made. They also refer to being "consensus". Slugger does this a lot. By "consensus" Slugger means Slugger. They take this approach across a range of articles. They don't like something, they take it out. They refer vaguely to consensus despite the fact that no-one else has intervened or raised any objections. This is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. I got into a bizarre situation with the article on Cardinal Arinze where I add some text; Slugger liked it; I had second thoughts and tried to remove my own edits; Slugger warned me I could not do that because Slugger liked it and claimed that "consensus" was now in place - despite the fact no other editor had expressed an opinion. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Slugger O'Toole (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Lavender Hill Mob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Additional information:

On April 17th, Contaldo added the details of the Lavender Hill Mob's founder's death to it's article, to wit: "Robinson dies of AIDS in 1992." Just a few hours later, I reverted him, saying in an edit summary that this detail was not relevant. With no explaination, Contaldo reverted. I removed it again, with the same explanation. I also started a discussion on talk where I further explained my rationale, and reminded Contaldo of WP:BRD. (NB: We have had the BRD discussion many, many times, including recently on his talk page.)

A conversation took place there, with each of us reverting the other along the way (mea culpa). Throughout all of the discussion, however, Contaldo exhibited WP:IDHT. Even after I pointed out that there was WP:NO CONSENSUS to include the material, he still refused to listen by reverting once again, saying in a summary that I should "Demonstrate there is no consensus..." I would have thought that the multiple reversions and the discussion on the talk page made it clear there was no consensus, but he continued to add the material again and again, sometimes without going to talk.

There are several examples of Contaldo's efforts to push through his own preferred version on this article, but this is representative of them all. It is clear that an edit war is taking place. I am partially responsible, and take responsibility for it as I thought he might listen to reason. However, I can now see that Contaldo will not stop without outside intervention. He has been warned and even blocked for this behavior in the past: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. Stale. The only person reverting the user is you. You both should stop this slow edit war and figure this out on the talk page, or failing that, pursue other forms of dispute resolution. El_C 03:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

That El_C - certainly very happy to do that. I'd also like to point out that 4 editors have intervened to say that the material should be included. I am not an outlier. Slugger is still resisting this actual consensus. This doesn't sound very collaborative to me. Worth looking into I suspect.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Stophidingbehind reported by User:General Ization (Result: Page extended-confirmed protected )[edit]

Page
Barrett Watten (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Stophidingbehind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Hey Jeb, this edit does not violate NPOV, if factual, and the removal of the edit is an act of vandalism. Undid revision 897219977 by Historyofpoetry (talk)"
  2. 15:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897216912 by Jebcubed (talk)"
  3. 15:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897216204 by Historyofpoetry (talk)"
  4. 15:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC) ""
  5. 14:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897211864 by Jebcubed (talk)"
  6. 14:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897211627 by RickinBaltimore (talk)"
  7. 14:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "The edits to this page are neutral and do not assume guilt or culpability; the updates to this biography are factual and relevant. Further, the repeated deletion of the updates are an act of vandalism, explicitly meant to mask a biographical addition. Undid revision 897210885 by Jebcubed (talk)"
  8. 14:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "The edits to this page are neutral and do not assume guilt or culpability; the updates to this biography are factual and relevant. Further, the repeated deletion of the updates are an act of vandalism, explicitly meant to mask a biographical addition. Undid revision 897209870 by Historyofpoetry (talk)"
  9. 14:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897205310 by Oskarpoellerman (talk)"
  10. 13:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undoing vandalism -- this page has been updated to accurately reflect a biography of a living person. Undid revision 897203415 by Oskarpoellerman (talk)"
  11. 13:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "There is significant documentation (both personal accounts and official University statements) supporting these edits, which are relevant to this biography."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Persistent violations of BLP policy and edit warring at this article despite warnings. General Ization Talk 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging other involved editors: @Jebcubed and RickinBaltimore General Ization Talk 15:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
+1 @Historyofpoetry, who has now also received a warning concerning EW and 3RR violation. General Ization Talk 15:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


Dear Editors,

The deletion rationale by Historyofpoetry does not hold up under any amount of scrutiny and the decision to lock the page is one done in service of personal interest of the subject. While Watten may be retaining counsel to rebuff these allegations, the edits to his page do not violate NPOV or make any presumption of guilt. Instead, they simply and objectively state facts: Barrett Watten is under investigation for engaging in a sexual relationship with a graduate advisee; dozens of former students and colleagues came forward in 2019 to share their own allegations.

