Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive395

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Pawpur reported by User:Signedzzz (Result: Sock indeffed)[edit]

Page: Racial views of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pawpur (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. [diff]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

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

Comments:

This SPA has been causing problems ever since he started, and clearly has no intention of following the rules, such as 1RR in this case. zzz (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Two corrections: I self-reverted in regard to the July edit so i did not break the 3RR rules that Signedzz is claiming. Also I'm not a SPA I've edited at least 8 other articles besides the Trump racial views article in the past month or so. This user Signedzzz has been harassing me ever since i began editing the Trump racial views article. If you check my talk page you can see i warned him to stop the harassment and false accusations he made against me but I chose not to report him at the time. He has some sort of vendetta against me but i'm not sure why. Other users like JFG have corrected him (on the talk page for the article in question) but he continues to act very aggressively on that specific article. Pawpur (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Please do file a report for harassment - I insist, if you are going to throw around the accusation. zzz (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't just harassment it was also false accusations that you appeared to make on my talk page. I'm only bringing it up here since you decided to be very aggressive and report me after I made an edit earlier today that you immediately reverted 2 mins after i made the edit. Pawpur (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
No diffs, but harassment and false accusations as well now - ironically. zzz (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The diffs are not needed, any user can read my talk page where they will see how you and another aggressive user named SPECIFICO harassed me and where you claimed i misquoted you when i didn't. You also made a false accusation and smear in filing this report by saying that I "clearly have no intention of following the rules" when the opposite is true, any user who checks will see that I have followed all the policy and rules and even self-reverted when you requested that I self-revert and yet you still report me here when i made one revert earlier today. Pawpur (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
You did misquote me. That is indisputable. I don't know why you want to claim otherwise, particularly here on an admin page. Do you think I was aggressive when I wrote "Please don't do that"? Or was it something else I wrote? I think it is important to clarify this since you keep repeating the accusation. zzz (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I quoted your own words ("make sure people understand the rules") and then you made the false and nasty remark "don't misquote me".
That wasn't my words though, was it. You are claiming that "Please don't do that" was not only aggressive but "nasty"? I'm glad that's sorted then. zzz (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

One more very important issue forgot to bring up is that Signedzzz used a dishonest edit summary for this edit[5]...everything is CORRECT(not incorrect like he claimed) i.e. Trump was referring to illegal migrants (reliable sources show this) and "some journalists" is also accurate and in line with reliable sources. I realize i should have discussed on talk and waited 24 hrs to revert but i got upset that he was being dishonest and aggressive with his edit summary so i acted rashly w/o thinking. if i need to be blocked for 24 hrs or 48 hrs i guess that's fair but i hope i can have a second chance...thanks. Pawpur (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I think at least a lengthy topic ban is called for, in view of the WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude clearly on display. I don't appreciate the personal attacks, which would be unacceptable even if the topic was not under discretionary sanctions. Besides which, the user clearly lacks the competence to edit, particularly in controversial topics. zzz (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
BTW if "reliable sources show" that Trump was referring to illegal immigrants then I suppose the Donald Trump article also has it wrong where it gives the same quote, see Donald_Trump#Racial_views. Are those editors dishonest too? zzz (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@El C: We block-conflicted. I've indefinitely blocked the sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: copy that. El_C 14:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:ProudCitizen reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: Blocked 1 month)[edit]

Page: List of The Boys characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ProudCitizen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: stable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1, marked as 'minor change'
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notice of AN:EW report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4

Comments:
The user has been here since 2017 and is well aware of our 3RR rules as well as those to avoid edit-warring. They have chosen to follow none of them, especially BRD. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Update

The user posted a message to me after I notified him of the complaint:

Oh you're giving me a "warning"? ROFL! Blow it out your ass, man. The information is accurate and there is no goddamn reason why it shouldn't be there. Go ahead and file a complaint. If I get banned I'll just change the info once I come back and/or use my other accounts. Ciao.
I am wondering, do the penalties escalate if the reported user threatens to sock through one of their other accounts to revert to their preferred version? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
As the user has stated their intention to sock, I'd also like to ask the page be protected from new users for a while, as well as reverting back to the version before the socker started editing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. And what gives this guy the right to force through *his* preferred version? The information is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProudCitizen (talkcontribs) 21:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 month I made it a month due to the threat to sock and personal attacks. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@331dot: - may I revert the page back to the pre-ProudCitizen version, or could you do that? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have done so. 331dot (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Nice4What reported by User:Avatar317 (for violating the ONE revert rule) (Result: 72 hours Unblocked)[edit]

Page: Abortion in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nice4What (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6] 2a02:2f01:5cff:ffff::50c:3058 (talk) (see the talk page. Removed unsourced and inaccurate map)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [7] Nice4What (talk | contribs) (Restoring map)
  2. [8] Nice4What (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 911902786 by Avatar317 (talk) Where do you think these restrictions are for minors...? They're not. It's for all abortions (excluding special exceptions) in each state.)

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

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

Comments:

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. This is the second time the user has been blocked for violating 1RR. They are strongly cautioned against doing so a third time, or the block duration is likely to get significantly more lengthy. El_C 01:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: User had multiple alerts on their talk page, but not this specific one. I misread. Unblocked with apologies. El_C 03:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:WayzataOne reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Blocked indef)[edit]

Page
Bde Maka Ska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
WayzataOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 05:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. 04:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. Consecutive edits made from 03:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC) to 03:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 03:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "The legal name of the lake, and the way Minnesotans refer to it, is Lake Calhoun."
    2. 03:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Lake Calhoun is the legal and exclusive name of the lake."
    3. 03:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Added to the historical context."
    4. 03:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Adding historical information."
    5. 03:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Adding relevant information."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Bde Maka Ska. (TW)"
  2. 05:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "/* August 2019 */"
  3. 05:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Bde Maka Ska. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I have tried to resolve this on his own talk page. Nothing so far. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Editor may have stopped the edit warring, but still see no response to talk page notice other than the following paragraph. Crossing fingers that it's over but will place addendum here if it starts again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This user is going throughout Wikipedia making disruptive changes of place "Lake Calhoun" wherever Bde Maka Ska is being used if you check their contributions. I don't think they're here to edit without being disruptive. oncamera 06:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
They have returned to edit warring on Bde Maka Ska. oncamera 06:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed they continue to edit war. I tried and hoped it would be otherwise but it seems to be a vandalism only account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Mz7 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you... my finger was getting tired hitting the vandalism rollback button. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:68.194.40.88 reported by User:Xanzzibar (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Carmen Carrera (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.194.40.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

Comments:

  • I warned the IP that I would block them if they restored the disputed content and pointed them to the article talk page where there is consensus not to include the name. They restored it. I blocked them.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 16:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sávy reported by User:Realmmb (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page
Mohun Bagan A.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sávy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
  2. 15:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 11:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC) to 11:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 11:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
    2. 11:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC) to 05:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
    2. 04:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
    3. 05:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mohun Bagan A.C.. (TW)"
  2. 12:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Mohun Bagan A.C.. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has not responded to multiple talk-page warnings. Keeps adding non-free images on a page where the images are not meant for educational purposes, rather marketing purposes. REALMMB(talk) 21:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. User's failure to communicate demands a lengthy suspension from editing. The user is also cautioned that the next block is likely to be much more lengthy, up to and including indefinitely. El_C 17:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sush150 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
File:Mission Mangal.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sush150 (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 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC) to 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Sush150 reverted File:Mission Mangal.jpg to an old version"
    2. 06:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I do not understand why he keeps distorting the nearly square-shaped poster to make it look rectangular. His comments about quality are "lame", and he has reverted my proper uploads multiple times. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. I suggest you attempt to discuss this further and take advantage of your dispute resolution resources, if needed. (I also note that this report has several fields which were left blank.) Good luck~ El_C 17:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Sampath123456789 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Nagarjuna Sagar Dam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of cities in Telangana by population (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Sampath123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