There is no attack on the subject, and there is no possibility of libel; it is clearly not libelous to say "someone has been accused of a crime." Please reconsider your decision to lock this page, as it is being done in the personal interest of Watten, not in the interests of Wikipedia's objectivity. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Your response does not address your edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Stophidingbehind, this report has nothing to do with the allegedly factual nature of your edits. Do you understand what the policy on edit warring is, and what it does and does not permit you to do? A notice was placed on your Talk page directing you to read the policy; did you not do so, and then continue to edit war over the content? That is what we are discussing here. General Ization Talk 16:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Evergreen. I was attempting to address the chicken-and-egg character of this situation, wherein multiple accounts added factual information, and then other accounts continuously took it down. I apologize for edit warring, and was only too late aware that it was a violation (I did not instinctively check my "talk page" to see the warnings).

I have stopped editing the page, but am requesting that the factual additions be returned to the page, as it was Historyofpoetry who began in the edit war, taking down objective material for personal gain. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we know you have stopped editing the page. Please respond to my questions above. We will not take up the question of whether or not the content was appropriate here, because it makes no difference. General Ization Talk 16:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You do not need to "instinctively" check your Talk page; presumably you, like every other registered editor, received a rather intrusive notification that you had new messages there. General Ization Talk 16:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


To answer your questions: I do understand the edit warring policy; I did not see the warning on my talk page immediately; after the policy was explained to me I stopped editing the page. I am seeking clarification on which version is retained in resolving this edit war, as Historyofpoetry was also warned for edit warring. The appropriateness or accuracy of the content seems relevant in deciding what version of the page to revert to. I remain concerned that this report is working in service of the personal gain of the subject. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To further clarify: because I am not a long-time user, the notifications were not intrusive to me, just more noise at the top of the page. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Until and unless there is consensus established to add it, the content, having already been challenged by multiple editors, will not be added. So, having indicated that you now understand the edit warring policy, do you agree that you were edit warring? General Ization Talk 16:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

General Ization, Thank you for that straightforward explanation. I agree that I was unknowingly edit warring and stopped once I understood the prohibition and the policy. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

This is Historyofpoetry writing. Is my participation here relevant? I'm unclear whether a comment from me would be pertinent or, if pertinent, whether it should be placed here. I'll make the comment, as briefly as I can, & you can judge for yourself.

  1. I have a long-standing engagement with Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, & Wikis in general (I knew Ward Cunningham). None of that matters in thinking about my position on the current issue other than to support my familiarity with the context. I understand the NPOV guideline & the reason it exists.
  2. Stophidingbehind is not writing from a NPOV. It would shock me if he/she were sufficiently disingenuous even to claim to be doing so. No, Stophidingbehind has a purpose: to attack the subject of the article (Watten).
  3. The subject (Watten) is being attacked in a serial, "piling on" manner, at another website created for the purpose. I'd be happy to supply the URL if relevant. The site is anonymous, allows no engagement from Watten or anyone else who might offer something other than a complaint. In short, it's a witch hunt.
  4. The new user Stophidingbehind seems to be one of those engaged in this systematic attack. He/she seems to have registered at Wikipedia.org with the precise purpose of extending this attack to Wikipedia.
  5. Stophidingbehind should state, with specicity, his/her relationship to the site & to the complaints against Watten.
  6. Whatever (Watten) has been accused of is being adjudicated institutionally. Perhaps he will be found to have done something warranting an institutional condemnation. Perhaps he'll be cleared. I know nothing relevant on that subject.
  7. What possible relevance does any of this have to Wikipedia? The article on Watten exists, presumably, because of Watten's significance as a poet & critic -- because of the significance of his work, I mean. No one disputes its significance.

Uh oh, that wasn't particularly brief! I hope at least that it was useful. Historyofpoetry (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't brief or neutral. There is, in fact, a hearty dispute whether or not Watten is a significant figure, though that dispute is irrelevant here. What is relevant is the fact that over 300 people have put their name forward to corroborate this "witch hunt." In short, it's not a witch hunt, and Historyofpoetry knows as much. It is a series of well-documented and well-corroborated accusations. Now that it has been explained to me the type of source necessary, neither myself nor others will attempt to edit the page until that type of source is available. However, Historyofpoetry is being purposefully disingenuous, and that is a shame on a site such as this. --Stophidingbehind (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

[redacted a comment from Stophidingbehind, do not restore.] --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This noticeboard is for reviewing accusations of edit warring. Only. It is not a place to relitigate the edit war. Reviewing this:
    1. The removal of the information is in defense of WP:BLP, and is immune from WP:EW.
    2. Stophindingbehind edit warred. A lot. In violation of WP:EW and WP:BLP. Normally this would warrant a block. However, all the early warnings were about vandalism and disruption, not clear explanations of WP:EW and WP:BLP. Once those warnings were given, it doesn't appear they reverted again. Or if they did, they did so once, and have agreed to stop.
    3. The article has been edit confirmed protected, since SHB was not the only account adding this info without suitable reference.
    4. Discussion can now move to the talk page.
    5. @Stophindingbehind: Don't accuse other editors of being particular real-life people without solid evidence. Doing so again will get you blocked.
Closing to limit further off-topic discussion here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Pak research reported by User:Samee (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Anusha Rahman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pak research (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 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC) to 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. 15:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897214257 by Samee (talk)"
    2. 15:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897213970 by Samee (talk)"
  2. 08:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897084218 by Samee (talk). Mr Samee may kindly not like to rely on un verified information. Personal information is sensitive data and may not be tinkered based on un verified facts which is against Wikipedia policy. thank you."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Anusha Rahman."
  2. 14:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Censorship of material on Anusha Rahman."
  3. 15:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Pak research (talk) to last version by Samee"
  4. 15:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Anusha Rahman."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 14:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Content issue */ new section"
Comments:

The user is clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia and bypassing discussion in the favour of reversions.  samee  converse  15:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

They initiated a discussion here on my talk.  samee  converse  16:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. There's only two reverts listed. Please figure this out on the BLP noticeboard. El_C 18:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:82.207.187.7 reported by User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: John R. Bolton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.207.187.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]

Don’t have enough room to list all reverts - this IP has reverted two users seven times in total, introducing defamatory content each time. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked 48 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Antoine76000 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Billie Lourd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Antoine76000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Film */"
  2. 22:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Film */"
  3. 21:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Film */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "Billie Lourd"
  2. 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Billie Lourd */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This editor has restored a contested edit six times this month (including 4 reverts in the last 24 hours), and about a dozen times in recent months using various IPs, without any explanatory edit summary or addressing my revert edit summaries on the talk page. The contested edit is only the linking of a character name twice in the same small table, so I have been hesitant to escalate the situation to ARV, but this editor's refusal to discuss or engage in any way is inappropriately non-collaborative, and perhaps a short block will get this point across. I don't think temporarily protecting the article itself will have an effect on the editing behavior. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 14:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, on May 11 Antoine76000 linked several instances of "Herself" within the Sophie Turner article, which is blatant overlinking, and was subsequently reverted. This editor has just now restored those links, of course with no edit summary. As a matter of fact, this username was created in February, has only a little over 100 edits, and does not seem to have EVER used an edit summary or commented on a talk page, despite being reverted at every turn.— TAnthonyTalk 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
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. Furthermore, I see both Antoine76000 and TAnthony repeatedly reverting each other in the history. If you come here reporting edit warring, I take a dim view if the filer has been edit warring too. I don't think a block is required, simply that the first one to stop reverting the other will stop the war, and hopefully lead to a discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You see, that is the problem: Antoine76000 has never used an edit summary or made a talk page comment, and what do you think would compel him to do so? This editor has reverted this edit about 20 times in recent months, my bad that I thought it was 4 times in 24 hours, but though it may not be a direct violation of 3RR, it is certainly a negative pattern that is completely disrespectful of our process. Warnings from another editor aren't cutting it here.— TAnthonyTalk 16:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
If Antoine76000's edits were, say, adding biased POV pushing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would be more sympathetic to your cause, but you are arguing about a link. Is it really that important, and can you not just drop it, ignore it, and work elsewhere? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I've made it clear that the real problem isn't the link in this particular article, it's the editor's refusal to engage in any discussion of any kind over contested edits in this or any other article. I have more of an issue, for example, with the linking of Sophie Turner within the Sophie Turner article. This is clearly not something we do, but your advice is really to ignore it and hope that this editor will engage? I get that this isn't exactly an edit warring problem, or disastrous to Wikipedia, but it seems like you are saying the solution to any impasse is for the party that actually follows the rules to just shut up. That's brilliant.— TAnthonyTalk 17:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think your communication style didn't help - dropping {{uw-es}} three times in succession on their talk page was rather daft, don't you think? I see Antoine76000 has now been blocked; they seem to belong to a particular class of editor that never seems to realise they have messages, or know how to reply to them. I've blocked quite a few of these, and invariably they just disappear; here's one example, here's another and here's an infamous example. So I wanted to wait and make absolutely sure that blocking was the only option left. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