Nagarjuna Sagar Dam:

  1. 19:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 09:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC) to 09:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 09:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC) ""
    2. 09:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC) ""
  4. 09:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC) ""

List of cities in Telangana by population:

  1. 09:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 09:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on List of cities in Telangana by population. (TW)"
  2. 09:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC) "Nagarjuna Sagar Dam as well"
  3. 16:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Nagarjuna Sagar Dam. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Not an explicit 3RR violation, but the user is continuing the same disruptive behavior of dynamic IPs, who persistently changed the location of Nagarjuna Sagar Dam and the Census population figures at List of cities in Telangana by population, after both articles were semi-protected. User has been warned multiple times and ignores any form of communication. User also ignored comments about similar unexplained arbitrary reorderings earlier this year. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. The user continues to reorder lists for no apparent reason, while never participating on article talk pages or leaving edit summaries to explain their motivation. They have been here since 2017 but do not seem to understand our practices. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:CreatingCat reported by User:146.90.39.236 (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page: Barra da Tijuca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CreatingCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. vandalismca&diff=912275887&oldid=912275824

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

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

Comments:

User began reverting my edits with a personal attack, and has continued without proper explanation, restoring large quantities of ungrammatical, unencyclopaedic, and otherwise deeply flawed material to the article. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation, and wanted to talk it out with this person, however, he decided instead of explaining what he was doing to me, I thought he was deleting many different things that weren't necessary for deleting. If he explained, I wouldn't have broken the rule of not more than 3 reverts. I'm sorry, however, he should have explained before literally turning me into the police. Also, can you please explain 146.90.39.236 (talk), about why YOU didn't respond to my requests of talking it out, and instead deleted it. creativeRajat@lk 12:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned I don't see a personal attack, but I do see that there has been no attempt to resolve this dispute on the article talk page(and the notification of this discussion is not an edit warring warning). Please discuss this with each other; if this editing dispute continues, you may both be blocked for edit warring. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Also, thank you for clarifying that clarifications should happen on the article talk page. creativeRajat@lk 12:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

"Reverting vandalism" was obviously a personal attack, and an extremely insulting one. They have not offered any reason for their reverts; there is no dispute, and thus nothing to resolve, until they explain themselves. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
That is arguably a mischaracterization of your edits, but not a personal attack(name calling). 331dot (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing arguable about it being a mischaracterisation, and name calling is precisely what it is. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
If that were a personal attack, there would be few unblocked editors left. Criticism of your edits is not a personal attack, personal insults and name calling about you personally would be. This isn't a debate. I highly suggest that you take your concerns to the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Calling obviously good edits "vandalism" is not "criticism". Calling me a vandal is a personal attack. I think you need to revise WP:NOTVAND and WP:NPA. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
What is "obviously good" to you is not to others, it is up to you to make a case for your changes, preferably one based in Wikipedia guidelines, and justify why your changes are needed. Mischaracterizing your edits is not a personal attack(I see no statement such as "146.90.39.236 is a vandal"). I have no other comment on this matter, I strongly advise you to proceed as I have stated. 331dot (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You saw that I left edit summaries, yes? And "reverted vandalism" is exactly equivalent to "user is a vandal". If the edits are not vandalism, it is a personal attack. Other users are welcome to disagree with my edits. Nobody is welcome to insult me by calling them vandalism. 146.90.39.236 (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:SuperJew reported by User:Huldra (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Wadi Og (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperJew (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. 18:14, 24 August 2019: SuperJew rv to "rivers of Israel"
  2. 22:16, 24 August 2019 same revert


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

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

Comments:

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. The article has not been placed under 1RR (there needs to be a mainspace edit notice for that). El_C 22:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: 1RR now applied to the article via Template:Editnotices/Page/Wadi Og. El_C 22:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This is obviously some threatening here, as you can see on my talk page with Huldra saying Please self revert, or you will be reported. A page about a nature reserve shouldn't be assumed to have 1RR on it, there was also no problem with the page until Huldra came looking for conflict. I would also point out that if anyone is against rules here, Huldra is the first, breaking WP:BRD: she was bold, she was reverted, and then she didn't discuss. As you can see she also made two changes so was the first to break 1RR. Anyway I'm going to self revert, as I have more important things to do than deal with a petty user who doesn't understand how countries work. But her threatening while breaking rules herself should definitely be discussed. Will also add that Huldra threatened and reported me (22:21) for breaking rules, and only after that marked the page as 1RR (22:22). --SuperJew (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You are not required to self-revert retroactively, but neither is Huldra required (though she is encouraged to) subscribe to BRD. Unless you simply wish to withdraw from the dispute. Huldra did not threaten you, she simply warned you that the rules, as she understood them, were in breach. I don't see why the dispute cannot be calmly resolved on the article talk page. If needed, fall back on your dispute resolution resources. El_C 22:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
SuperJew reverted an article about a Wadi on the West Bank with the edit line: "which is part of the state of Israel": How much is there to discuss? If SuperJew actually thinks that the West Bank is "part of the state of Israel", then I'm sorry, but I dont think there is any chance that the two of us will agree, Huldra (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
You don't need to agree for consensus to emerge. That's what's outside input is for. El_C 23:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I have amended the categories to be neutral and not support a side. A saying of "do this or you will be reported" is a threat. Nowhere was there an attempt to talk, explain, or reason. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure she understood the rules exactly (especially after looking at her contributions, seeing she edits many topics which are related (more and less so) to the Arab-Israel conflict) and added the 1RR notice after claiming I broke the 1RR rule. --SuperJew (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Giving you the opportunity to self-revert what she understood was a 1RR violation before being reported for it is not a threat. It is due warning. El_C 23:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:BamZ412 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page
User talk:Davey2010 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
BamZ412 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */Do not mess around with my signature anymore and leave as it is. No more reverting my signature to the plain one when I first joined Wikipedia. This is very serious and don’t take this as a joke! I don’t want to have a similar argument like the Singapore Changi Airport before again. No more reverting it and leave it as it is!"
  2. 16:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
  3. 15:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */Reverted to before."
  4. 15:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */"
  5. 14:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 17:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC) to 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 17:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */"
    2. 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */"
    3. 17:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Cavey2010 */"
  7. Consecutive edits made from 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC) to 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 16:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Davey2010 */ new section"
    2. 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Cavey2010 */ new section"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on User talk:Davey2010. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[21], [22]

Comments:

Edit-warring on D2010's talk page having asked to stay away (re: obsession with gussyfying signature). What started off as, I guess, lighthearted and innocent has become a timesink for everyone concerned. The >60% edits to userspace are ominous; but that may be for another occasion. ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just this moment taken them to ANI ([23]) so if anyone prefers this route to ANI then I'd be happy to remove it. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 16:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Likewise, ditto; something must be done, the only question is what and where... ——SerialNumber54129 16:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Haha exactly!, I'm kinda hoping someone at ANI will either do something or point me here, But thanks for filing this anyway it's much appreciated :), –Dave | Davey2010Talk 16:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Mazewaxie reported by User:Kaykayjohnson1234 (Result: Malformed)[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: []

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24]
  2. [diff]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

Unacceptable and ill-conidered use of administrator privileges. Kaykayjohnson1234 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Non-Admin Comment: First of all, Mazewaxie is not an administrator. Second, this report is a mess.Crboyer (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Here is the last version reverted. See what you make of it. Crboyer (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • 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. --Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I only reverted him once because he changed a lot of stuff without seeking consensus first. That's no edit warring. --Mazewaxie (talkcontribs) 09:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Chandy of Pakalomattom and User:Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill reported by User:Chad The Goatman (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Mar Thoma Syrian Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reformed Eastern Christianity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Chandy of Pakalomattom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
117.230.16.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
27.97.172.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
122.174.87.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
27.97.191.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
49.15.222.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
and very probably 1 or 4 more of these anonymous users to is the likely the same person.

Previous version reverted to Mar Thoma Syrian Church: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the Chandy of Pakalomattom's reverts:

  1. 22:18, 24 August 2019
  2. 22:25, 24 August 2019

Diffs of the Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill's reverts:

  1. I can't find evidence yet, but his newly created 'theology' page in progress 'Marthomite' theology has seemly do definitive connections with that Church's page in anyway.

Diffs of the 122.174.87.2's reverts:

  1. 07:58, 24 August 2019
  2. 12:37, 23 August 2019

Diffs of the 27.97.172.21's reverts:

  1. 22:13, 23 August 2019

As times these events happen in the last two-three days.

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

  1. Not yet for all the Users and anonymous contributions pages', but however on of its accounts' [Sebin Prasad Cheriyan Marvallill] talk page is oddly asking to deleting its account, then later in the same area, now suddenly wants to renamed its username for some odd reason, on the same day?

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

  1. Yes for one time as means to want temporarily lock the page down for a short while, but didn't happen for no good reason.

Comments:

User:IKamalkandel reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:31 hours )[edit]

Page
Jaggi Vasudev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
IKamalkandel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912419923 by Bbb23 (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 06:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC) to 11:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 06:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912340086 by Amakuru (talk) Articles should have both Positive and Negative viewpoints. Criticism is rarely used but as Jaggi Vasudev; himslef is very controversy person in real life, this section is required."
    2. 11:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
  3. 19:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912325237 by Amakuru (talk) Why Criticism is getting removed? Added sources also."
  4. 19:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912314257 by Bbb23 (talk)"
  5. Consecutive edits made from 16:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC) to 16:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
    1. 16:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "Added Criticism"
    2. 16:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticism */"
    3. 16:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) "Citation needed for few changes"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jaggi Vasudev. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The material being added/restored was first fought over by User:Frederickarcher whom I blocked twice for edit-warring in July. At this point, though, I consider myelf WP:INVOLVED with respect to taking any further action on the article. Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours 72 because of their deletions at this page. I need to look at the sock issue. Doug Weller talk 17:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Doug Weller: The user, who has obvious competence issues, didn't delete any part of my report, as far as I can tell. Initially, they added some comments and at the same time added some crap. I was trying to remove the crap but retain their substantive comments. I kept edit-conflicting with them because they kept changing their edits. At the end of it, I rolled back all their edits because there was nothing left but crap, and I didn't think it was my responsibility to try to salvage the earlier substantive comments, which mainly accused me and others of not being "neutral". So, the only "deletions" the user did was of their own comments, all this done, of course, in consecutive edits. Sorry for the long-winded explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've reduced the block. Thanks for the explanation. Doug Weller talk 18:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Italian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Springpfühler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and DavideVeloria88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 01:29, 13 February 2019‎

Diffs of Springpfühler removing Bosnia and Romania:

  1. 01:01, 16 February 2019‎
  2. 17:00, 16 February 2019‎
  3. 11:58, 19 April 2019‎
  4. 14:07, 29 April 2019‎
  5. 02:54, 30 April 2019‎
  6. 00:48, 7 May 2019‎
  7. 12:49, 7 May 2019‎
  8. 01:16, 12 June 2019‎
  9. 15:41, 16 June 2019‎
  10. 18:02, 10 August 2019‎
  11. 18:52, 10 August 2019‎
  12. 15:04, 23 August 2019‎
  13. 15:28, 23 August 2019‎

Diffs of DavideVeloria88 inserting Bosnia and Romania:

  1. 12:26, 15 February 2019
  2. 13:57, 15 April 2019
  3. 11:12, 29 April 2019‎
  4. 17:28, 29 April 2019‎
  5. 18:46, 6 May 2019‎
  6. 09:50, 7 May 2019‎
  7. 17:42, 11 June 2019‎
  8. 11:21, 10 August 2019‎
  9. 12:30, 23 August 2019‎
  10. 15:17, 23 August 2019‎


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:57, 7 May 2019 for DavideVeloria88 and 12:58, 7 May 2019 for Springpfühler

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The two edit warriors discuss with each other here, to no avail

Comments:

In a strong contender for lamest edit wars, users Springpfühler and DavideVeloria88 have spent the last six months reverting each other back and forth over whether Italian is official in Bosnia and Romania. Both of them have reverted at least ten times already; I warned both users over this highly disruptive edit war already back in May but both of them just ignored it and carried on edit warring. This never-ending edit war between two user who obviously don't give a damn about Wikipedia rules has become seriously tiresome. I'd recommend both a considerable block from WP, and then topic banned from Italian language for at least a year. (And as a note to User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88: Please do not even think about bringing your argument about who is right here. It's irrelevant. Being right is no excuse for edit warring, and regardless of whom may be right about the issue, you're both equally guilty of edit warring Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Update I now find that despite being aware by this discussion, and despite a comment by EdJohnston, User:Springpfühler continues to edit war, this time at a different language article 16:08, 23 August 2019, 17:02, 23 August 2019, 22:23, 23 August 2019. The behaviour seems identical to that which brought about my report, hence mentioned here for the closing admin to consider. Jeppiz (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh well if correcting a wrong information is "edit war", than ok, I was not aware of it. I thought that it was a purpose of Wikipedia writing reliable and more than all correct information, not just everything for the sole reason that someone asserts it. Surely if it is like that, if improving or correcting contents is a fault, than I am guilty. And as I did it for other languages too, maybe I am even guilty of knowing them. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring has nothing to do with being right or wrong (see WP:BRD. Don't say you're not aware of it; this is exactly what I pointed out to you on your talk page months ago: "being right is not enough to edit war" 13:00, 7 May 2019. Jeppiz (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you can consider so what has happened regarding Italian language, but the other correction I did was independent from it, and regarding the fact that the link provided in Serbian language does not assert what is written in the information box. --Springpfühler (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I left notes on the talk pages of both User:Springpfühler and User:DavideVeloria88. Each of them is risking a block unless they promise to wait for agreement. Springpfühler's response here is inadequate, since they demonstrate they don't understand the edit warring policy. A block for Springpfühler is the obvious next step unless they promise to wait for agreement on each article's talk page. On each of the disputed articles, they must do this before editing the article again. They have been conducting an edit war that ranges across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The "war" with this user happened just in the Italian language page, surely not in others. I do not want to write what I think myself, I am ready to accept what the majority thinks, no problem. --Springpfühler (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

User:216.194.50.202 reported by User:Kirbanzo (Result: 3 months)[edit]

Page
Bob Dole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
216.194.50.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912452826 by Aranya (talk)"
  2. 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912452755 by Dorsetonian (talk)"
  3. 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912452665 by Kirbanzo (talk)"
  4. 18:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912452558 by 75.169.26.166 (talk)"
  5. 18:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912452460 by 75.169.26.166 (talk)"
  6. 17:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912451812 by Aranya (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bob Dole. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edits are also vandalism on a biography of a living person. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 18:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 months. Tens of revisions redacted. Page semiprotected. El_C 19:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Ythlev reported by User:Wadaad (Result: Both warned)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: 06:21, 14 August 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 10:20, 26 August 2019
  2. 12:42, 26 August 2019
  3. 13:42, 26 August 2019

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:23, 26 August 2019‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:15, 26 August 2019‎

Comments:

Ythlev recently placed a new map on the United Nations wikipedia page that includes a substantial number of various unrecognized states. I restored the page to the previous version as there is no strong support to include unrecognized states on the UN page. It essentially contradicts the whole purpose of the UN (diplomacy and bilateral systems of recognition). I opened up a discussion on the talk page, requested Ythlev to seek consensus first, and gave Ythlev a warning, yet he still continues to edit war. Despite the warning he reverted the page again. I wish that administrators were to look into this case. Wadaad (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The above user reverted my edit first without legitimate reason and also without any support. This is an act of WP:OWNERSHIP. They also violated 3RR first. Ythlev (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Both editors have reverted three times in the last 24 hours. Rather than blocking both for edit-warring, even though neither has violated 3RR yet, I am warning both that any further reverts may result in blocks. You should remain on the article Talk page and hopefully other editors will contribute to the discussion. Wadaad, I strongly advise you to be careful. You were blocked twice last month for edit-warring, the second one for a week, and your attitude regarding the blocks demonstrated virtually no understanding of your behavior. If you are blocked again for edit-warring, it may be indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Chaim89 reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

Page
Adina Sash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Chaim89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912564582 by JesseRafe (talk)"
  2. 13:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 912562095 by JesseRafe (talk)"
  3. 15:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 910673212 by JesseRafe (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Adina Sash. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

You've already been warned to stop adding trivial gripes about your personal unencyclopedic experience and anecdotes, now you are edit-warring. Please stop and review the links on your page about how to contribute meaningfully. JesseRafe (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

By Chaim89: Why shouldn't a politician's own public defamatory statements that were made recklessly and intentionally not be part of a public record? This isn't hearsay or anecdotal; these are statements that are still on Adina Sash's social media pages today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaim89 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Blocked indefinitely for BLP violations and edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Taka tanimura reported by User:WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)[edit]

Page: Hierarchical equations of motion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taka tanimura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 03:19, 22 April 2019‎ (this revert was un-reverted by VPL Strathcona 2 months later in in June 2019)
  2. 07:52, 21 August 2019‎ (this revert was un-reverted by IP address 4 days later on 25 August 2019)
  3. 01:56, 26 August 2019‎ (this revert was un-reverted by IP address within the hour, on 26 August 2019)
  4. 02:05, 26 August 2019‎ (this revert was un-reverted by IP address within the hour, on 26 August 2019)
  5. 12:11, 26 August 2019 (this revert was un-reverted by me 10 hours later, on 26 August 2019)

Comments:

  • Please pardon me as this is my first time learning the concept of a "diff" and the first time using a "noticeboard"!
  • The user "Taka Tanimura" is the inventor of the "Hierarchical Equations of Motion" which is the title of the article.
  • The Talk page of the article shows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hierarchical_equations_of_motion:
  1. On 17 September 2018 there was concern about Taka Tanimura making "conflict-of-interest" edits.
  2. On 9 June 2019, a different user mentioned that he or she removed what they called a "major" conflict-of-interest edit by Taka Tanimura
  3. On 26 August 2019, an IP address noticed conflict-of-interest edits and plead for help, asking the community what we can do about Taka Tanimura's COI edits.
  4. At 02:11, 26 August 2019, after Taka Tanimura already made *four* reverts, he was issued a warning on his talk page, and told to "please stop": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taka_tanimura
  5. At 12:11, 26 August 2019 Taka Tanimura still went ahead and reverted the page again anyway, now for a *fifth* time. His "edit summary" suggests that he has in fact read the previous user's edit summary as well, since he responded to it.
  • Having looked at the other sections in this noticeboard and the outcomes, I see that "indeffed" or "banned indefinitely" is an option, and I think it is what is appropriate here, because a 24 hour warning is not going to be enough. This user is clearly self-righteous and thinks that since he invented the method, he can have 100% control over the article about his method. He keeps removing the contributions of two authors, when in fact he himself (user Taka Tanimura) said in a 2015 publication (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00488?rand=oyatp5gw) that he used the contributions of those authors.
  • Three different users (2 users and 1 IP address) raised concerns about his edits, before I stepped in today (so I am now the 4th user that has had to spend time on this, at least).

WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 18:05, 26 August 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. If the disruption continues a topic ban can be proposed at ANI. – bradv🍁 18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Deacon Vorbis reported by User:Incnis Mrsi (Result: )[edit]

Page: Talk:Duodecimal/Archive 1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61608245&action=history

Comments
Violation of the three-reverts rule. The user has a decent grasp of policy, hence the violation is likely willful. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It was necessary to restore the CSD tag for a maintenance deletion (G6) after cleaning up a mess of an attempt at manual archiving. If you had simply talked to me about it first, none of this would have been necessary. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

G6. Technical deletions
This is for uncontroversial maintenance…

— Wikipedia community, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

Sapienti sat. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Incnis Mrsi: I've deleted the archive you created. It looks to me like the bot is not archiving as it should. However, when you manually archived it, you archived material that was very recent. I suggest you figure out what's wrong with the bot. I also don't see why the Talk page should be archived so infrequently. Once a year is not typical, is it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    No further relief sought here, provided that both the edit warring and the abusive deletion under the (manifestly inapplicable) G6 tag are now recorded into en.Wikipedia archives. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Moreover. The oldest message archived by me was a bot’s posting from March, 2016. More than three-years-old. The oldest human message archived by me was of August 17, 2015—four years old—and was a forum-style thread of a borderline acceptability. The “a mess of an attempt at…” (emphasis mine) innuendo reflects a personal rejection of me and isn’t based of facts, whereas I am not obliged to “talk to” experienced users urging them to abide the policy, such well-known policies as no edit warring and WP:deletion policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, meant “the newest” – mistyped. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Incnis Mrsi: You are correct, and I apologize for misunderstanding the sequence of events. I have restored your original archive and the Talk page after the archival. Deacon Vorbis, do not undo my work. At the same time, I again urge someone to do something about automated archiving for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Bbb23: Why? I set up auto archiving after a messy attempt at manual archiving (which should basically never be done for main space articles unless there's some specific need to sort out specific subtopics from enormous amounts of material). The bot is working fine, but it won't run for the first time until midnight UTC. The one-year time is how old threads have to be before the bot will consider archiving them, not how long the bot looks at the page. And considering that I set minthreads to 10, even older threads will stay because there haven't been 10 in the last year. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I saw that, and you're welcome to restore the auto archiving for the future, but there was nothing wrong with what Mrsi did except they didn't archive enough in my view. There's no reason to keep such old threads, regardless of what you think the minimum should be. I would change it to 90 days and a low enough minimum so that no really old threads stick around. I would do it myself, but I'll make a hash of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Bbb23: I already did set up auto archiving, but you took it back out. Trying to do it manually is wrong, especially when someone is trying to pick and choose which threads to archive. And trying to do it after a manual attempt has been made is just liable to confuse the bot and not get the right headers added, and so forth. Archiving is already enough of a nonstandard mess on Wikipedia that we don't need people trying to start it manually in their own, idiosyncratic way on top of the various common ways of doing so. Please restore it back to the way I had to make sure the bot gets set up correctly. I've made these sort of fixes before and never once had any sort of problem or objection to it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
    Deacon_Vorbis requests restoration of their {{User:MiszaBot/config}} which directed archive = Talk:Hell/Archive %(counter)d literally. What the H⋯ see the diff if don’t trust Incnis_Mrsi’s word ☺ Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:Hadron137 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [27]
  2. [28]
  3. [29]

Second request for comment on user's talk page: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

I am attempting to edit the lede in the article List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft following the guidelines at WP:SALLEAD. The user User:WilliamJE has reverted each of my attempts to do so. I have tried to initiate a dialog on the user's talk page, and also on the article's talk page, but the user has refused to engage (WP:DISCUSSFAIL). Nonetheless, my edits continue to be reverted by the user. Hadron137 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the