User:King Crimson the Third reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Development hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
King Crimson the Third (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision. Please read this and this. This will be the last revert for a while."
  2. 00:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC) "reverting two edits. also adding one more."
  3. 00:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897185600 by Trivialist (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Subject has already been warned (and blocked) before for 3RR, still they violated 3RR, again. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. While not a 3RR violation (you need four reverts to violate it, not three), I still feel like sanctions are due here. Especially, since the user was blocked for edit warring just two weeks ago. El_C 00:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:173.164.142.157 reported by User:ResultingConstant (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
173.164.142.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897548549 by Rtbittaker (talk)"
  2. 19:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897545791 by ResultingConstant (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC) to 19:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Removed entries from openly religious christian publishers and sources. Also removed claims that are not pertinent to the discussion of whether or not Jesus was a historical figure."
    2. 19:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Historical existence */"
  4. 18:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

repeated mass removals of consensus content without discussion ResultingConstant (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. Latest warning seems to have worked. Let us know if it doesn't. El_C 19:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

User:212.120.225.215 reported by User:Ralbegen (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Hope not Hate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
212.120.225.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897718002 by Kitchen Knife (talk)"
  2. 21:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897714135 by Ralbegen (talk)"
  3. 20:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897702766 by Kitchen Knife (talk)"
  4. 20:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897702344 by Ralbegen (talk)"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) to 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) "source https://farleftwatch.com/hope-not-hate/ </ref>http://petersweden.com/exposing-fake-news"
    2. 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC) "3RR"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Repeated non-constructive edits. Five reverts in under three hours. Ralbegen (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 22:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Tonmoy0013 reported by User:Winged Blades of Godric (Result: ec protected)[edit]

Page
National Institute of Textile Engineering and Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tonmoy0013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897762486 by Tonmoy0013 (talk)"
  2. 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897758154 by Winged Blades of Godric (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. (Twinkle)"
  2. 06:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (Twinkle)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "// Edit via Wikiplus/Note"
Comments:

No intent to discuss is evident. Promo-spamming. WBGconverse 07:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Page ec protected for one week. El_C 07:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist reported by User:51.7.229.160 (Result: IP sock blocked, and Materialscientist justified against spurious accusations)[edit]

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.

The user undid my edits with no explanation, four times in 45 minutes, and has now protected the article, thus misusing their administrative tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. They have done exactly the same at Old Bexley and Sidcup (UK Parliament constituency). 51.7.229.160 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removals, edit warring against 2 editors using 2 IPs (intentionally or not). Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Whoah, @Materialscientist: have you really just reverted four times in a content dispute, breaking the WP:3RR, and then broken WP:INVOLVED as well by using the tools to protect your version? Please unprotect and discuss issues on the talk page, as you know you should.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The IP is blocked again for a week. Case closed.BabbaQ (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've CU-blocked the IP, a LTA, for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Also for the record, I fully support Materialscientists decision to protect the two articles in question. BabbaQ (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Amakuru raises a fair point of course; is there a potential issue of WP:ADMINCOND here? ——SerialNumber54129 11:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Had it been a regular editor, maybe. But here Materialscientist actually helped the project as the IP was an IP sock. Who has used at least two IPs to harrass me and others. I see no issues here. That is my point of view here.BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I also note a misuse of the rollback tool. ——SerialNumber54129 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. It is not OK to use use the tools to protect an article and edit war over something that is not vandalism. BabbaQ you should not be condoning this kind of abuse, it gives admins a bad name in the wider community.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
My question is, is this a one-off occurence of possible misuse or is there an history of misuse of tools by this admin. BabbaQ (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Well I'm not saying there's a history of misuse, nor am I calling for any action against Materialscientist beyond a simple WP:TROUT. I just think we should call a spade a spade and not defend it because the IP has turned out to be a sock. If Materialscientist had thought at the time that the IP was a sock then they should have blocked on the spot citing that reasoning, or gone to SPI and presented the evidence. I didn't see evidence of that though, it just looked like a conventional edit war over whether or not to bold a couple of terms in the lede of the article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23 and BabbaQ. I am not blaming, opposing or supporting your decision to block the IP, but what reason do you have for this action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbb234 (talkcontribs)

Sub-optimal behaviour from Materialscientist violating 3RR. Hopefully they will return to acknowledge this and we can move on — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Just had a look. I reverted Materialscientist because the IP's side of the edit war made the article better. I also added a source for some of the unreferenced content, and formatted a few of the bare URLs. Next time try improving the encyclopedia instead of getting involved in silly edit wars. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No response to several questions about his conduct; no justification for breaking 3rr; no attempt to justify using rollback inappropriately; no explanation for protecting an article to "win" a content dispute. His one terse response here indicates quite some contempt for his fellow editors, doesn't it? 46.233.116.167 (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, Serial Number 54129, Willbb234, MSGJ, and assorted IPs, you are firmly reminded that WP:3RRNO specifically exempts reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users — you may go to 100RR without being sanctionable. WP:ROLLBACK permits using the tool on sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. Moreover, WP:INVOLVED permits things that any reasonable admin would do, and any reasonable admin would take actions to stop socks of banned users. Don't go harassing an admin for doing exactly what an admin's supposed to do. Nyttend (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah nice one Nyttend. They are indeed a dedicated and committed sock fighter, but, fyi, edits such as these are neither blatant vandalism nor block evasion. (Incidentally, MS is a CU—a simple edit-summary on the first undo saying so would have probably avoided this whole messy discussion; it would certainly have alleviated my concerns.) Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That edit has nothing to do with this section. If there appears to be a pattern of wrongful rollbacks, then a new section over at WP:ANI should be started, where that can be the subject of focus and discussed. This goes for any user. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but either way I don't appreciate being accused of "harrassing" for simply holding an administrator to account. As I stated above, and SN has said here, there was no evidence at the time that MS thought the IP was a sock, and if they thought that they were a sock, then the correct course of action was to block, not to start engaging in a rollback-and-protect war over a content dispute. As I also said above, I have no evidence this is a pattern and would be happy to put it down to simple Wikistress - hell knows, we've all been there. But for Nyttend to launch an attack on me for and others named, simply for questioning this, is beyond the pale. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Materialscientist gave one response here, which in no way justified their actions and did not even attempt to. Their stonewalling indicates contempt for the rules and for those seeking clarification. I find that deeply inappropriate and I find User:Nyttend's personal attacks and whitewashing inappropriate as well. The fact is that User:Materialscientist consciously broke the 3rr because they felt entitled to break it, not because they thought there was a legitimate exemption. 82.132.220.149 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Someone want to explain how "Unexplained removals, edit warring against 2 editors using 2 IPs (intentionally or not)." is an appropriate justification for breaking the 3rr? And how simple stonewalling in the face of queries about your conduct is appropriate behaviour for an administrator? 82.13.108.115 (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Suddenly two IPs appear out of nowhere. What do you say User:Bbb23. BabbaQ (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@BabbaQ: They're both Vote (X) for Change; ironically the points they are making are rather valid. ——SerialNumber54129 12:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Time to drop this stick and move on I guess. BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Excellent advice for those who are lucky not be be involved. ——SerialNumber54129 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Latest socks blocked, everybody stop feeding the troll. Acroterion (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


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

No evidence has been presented of any sock puppetry. It was not claimed by User:Materialscientist, who continues to stonewall when facing legitimate questions about why they broke the 3rr, why they misused and continue to misuse rollback, and why they protected two articles to win the upper hand in a content dispute. Their silence speaks volumes. The sock puppet allegations seem to be an attempt by his friends to obstruct scrutiny by inventing post hoc justifications for rule violations. Their grievous insults against the several editors with concerns really is appalling. Why is user:Materialscientist exempt from the rules governing editorial behaviour and the use of administrative tools? 82.132.220.232 (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Acroterion - Sadly another IP. BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Bacondrum reported by User:Wumbolo (Result: one week)[edit]

Page
Call-out culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bacondrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 08:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897772099 by Psantora (talk) Please add more reliable sources to establish its current use and the impact the term has had on its field. An article about a neologism cannot cited with primary sources alone. Neither of you have bothered to discuss this or given a satisfactory reason for it's removal."
  2. 05:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897756267 by DeRossitt (talk) You stop."
  3. 04:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897755528 by DeRossitt (talk) That's not an explanation. Please take it to talk."
  4. 04:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897755305 by DeRossitt (talk) No explanation for removal"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. [50]
  2. [51]
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. [52]
Comments:

On 13 May 2019, Bacondrum also broke 3RR [53] [54] [55] [56]. wumbolo ^^^ 13:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week El_C 18:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric reported by User:Jaydayal (Result: Protected article and both parties warned)[edit]

Page
Vivek Agnihotri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Winged Blades of Godric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vivek_Agnihotri&type=revision&diff=897944651&oldid=897942347
  2. 09:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Jaydayal (talk): Nope. (Twinkle)"
  1. Consecutive edits made from 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC) to 09:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    1. 09:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897938821 by Jaydayal (talk)//Do not care. Talk-page is that way."
    2. 09:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897938742 by Jaydayal (talk)/Can't you read the sources?"
  2. 09:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 897938290 by Jaydayal (talk)/Poor English"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 09:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC) "/* Winged, please follow BRD or at least discuss on article talk page */"
Comments:

The editor is experienced and should be aware of 3rr rule. I updated a libelous comment on a BLP keeping all references intact and effectively stating same thing. But I am reverted repeatedly within minutes without any practical discussion on talk page except comment in revert saying "poor English". He is stating that BRD means I am required to demonstrate the absence of something before editing the article and he gets the privilege to keep the content in the article otherwise. I do not think BRD meant this, I can be wrong but this is very counter intuitive. Jaydayal (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  • This article has been drawing a constant stream of white-washing attempts, after the subject asked for help over Twitter. He needs to discuss the stuff over t/p, prior to messing 'bout with longstanding content. WBGconverse 10:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been imploring you to come to talk page like in earlier content disputes. Last time also you did continuous revert with comments like "fuck off". Just because I am little inexperienced here compared to you doesn't mean you are exempt from BRD or BLP guidelines. --Jaydayal (talk) 10:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    It looks like the two parties are now discussing this on the talk page, and nobody has broken 3RR. I encourage both parties to continue that discussion and come to an agreement.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, I think the talk page discussion is a farce ... I say so because he just reverted once again. I don't know how can anyone have any kind of sensible discussion with this editor if he prefers to revert repeatedly and keep his version, simply sidelining all discussion. --Jaydayal (talk) 11:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
What? I asked for your rationale behind your revert, over the t/p over which you noted:- If you think it is wrong please make improvements there or here, I am not a mad-reverter. If it makes sense I will be glad to acknowledge it.
You need to give up this stone-walling tactics. You were doing the same stuff over Talk:Parkala Massacre until I asked for community feedback, pending which, you are nowhere to be seen.WBGconverse 11:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned @Winged Blades of Godric: @Jaydayal: I've protected the article for 24 hours. Both of you need to stop edit warring and discuss the issues. If that doesn't work, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for next steps. If you continue to edit war then you will be blocked. I am marking this as "both parties warned". Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

User talk:82.207.187.7 (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: