Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
The discussion on the fringe epithet was conducted on the talk-page and the consensus was It should be mentioned. Given the username of this account and the content of his userpage, the user is trying to push his/her POV onto the article. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Consensus in the discussion on "fringe" was that it should be removed the late time I looked. Maybe you should recheck the discussion page.Antipsych (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Just read through everyone of Antipsych edits given above. Why oh why penalize a editor for a 3rr when he is being hounded for wanting to improve the article against those who are warping the subject? Aspro (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Outside Question: after reading the link that "Antipsych" gave and noticing that they live in a Tampa/Clearwater suburb, and noting that they said "the cardinal belief of the mental health movement and the psychiatry religion", I have left a polite message asking if they are a scientologist (because AFAIK the only people who refer to psychiatry as a "religion" are scientologists, due to scientology itself seeing the field of psychiatry as a form of retail competition). I remembered seeing years ago a news article on Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia that may be related? Morty C-137 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I really didn't intend to violate any 3rr rule. I thought in the discussion on the use of "fringe" that we'd come to a consensus to take "fringe" out of the introductory paragraph on anti-psychiatry. There was disagreement, and people saying this and that. I was hoping the thing was settled.Antipsych (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Before seeing this report, I blocked this editor for the blatant edit warring and the same behavior that led to an earlier block. MarkSedu92 is likely a sock, but it's probably best to defer to WP:SPI to confirm it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Moved a source relating to Fox News' coverage of the theories to where that coverage is mentioned. Since snark was added while I did this, I've also sourced credible references. They probably need a spot in the article."
User reverted page to a BLP violation (removing the description of widely-rejected conspiracy theories about a recently-deceased person as "debunked" and instead presenting them as possibly true) as their first revert, then after they were reverted, proceeded to revert out reliably-sourced material describing and strengthening the issue. User has made no edits to the article talk page and refused a request to self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
There's a general problem here - the article is under a 1RR restriction AND it is also being discussed off-wiki (reddit plus some other places) where users are encouraging to come here and "fix" the article and edit war on it. This is why in the past 24 hrs or so there's been a big influx of sketchy accounts, most of them sleeper throw away sock puppet accounts, which edit war and there isn't much that established editors can do because they are constrained by the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
That's pretty much what happened here. I can see where the second revert came from. I was shuffling the Fox News source around but when I clicked submit it conflicted with two edits made, and I only noticed the "credible sources" one. This isn't my "POC-warrior" account, the is my account on Wikipedia, but comments on the apparent shittyness of the culture elsewhere have deterred me from making a concentrated effort to contribute, so I wouldn't feel bad about losing the account. I do feel that not explaining the content(or basis) of the conspiracy theories whatsoever in the introduction(which is all most people would read), while also having a standing suggestion to retitle the article to refer to the theories, is nonsensical. My initial edit was to simply remove the "unproven" bit and directly reference the DNC emails in the introduction. I also promise not to touch the political side of Wikipedia again etcetera. ^_^ Daviddodecree (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the sources you supply in this edit do not support the claims you make, and in fact, those claims directly contradict the reliable sources cited in the article — there is no credible evidence of the Rich conspiracy theories and they have been widely debunked by law enforcement agencies and media sources. Julian Assange claiming something is not "evidence." You removed reliably sourced material about those facts because that material disagrees with your worldview of the conspiracy theories. If you revert your edit and discuss the issue on the talk page, I think this can be resolved without a block - I would rather you be educated than punished. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, based on the conversation above I'm making the good-faith assumption that Daviddodecree is agreeing to a self-revert but is unable to actually revert their own edit because the article is now extended-confirmed and they can't edit it for that reason. Thank you, Ed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]
Comments:
At least three editors have posted warnings on his talk page just today about his edit-warring at three different articles; he has removed all warnings from his talk page. Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: As I was posting this, the anon IP was blocked for six months, so this report appears to be obviated. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR—there's only two reverts listed (consecutive edits count as one revert). Also, it's uncertain that the user knows about 3RR and edit warring in the first place, since {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-aw}} were not placed on their talk page. El_C06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to repeat the entire conversation that just took place on my talk page. It is available for anyone to read in its entirety. But I will sum it up -
I have made just as many attempts to improve the article as I have redirects. I failed. So I re-redirected (page was created as a redirect) the song back to the album. Yes, I said that correctly, re-redirected. On the other hand, Serge has not attempted to improve the article at all. We're only here 6 hours later because he doesn't like that fact that on my talk page, I pointed out that he has not attempted to improve the article.
I will, however, acknowledge that after my first revert in five days (which was a redirect) , he sent me a 3rr notice and left an edit summary telling me to stop edit warring. And, yes, I reverted his edit and I very distinctively said "You made the threat. now, follow through." But I also included "by the way - why haven't you attempted to improve the article?"
After that, as I said, we've been talking on my talk page. The last thing said was me instructing him to "Improve the damn article."Kellymoat (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not I have tried to improve the article has no relevance your edit warring. The fact of the matter is, I saw you make the same revert 6 times in the last week, against the will of three separate editors, and as a result, gave you the {{edit war}} warning on your talk page. Your response to this was to give me a "laugh out loud" and then revert 2 more times. All this happened without you starting a single redirect or deletion discussion. That is edit warring, plain and simple. Sergecross73msg me17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I said, this morning was the first re-redirect in 5 days. And the reason for the redirect was the fact that no one improved upon the article. Simply reverting to a previous version isn't an improvement.
Also, to repeat what was said on my talk page (something I said I didn't want to do), a consensus isn't needed. Also, the template inside the redirect states it is already a consensus because the majority of songs fail. This is one of them. I should know, I made improvements to the article and it still failed. You cannot say the same about yourself. You have made zero attempts to improve the article, even after I told you to do so. Kellymoat (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, have you noticed that someone is (right now) making changes to the article instead of simply reverting back to failed versions - and I haven't redirected it. The article you kept trying to use was a failure. Oddly enough, I am the author of the failed version that you kept going back to. I acknowledge that my own edit was a failure. Why is this a problem with you. Kellymoat (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That's the part you can't seem to grasp. They aren't reverting "me". They are attempting to improve a failed article.
Insert brief pause -
Ya know what, Serge, I spent hours with you on my talk page prior to you bringing it here. I am done talking to you. Kellymoat (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, nothing you've saying here is a valid defense anyways. It seems you don't understand how edit warring or what constitutes a revert. Sergecross73msg me18:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User asked for a few extra hours to handle their affairs. El_C03:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Had not seen your discussion on their talk page. That being said...uh, is this sort of treatment customary around here? I've largely spent my past 4 years of issuing edit warring blocks apart from AN3, I've never witnessedgiving a 3RR breaker 20 hours to wrap up what their working on before they get blocked. I don't understand how one reconciles that with blocking policy, specifically blocks being preventative, not punitive. I don't see this sufficiently addressing the issue. He still hasn't started any discussion or stated that he'd change his behavior. And letting him be blocked on his own terms based on the convenience of his schedule hardly sends the message that he needs to stop this behavior. Sergecross73msg me03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Some other admins might have made the same offer. In my opinion, the main purpose of WP:AN3 is to stop edit wars using whatever method is likely to work best. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston - If there was any sort of resolution here, then maybe I could see it. But do you see that here? I still see no understanding that it is unacceptable to redirect an article 9 times, against the wishes of at least 5 editors, because they (Kellymoat) personally feels an AFD is unwarranted. That sort of approach is only acceptable within the bounds of WP:BRD. Their conversation amounts to "Hey, I caught you" and "Yeah, I know, wanna block me tomorrow?" Sergecross73msg me04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't feel there was immediate danger of further edit warring, so I was happy to give the user the day before the block. Blocks are also preventative in so far as that they serve as a deterrent for future edit warring. Due to having a clean block log and being an established user in good standing, I offered the user either 0RR for 72 hours or a 24 hour block. She chose being blocked, but again, I saw no harm in giving her a day to tie up her affairs. El_C06:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
This is actually happening on multiple pages. Other users have also been reverting his edits. We have sent warnings. We have sent a 3rr warning. We have tried pointing him to the talk pages to see the previous consensus on how to handle the sales figures. But now he resorting to say the we have unprofessional opinions. Kellymoat (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It's better not to write about sales at all then to put fake made-up numbers. These sales estimates are all guesswork... Unless you have exact number in terms of shipments from a Record company, it's impossible to know how many copies were sold worldwide. What I'm doing is posting numbers by a record company. The best solution would be to post both, a record company claim and sales according to available certifications. Everything else is just a guesswork. In short, nobody needs our consensus, they need the truth. They need reliable sources. Janet's pages don't have any reliable sources.
Ebony Magazine is hardly more reliable than Virgin Records, BMG or Billboard Magazine. All I'm asking for is to have data accompanied with reliable sources, not anyone's personal and unprofessional opinion. All artists are getting that treatment, so Janet shouldn't be an exception. BojanJJ (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2017 (CET)
Editor has been revert many many times by different editors. With zero attempt to talk to others. Other editors have raised the fact this editor may be sock.....think if this is the case they should open a scokcase. Moxy (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The reported editor has been given many chances to engage in talk page discussion. Their once-a-day revert pattern looks like a clear case of WP:GAME. clpo13(talk)00:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The user El cid, el campeador (ECEC) has made 4 reverts in 3 hours involving 2 different sets of material.
First set of 2 reverts:
ECEC removes the following: 'Political columnist Katie Hopkins was accused of calling for ethnic cleansing of the UK's Muslim population in a tweet after the explosion, asking for a "final solution".'
Comments:
Note the 3RR warning was made after all 5 of the above reverts. I'm not completely sure if ECEC was aware of the 3RR rule. Nevertheless ECEC's response is somewhat uncooperative. I'd take back this report if ECEC apologizes and commits to not violate wp:3RR again. VRtalk 15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The final revert was reverting vandalism. I don't think it makes sense to punish people for that. But I didn't realize this was a rule. There was no bad faith, I was just reaffirming edits I made and other people reverted. It was a current event and edits were moving very fast. I'll apologize for not understanding/following the rules.El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "The consensus reached is readily available for examination on the talk page under the header "Katie Hopkins". Re-open the discussion before arbitrarily overturning it."
20:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted arbitrary deletion of content established as relevant by consensus."
20:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "This has been discussed. Consensus was it stays due to direct relevancy to article subject, and ample sourcing by secondary source material."
14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "This is being reported on by several mainstream media outlets, who link it explicitly to the incident."
12:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "journalist owen jones explicitly referred to it as such - entry is directly relevant and well-sourced"
12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "added huffington post citation: incident is directly relevant to article subject and actively being reported on by numerous mainstream media outlets"
12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "-rv - neither BLP nor OR, directly relevant to article subject, cited by multiple secondary source materials."
This is ridiculous. I warned this user about 3RR and edit warring at 12:38, when s/he had already reverted removals of this material once, twice, three times. Consensus at Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing#Katie_Hopkins is against this material being in, yet Esnertofidel has sailed way, way over 3RR in trying to keep it in. (edit: Mr X has now added these first 3 reverts to the list of 9 - 9!! - reverts above. By the way, the first three reverts had no source for the allegation of Hopkins desiring "ethnic cleansing", which was why I twice removed the claim per BLP but Esnertofidel still reverted me.)BencherliteTalk21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
20:44, 22 May 2017: [45] Synchronist adds their own fringe theory of aliens building a "communication beacon". They cite themselves as the source, citing an email they acknowledge as their own.[46]
21:23, 22 May 2017: [47] Synchronist adds it a second time.
23:50, 22 May 2017: [48] Synchronist adds it a third time.
00:55, 23 May 2017 - 04:54, 23 May 2017: [49] Synchronist is warned that that using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which includes ones own theories, is something that is very much frowned upon. As well as Wikipedia policy only allows 3 reverts per user per article per 24 hours. I have expended all three of mine in that article, so if the content reappears, I won't be able to do anything else about it. Synchronist will later interpret this as "permission to re-post".[50]
05:10, 23 May 2017: [51] Synchronist adds it a fourth time.
13:50, 23 May 2017: [52] Synchronist is aware of, and responds to, the Talk page discussion. Synchronist is now explicitly aware that five people on the talk page are unanimously opposed to the edit. It is explained why the edit is unacceptable, and they are explicitly warning yet again Editing against consensus is disruptive and may lead to being blocked from editing. They are strongly advised to seek support on the talk page before trying to add it again.
17:03, 23 May 2017: [53] Synchronist proceeds to add their own fringe theory of aliens building a "communication beacon" a fifth time, still citing themself as the source.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As cited above, they received multiple notice about edit warring.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Cited above.
Comments:
This page relates to significant breaking news. It has spiked to 13k pageviews per day.
In talk page comments, Synchronist has asserted that "speculation is not at all out of place in this article". They have made it clear that they believe they are entitled to bend "traditional rules governing [this] encyclopedias" because their aliens theory is of such importance and because they are an "expert (if such can be considered to exist in this field) when it comes to the strategies which an alien civilization would employ".
A block is needed to prevent their zeal from resulting in further disruption to an extremely high profile article. Hopefully a clue-block will help them return with an understanding that this encyclopedia is edited in a collaborative manner. Alsee (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. If the user continues to add their own theory to the article (against the advice of the other editors) a longer block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
00:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC) "Ugh, removed the words Quebec seats since there are not 338 Quebec seats in the House of Commons"
23:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "rv removal of the words "Quebec seats" to highlight that the 24 seats shown on the graph are those from Quebec, not all of Canada."
As seen on users talk page many waringa about edit waring and lack of willingness to talk.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Editor is talking at WP:Canada...but just keeps implementing their preferd version.
Comments:
In general we have been having a problem with this editor and reverting all over. ALSO NOTE editor has already been block for this type of problem.....time for a longer block. ...get the point across. Moxy (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The edits to the Bloc Quebecois was a misunderstanding with User:GoodDay, if you go to his talk page you can see he didn't actually realize I was simply reverting back to his own version. The problem has since been resolved. This can easily be seen by going through the edit history of the Bloc article and seeing what content I was actually reverting, I was not in an edit war even though at first it appeared that way, just a misunderstanding. Charles lindberg (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
For what it's worth, I think each of those edits are reasonable on their own. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding the language for most of those and Amberwaves is right in demanding RS for the particular wording that other users keep adding. Amberwaves definitely violates 3RR but that could just be because the user is unaware of the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As an editor involved, I'll state my case. User:Amberwaves asked me and other editors to go on the talk page to reach a consensus on the matter, and the vast majority agreed that the incident should be included in the header. He proceeded to ignore the findings, and begun to revert multiple sentences with extensive citations of it. Whatever the case, we've reached a compromise proposal and are not planning on continuing the conflict. If you want to know more about the incident and what occurred, asked me. That being said, I think that he was showing good faith and personally asked for his behavior not to be punished. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments:
Continuously trying to discuss on talk page. Continuously preemptively removes mention of audio recording even after well sourced including by the NY Times as the editor insisted. | MK17b | (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
You haven't provided any sources that actually say the audio supports Jacobs. Is this the biography of a living person? Or do we get to make stuff up?Amberwaves (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I provided a NYT ref that clearly states that the campaign statement is "at odds with Mr. Jacobs’s recording". | MK17b | (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
16:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "please stop putting junk on my talk page...and stop suppressing sourced, in-the-news, and sky-blue information because you "don't like"...and stop the neurotic edit-warring...."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
This editor Daniel keeps harassing my talk page, and pasting the same thing on it that I keep removing. He's being a meat-puppet for the other editor MrX. So the blunt words in this context are arguably warranted. He's WAY out of line, and a clear trouble-maker and edit-warrior and a clear liar. MrX said I "plastered the article with ISIL" stuff, when I never said the word "ISIL" anywhere in the article, nor did I even actually edit the article much at all, in general. I simply restored his suppressive removal of "Islamic terrorism in Europe" link from the info box. He seems to think that this thing in Manchester is not proven to be "Islamic terrorism" or something, and is "not sourced", even though it's very sourced, in all of the press, left, right, and center. And then this Danielowellby person (not sure if he's a sock puppet or meat puppet for MrX, but he's definitely out of order and is some kind of tag-team editor-warrior, and harassing my talk page nonstop, with rude nonsense), keeps doing this too. Daniel says I was doing an "unconstructive edit" but never explained just how. So what exactly was an "unconstructive edit"? My restoring an unwarranted and unreasonable removal of sourced and sky-blue information, that the other editor kept doing? Please don't put impertinent meat-puppet junk on my talk page. This editor, MrX, is clearly violating Wikipedia policy against "I don't like" by suppressing copiously sourced and well-known and well-established (and sky-blue) information. With edit-warring, and also harassing my Talk page. Also, I never said "ISIL" anywhere, so that's a lie or sloppy misrepresentation...but simply restored his removal of the "Islamic terrorism in Europe" link in the info box. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The user has been repeatedly adding/reverting a paragraph sourced only to twitter and containing WP:OR, in the wrong place in this BLP article. Whilst I don't think there's a technical version of 3RR, this has been going on for some time and has been reverted by several users. I picked up on it when I removed the text as part of a copyedit/rewrite.
Another IP user (who may or may not be the same individual) have also inserted the same text, sometimes sourced to twitter, sometimes not. This should be evident from the revision history of the page.
This has been discussed on my talk page since my initial revert. I have not checked whether any discussion occurred on other users talk pages.
Note: Whilst I have been preparing the report, the user has added additional references and repositioned the information in the article, but the twitter source and the WP:OR still remains. I am not taking any further action because I am probably already at 3RR removing the text when it was improperly sourced. If someone can remove the WP:OR and the twitter source, that would clear this up.
Edit to add User has now source the comments to a local paper (The Sheffield Star) thinking it was the national Daily Star. I can't prove it, of course, but knowing that local paper well I suspect they got their material from the user's original research on wikipedia. Disengaging from this now, as at least the edit meets our rules. Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Still a reputable newspaper and repytable quote, You also dont deny that and of this occured and for whatever reason seem hell bent on having it removed purely on the basis that the club you support has signed the player , You say you cant prove something then dont dispute it! your whole argument here is about accuracy of source reference then you make presumption based of your own opinon of source quote 'I cant prove it' Anyway you agree now the edit is in line with rules i hope thats the end of the matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DA51:5B00:44E6:D1B6:99E5:E096 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As said, I'm happier with the state of the article now, given the caveats I stated above. This report remains to deal with the behaviour leading up to this point. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping revert warrior. Even if we assume this material is adequately sourced, it still needs consensus to include. If Ihiekwe's remark ("that goal will kill Lincoln") was really so inspiring to the other team, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the press by people covering the other team? EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
No violation. This report lacks crucial detail, like name of the user in question(!)—I presume it's 73.79.85.211—almost all the fields in this report are blank. Anyway, you need four reverts to violate 3RR. If fake content is being added, please work to prove that this is so. El_C08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
This user is using various IP adresses in france, and supposedly is @Strot: and maybe also @Vonbergh:. There clearly is a WP:COI, as the sole interest is to advertise the just-out 2017 publications by Steffen Roth with 0 citations on Google Scholar. [101]
By now, @80.12.33.47: seems to have begun nonsense reverting random cleanups I did: [102]. This destructive and childish "payback" behavior needs to be stopped. Maybe also an attempt to "cover his tracks", and make it less obvious that he is only interested in re-instantiating his uncited 2017 publication. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The point remains that most listed fac members do meet wiki notability criteria (e.g. criterium 6, academic context) and therefore must not be deleted. Moreover, there is no link to the supposedly ad campaigns supposedly performed by one of the fac members in this concrete article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.33.47 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
HelpUsStopSpam is engaging in way too comfortable arm-chair reversions of other peoples' work; which is not a problem if the amendments were explicitly justified ... which, however, is not the case at all. All we see (just do check the contrib history of HelpUsStopSpam yourselves) is an arrogant attitude of constant devaluation of other peoples' input without any justification in, at least, half of the cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.33.47 (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
This IP user is still doing vandalism. E.g. reverting my revert of likely-unrelated vandalism on an unrelated article: [103], before again reinstantiating inappropriate citations for Dr. Steffen Roth, by the same IP range 80.12.39.177(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). It is a problem that he does this childish "you reverted me, so I will revert something of you, too" game. But Orange France is a pretty large network, 80.12.36.0/22..., and we can't just semi-protect all articles. It would be better if we could snap him out of it. On the major articles like that his vandalism gets reverted quickly, but on the more obscure stuff like Cliodynamics, his self-citations tend to stick much longer. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The user is repeatedly adding material containing WP:Synth and WP:OR, as well a sentence sourced to youtube and non-notable trivia about Twitter comments. The user has re-inserted the same material 4 times within one 27 hour period (between 20:31, 25 May 2017 and 23:10, 26 May 2017 ) with no explanation and the user has deleted my attempt to discuss his/her edits on their talkpage and direct them to the article talkpage, and has reverted edits with an edit summary claiming vandalism. Although the 4 reverts occurred within a 27 hour period, rather than a 24 hour period, it would clearly be helpful to have an administrator intervene in our editwarring and moderate this.
Diffs of the user's reverts (in reverse order)
[104] reversion of my removal of WP:OR, SYNTH and trivia
The issue first started when Kb.au (talk·contribs) updated the logo to the two separate logos in this edit [115], there has been some back and forth in the edit summaries. I restored Kb.au's version twice with the second one linking to the talk page by trying to move the discussion there (by this point Thejoebloggsblog's had already reverted three times and I warned on their talk page about edit warring and wrote an additional comment about discussing before reverting), the fourth revert within three hours came with the edit summary "Reasoning in Talk page" (reverting without waiting for a response). This has been a long term issue with Thejoebloggsblog where nearly nothing can be changed on the Port Adelaide Football Club page without the user restoring it to their preferred version. I do acknowledge that this user does do some good work on Wikipedia, but this persistent behaviour is difficult as I am concerned there are WP:OWN issues with this page in particular and it becomes nearly impossible to edit the page without the user's approval first. Flickerd (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Thejoebloggsblog: And you have thanked me on multiple occasions for edits too. There are few editors in WP:AFL and just because I am someone who is actively trying to improve the project (differences in opinions does not always need to lead to edit conflicts) does not mean I am on a one person attack against you, and I acknowledged you do good work on here. I have disagreed with people on multiple occasions in the project and have actually discussed things to reach a consensus, I don't just persistently revert it to the way I want it. Flickerd (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Flickerd:For what it is worth in regards to the edit in question I initially did the proposed edit over a year ago but decided on the current logo as it is what was being used by the club on Facebook, Google+ and Twitter at the time. The two logos were clumsy and as they lacked a black background differed from the format used in all the PAFC's media.Thejoebloggsblog (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
11:24, 27 May 2017 "Discussion: Changed rating to "generally positve critical reception". Why "mixed" before? Positive metascore (and Wikipedia tends to grade accordingly), two Reviews in 2star-range, a lot of three stars and some 4-stars. Then a year-end NME-accolade."
11:37, 27 May 2017 "Reverted good faith edits by Autorefiller: That's what "mixed" means - average, so-so, some good some bad. 62 out 100 is failing in school. 3 out of 5 is neither good nor bad. 4 out of 10 is less than half."
11:48, 27 May 2017 "Thank you for a "good faith"-edit. Still, your argument seems subjective. Firstly, 62/100 is not failing in a lot of school Systems. Secondly, one of the sources is the biggest musicaggregator-website featuring positive as a predicate for the album."
12:32, 27 May 2017 "Reverted 1 edit by Autorefiller (talk) to last revision by Kellymoat."
12:45, 27 May 2017 "Undid revision 782519919 by Kellymoat (talk) Please provide arguments then if you edit. 2,5/5 would be average, 3/5 thus slightly above average. 62/100 on metacritc = further source for positive."
12:49, 27 May 2017 "Reverted 1 edit by Autorefiller (talk): Edit summaries are not where you have discussions."
13:09, 27 May 2017 "Undid revision 782521551 by Kellymoat (talk) Noted. Then I will refrain from backing up the reasoning behind the edits here."
14:08, 27 May 2017 "Reverted 1 edit by 2003:80:E44:DC78:501F:32F4:4A14:A088 (talk) to last revision by Kellymoat."
14:26, 27 May 2017 "Undid revision 782529493 by Kellymoat (talk) Reverted to former version. FMI, see "talk"-section."
Dear Everyone,
Recently the subject of the correct application of either the term "mixed" or "positive" concerning this album has surfaced. I will hereby make the case that the album should be classified as "generally positive" as this is founded on more sources than the application of "mixed". So far, having 10 sourced individual review-scores on wikipedia, the album features five reviews giving it 3/5 stars, one giving it 4.5/10, one giving it 2/5 stars, two giving it 4/5 stars and one giving it a B+. The album also features a metascore of 62/100, indicating "generally favorable" reviews in terms of the site´s duct.
1. The first argument against the term "mixed" is that reading 3/5 as "mixed" or "average" is not right in terms of definition. The term is equivalent to median in statistics, and in colloquial language, an average is the sum of a list of numbers divided by the number of numbers in the list, as wikipedia itself states. On a 5-star review-scale thus an average would be 2,5/5, not 3/5. 3/5 can thus be colloquially and statistically be read as "slightly above average" in terms of definition which counters the term "mixed" in a sense of "average".
2. "Mixed" could denote a discrepancy of some sort between the reviews, p.e. a certain number of reviews in 5-star-range and a certain number in 1-star-range. So far, five reviews were in 3-star range, three in 4-star range, two in 2-star-range. A drastic discrepancy can thus not be noted since half of the reviews feature the same score and the other reviews cancel each other out to about a level of the other revviews. Thus, if all reviews were charged against each other, counting B+ as 4-stars and 4,5 as 2-stars, the equasion would be 3x5 + 3x4 + 2x2= 31. 31 divided by the ten review-items would then equal 3.1 which is clearly above the 2,5-average provided before. Again, "mixed" cannot be applied.
3. Thirdly, metacritic, which serves as an aggregator for reviews and (on wikipedia) is listed above all individual reviews to put a generalized idea of critics´ response to an album into focus, calculates a score of 62/100 for the album based on 23 reviews. This means "generally favorable" in the website´s terms and thus a "positive" reception in colloquial terms. This "generally favorable" is sourced and can thus not be excluded from the reception-process of the album, driving home the point that the album is in fact "positively" reviewed, not "mixed".
Hello to everyone,
As you may see from my editing-style, I´m fairly inexperienced with editing complexer topics on Wikipedia. I did not intend to edit complex topics, either. However, today I have stumbled about the review-section in the article for WALLS which struck me as odd with the predicate "mixed reviews" as the metascore and my personal, definitory understanding of the predicate "mixed" indicate otherwise. I have thus edited the article multiple times as it was in turn reverted by the the other user mentioned in this article. I was not aware of edit-warring at this point, but I was reported by another user for it and this fair. Still, I would very much like this issue to be resolved as I laid out my case plain and comprehensible in the talk-section of the article, yet never received an answer by any other user there. The user Kellymoat was kind enough to both inform me that my first edit was noted for "good faith" and that I should use the talk-page for discussing the topic, yet still, even though I laid out every reasoning behind my edits in the edit-summaries and started a topic on the talk-page to make the matter open for discussion, no other reaction than still reverting my edits without argumentation was the result. I would thus ask for a resolution of this matter and I stand behind the points made in the talk-section of the WALLS-article which is why I would kindly ask the community to check into the matter.
Thank you for reading, Autorefiller (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Autorefiller
You've used two IPs and an account in the process. And while admitting to not knowing what you are doing, you've ignored valid reasons for being reverted and continued to attempt your edit.
You see, these valid reasons you claim are just not there. I´ve edited once, then you good-faith edited me and backed it up by the higly subjective "school-failing"-reasoning and that 3/5 is deemed absolute average in your understanding. I then edited again, laid out my reasoning in the summary. You then told me in the summary that the summaries are not where this should be discussed, notably you did this WITHOUT any reasoning, you did not bother with even a short insight into your edit. I then edited again, but followed your advice and created a whole talk-topic which you did not even bother to discuss since you in turn just edited again. Furthermore, I´ve read in hindsight that users should be informed when they are in danger of violating the 3RR. You did not inform me, I did not inform you, we both violated that. Since you are a veteran-editor, I do think that an information on your part could have been in the range of possibilities. To clarify: Yes, I´ve used two IPs, unknowingly, only because I was away form the desktop once and forgot to log in. The time-stamps clearly show that there was no ill intention or deceitful intent as I still replied in person and that I still violated 3RR any way, so the whole reasoning behind me using a second IP would be naught. Concerning your last argument, that I "clearly know enough": At this point, I did not know about edit-warring, I only reacted with the "warning" and this post after the events. I don´t know why I should be faulted for informing myself of the procedure once I got notified of my behavior being perceived as edit-warring.
Well, this is exactly what I was talking about when I said things were unresolved and not handled well a week ago. Kelly wasn't properly admonished, and the disruption has persisted. Sergecross73msg me03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit warring - repetitively adding promotional links in violation of EXT and 3RR, continuing after two final warnings. — kashmiriTALK13:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Rjensen has attempted to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132]
Comments:
Morty has been warned for edit warring previously: [133]
In the discussion prompted by Rjensen, Morty has been accused of breaching WP:CIV. There also appears to be a failure of good faith on Morty's part. Cjhard (talk) 23:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like User:Rjensen is trying his best to deal with a new editor that is not familiar with our RS policies. --Moxy (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
my basic complaint is that Morty c-137 made an OR statement about the topic of the article (UDC) and put it in the lede. He stated "In its early incarnations the group was closely associated with the white supremacy movement and white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan" That is false history--did not happen--and is not supported by any RS. He is confused about the history of the KKK and says he is talking about the 2nd kkk, which was founded in 1915--20 years after the UDC--and which is not linked to the KKK by his sources. Worse, he attacked me personally, suggesting I have some sort of "attachment" to the kkk which is totally false. (I was a PhD student of the leading scholar on the era, C. Vann Woodward, who was a champion of civil rights.) He refused to withdraw the calumny. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Warned. You need four reverts to violate 3RR—each user made three reverts. Morty c-137 warned for personal attacks. El_C11:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
The above IP editors, which I would assume that it's safe to say are one and the same person, are determined to add ratings tables to articles of multiple television series; it is not standard practice to add such templates to articles with too many episodes, as it becomes cluttered and more detrimental than beneficial. They have been reverted by multiple editors, including MPFitz1968, Favre1fan93 and Ebyabe, and yet the IP editor continues to revert without reason. I began a discussion on the talk page of their first IP 86.209, and they replied once, but since they, they've refused to continue the discussion with any further replies, deciding it best to continue reverting. -- AlexTW07:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not attempted as this is an edit warring only IP account previously blocked for the same conduct: they wouldn't notice the talk page discussion, or engage with it. The editor has made no attempt to discuss the matter.
Comments:
This account has been blocked repeatedly this year for block evasion and disruptive editing. This edit warring commenced shortly after a 1 month block for 'Persistent addition of unsourced content' expired, and is a continuation of this conduct. I'd suggest that a lengthy block is in order to prevent this disruption from re-emerging. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
06:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782590570 by 91.148.91.31 (talk) "Equipment of the Serbian Army" Including: Ground forces,Air forces-Air Defence,and River Flotilla vessels,do you understand."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit-warrior gaming the system by first reverting repeatedly on multiple articles for two days, then after being given a 3RR-warning waiting 24 hours before starting again, as if waiting 24 hours meant they were free to continue their disruptive behaviour... - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Just observing here: the user with the IP 91.148.91.31 is an Arbcom-blocked sockpuppet and long-term abuser. Evandro321 does not appear to be the same user, although they have been edit-warring and (I think innocently, at least w/r/t sockpuppetry) restoring some of the LTA's edits. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Page protected – Five days. There is a difference of opinion on what the facts are, so all parties ought to be participating on the talk page. I don't want to block User:Evandro321 for reverting an IP believed to be a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:@Ivanvector: The IP's removal of content was correct, whether they were a sock or not, since Evandro321 repeatedly added Serbian Air Force equipment (a long list of aircraft) on an article about Equipment of the Serbian Army, obviously not even knowing the difference between an army and an air force, in spite of first the IP's attempts and then my attempts to make them understand. So Evandro321 wasn't reverting the IP, it was the other way around, the IP was reverting Evandro321's repeated addition of totally irrelevant material to the article (this is the edit that started the edit war, Evandro321 adding totally irrelevant materiel). Evandro321 also added similarly irrelevant air force materiel on articles about the armies of other countries, so it wsn't just this article. - Tom | Thomas.W talk18:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 days The nominator has reported an editor who has repeated the same edit four times, with a maximum of three times in any 24 hours. The nominator has repeated the same edit six times, including four times within 24 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
23:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782889340 by Nickag989 (talk) This is a special case because "Lexi" is not part of her common name, and isn't annotated anywhere else in the article."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Editor keeps reverting to the version which includes her nickname "Lexi" with a source provided by ohio.com. However even that source is aware that "Lexi" is just a shortened name for Alexa. Nickag989talk08:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
This user is ignorantly making disruptive edits to Challenge season articles that suit his/her liking, particularly the five aforementioned articles. Apparently, this mobile user, along with 68.190.153.14, might be a sock puppet of Realitytvshow, who has previously and repeatedly been warned and blocked for his/her disruptive editing. DPH1110 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)DPH1110
Comment: I think the accused doesnt even know about 3RR (he openly confessed about COI; ignorance). The reverts were of PROD tag. I have nominated the article for deletion (AfD). —usernamekiran(talk)12:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
09:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC) - Undid revision 783131438 by AussieLegend (talk) The past few seasons pages were all created and allowed to stand with the same or less information. And it is not unsourced.
Comments:
This report is about edit-warring, not a specific 3RR violation. South Park (season 21) was created yesterday. However, this is inconsistent with MOS:TV, particularly WP:TVUPCOMING which says when a TV series is renewed for an additional season, a section is not to be added for that upcoming season until such time as an episode table can be created for the season. The information regarding the renewal of the series should be added to the "List of episodes" article's lead and we do not create season articles until there is substantial content that justifies creation of a season article. Accordingly, I redirected the article to List of South Park episodes,[171] as is standard practice. However, both Pokelova and SanAnMan have been edit-warring since then, restoring content despite all arguments explaining the position of MOS:TV. When I discovered this I warned both editors and attempted to engage them on their talk pages, hoping to head off more edit-warring,[172] to no avail. Pokelova's last revert was somewhat deceptive. While it was ostensibly a revert of this edit, it was actually a revert of both that edit and this one,[173] where I added {{citation needed}} to an unsourced statement. Note that, while SanAnMan has also been reverting at this article, I have only reported Pokelova as he chose to revert an hour after receiving a warning, and after discussion on his talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Since my name is being dragged through the mud on this discussion, I'm going to put my commentary in as well. Obviously, there is a major disagreement between four editors as to whether or not the citations and references listed meet MOS:TV and WP:TVUPCOMING. In previous seasons, the mere press release of the season from South Park Studios is sufficient enough for the creation of the article, as it also lists the date of the first episode, which allows for the creation of the episode table. In this case however, the press release actually lists all the dates and episode codes of all of the upcoming episodes, so this is what was used. I have copied all these details to the talk page of the actual article in question (something that neither Aussie nor Favre1fan93 did), and while I agree there may need to be administrator intervention at this point, I support Pokelova's edits and attempts to keep a cited, sourced, and referenced article. Aussie and Favre have also argued that the lack of any detail other than episode dates and codes is insufficient to create a table per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but that is not at all stated in that guideline. In my opinion, the cites, sources, and episode table (which is also sourced) is more than enough information to meet the TVUPCOMING guidelines, and thus, the MOS:TV guidelines. - SanAnMan (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this into a content dispute but, as someone who has been editing TV articles for 10 years and as someone who has had a hand in re-writing MOS:TV I can tell you that the article does not meet the requirements of MOS:TV. Nor is the fact that other articles have been non-compliant relevant. That falls under other stuff exists. Regardless, it is no excuse for edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
And that's why I stopped editing and took it to talk pages, specifically, the talk page of the article in question. Again, we have an obvious disagreement on content here which is bleeding over into edit-warring on all parts. To be honest, Favre1fan93 is just as guilty on this edit-war. I'll freely admit I lost count of my edits, mea culpa. But the main issue here really isn't edit-warring, it is content dispute. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, I removed the {{citation needed}} because the sources given on the paragraph below covers that. Once again it seems like you don't take the time to look into anything before taking action. Also argument from authority ain't cute. That's all I have to say on this matter, I have no defense of my edit warring.--Pokelova (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
And that's why I stopped editing and took it to talk pages - Ahem, I warned you,[174] you made un unsupportable allegation about me,[175] and then immediately went back to edit-warring, adding the unsourced episode table.[176]
To clarify, I removed the {{citation needed}} because the sources given on the paragraph below covers that. - WP:V is clear "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." A citation elsewhere in the article is not sufficient. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It is increasingly clear you do not want to discuss this in a civil manner. I've tried being civil here, even admitting where I've made mistakes. You just seem to want to point out mistakes. We'll let the admins handle it at this point. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd hardly call it "elsewhere in the article", it's literally right there in the lead. And once again, if you had done the slightest bit of looking around, you could have fixed the issue accordingly. Instead you choose the path of least effort. If you're so experienced, I shouldn't have to point the source out to you when it's an inch away.--Pokelova (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Page protected – Indef. I'm leaving the redirect protected until there is a talk page consensus one way or the other. If agreement is reached to have a separate article on Season 21 of the show, ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
23:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "Re-worded the main top part. The series is known as Senora Acero including now with the new subtitle. I decided to note the subtitle change at the end to make it less confusing."
04:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "The series origin name is still known as Senora Acero, the La Coyote subtitle has been used in recent by Telemundo just for promotional material. There has not been any word on the full change"
03:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "The series origin name is still known as Senora Acero, the La Coyote subtitle has been used in recent by Telemundo just for promotional material."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
The user does not respond to the messages on his discussion page. He does not provide references and only prefers to go to war editions, I have clearly given him my reasons and he simply does not care. The series is known as "Señora Acero: La Coyote" for the three and fourth season per Telemundo pages and series trailer. Philip J Fry (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Warned. User may have had a lot of messages on their talk page, but it's always useful that at least one of these would be {{uw-3rr}}, so that we're sure they know 3RR is a thing. El_C07:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The user is constant removing sourced content while He does not provide references and only prefers edit warring which is disruptive and clear vandalism ( and he has history of edit warring multiple different pages) , I have warned him, and he is still edit waring , plus he reverted corrected population figure per cited web this is out of hand i will also request page protection and doing what ever possible for his disturbive editing Somajeeste (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment:
You have deleted 2 discussion which i have left on your talk page you have also lied about your source stating that "Garowe is one of somalia's largest cities" when infact its a small town, reporting someone for simply not being able to answer or provide reliable source is mediocre. You have also failed to answer the same cities in Garoowe talk page discussion. After many attempts you still continue to revert and re edit while your source says no such thing. Ciiseciise007 (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
there is talk page for the article, no need to vandal my wall, plus saying is small town is clearly showing your POV behavior when in fact is big city and it sourced through talk page '"Garowe is a growing and its rate of growth is the highest one comparing to the other Puntland, Somalia and Somaliland cities like Bosaso, K/kacyo, Qardho, Hargeysa and Moqdisho.'", the sourced content is talking about one of the (highest growing cities in the region) and calling it "small town" with out ref is clearly biased POV, plus admin note that this article was stable more than a year, I'm hoping the honorable admin will do something about it. Somajeeste (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
i have left you 2 warnings in your talk page which you have deleted both to hide the fact that I actually gave you a warning, also if im vandalisng your page with warnings as you say why are you doing the same to my page.?? You have also failed to answer the questions in Garoowe talk page under "city" discussion. I have also noticed from your contributions you have a history of constant edit wars and constantly reporting people after failing to address their questions. Either way back up your claims or dont lie about sources. Ciiseciise007 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Both editors blocked. 24 hours block to Ciiseciise007; one week block to Somajeeste. El_C07:20, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Doesn't understand warnings. Page is already at AfD but keeps redirecting it anyway. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me10:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC) "/* Video games */ The whole page is mostly written in British spelling and it certainly shouldn't be written in two languages. And the language here is 'English', not 'American English'."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I came to the page in a Pending review. The article states American English. User insists on change even after other users have stated otherwise. Reb1981 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
When I saw the notification, I thought I did something wrong. I stopped after 3 reverts because I didn't want to get caught up in 3RR. Also, I left the IP a note on their talk page about what it said on the article talk page, stating that the article should be in correct English. Gatemansgc (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected indef. Since its creation this article has been protected 18 times (edit warring, copyright, bad sources or other disruption) so we seem to have a long-term problem. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
user has removed deletion template three times. the article has unreliable sources (one of those is website created by himself) Sulaimandaud (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
16:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC) "Replaced "alleged" as I will continue to do every single day unless and until he is proven guilty in a court of law, or until I am unfairly banned from doing so."
17:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "I once again added "alleged" before "misdemeanor assault." I am not joking when I say that I will do this at least once a day for months if necessary, unless and until Gianforte is proven guilty in a court of law."
17:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Replaced "alleged" as I will continue to do unless and until he is proven guilty in a court of law."
Editor, per their own admission ("I once again added "alleged" before "misdemeanor assault." I am not joking when I say that I will do this at least once a day for months if necessary, unless and until Gianforte is proven guilty in a court of law."), insists on edit warring and there is a 1 revert rule in effect on this page. Editor has not chimed in on a talk page discussion about their edits and has not responded to a warning on their talk page yesterday that what they are doing unambiguously constitutes edit warring. No attempts made to build consensus, but obviously not here to build an encyclopedia but insists on bullying their own POV through. JesseRafe (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]
Comments:
Attempts to resolve dispute on talk page? Hmmm. He put something on my talk page, I answered and nothing else. Another editor even chastised him on my talk page. I looked at his last diff listed here... it was not a revert. It was moving a section to a more logical place in the article... above the career stats but below the tennis records. Sort of like Billie Jean King's article. I mentioned to him on my talk page that one was not a revert but a re-write... keeping some bits but not others. After those two errors, sorry but I didn't even look at the rest of the diffs. As for his wanting to include a single statement from 47 years ago, this is a bio of a living person. We have to be very careful of adding derogatory items, plus it was taken out of context as Court was comparing it to the U.S. race relations which she felt was worse. We also have to be careful about undue weight. She has an article on wikipedia because she is probably one of the 5 greatest female tennis players... not because she is a Christian minister. We make sure readers know her stances but piling on tabloid style is not our way here. We are not a newspaper or magazine. ––––– I have nothing bad to say about this editor... he hasn't been rude to me (though this ANI was out of the blue). But he did bully his statement in anyway right here, after being told not to and that it is out of context on a bio of a living person. Just because he put in the last written passage on the talk page on the subject 24 hours ago. You'll note no one agreed with him, but I was afraid to remove it this time because of this ANI. He's not working and playing well with others. These things tend to come out of the woodwork when some notable person says something derogatory. This tennis article should look more like Serena Williams... there's plenty of work that needs to be done to help out the tennis aspect. You'll notice none of that gets added by this user. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
00:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783071304 by Prioryman (talk) hidden comments aid only editors, citations aid readers. who do you imagine the article is for? no evidence in history that "people keep deleting it""
23:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "a shouty hidden comment is not an adequate substitute for citations, and lead sections are not exempt from the verifiability policy. see WP:LEADCITE"
22:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 783066036 by Prioryman (talk) i didn't ignore anything. why would you restore a misleading image and a hidden comment that serves no possible purpose?"
22:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC) "shouty hidden comment is not an adequate substitute for a citation to a reliable source"
Interesting how the two users removing citations for no reason are not reported, and nor is my talk page post linked to. Well if you want to ensure that the lead contains unverifiable information so much, probably you should just go ahead. And you should change the text of the verifiability policy so that people don't waste their time as I have done trying to make articles comply with it. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway forget it, the efforts of these three to undermine the verifiability policy so pointlessly has entirely disillusioned me. I am out of here and you can keep your article in whichever crappy state you like. 109.180.164.43 (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I stopped at revert 3. I tried to get user to take to talk page via different ways. He finally did comply, but still insisted on revert. Reb1981 (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you can report multiple editors, so I've added Reb1981.
There is clear edit-warring going on here, also some unacceptable behaviour. Even Prioryman's edits are getting too near to repeat edit-warring (if it ain't working, just doing it again won't make it stick any better). I'm inclined to ignore the whole lot, as there's no point in blocking an IP. However Talk: needs a firm hand with the clueiron. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Page protected – 5 days. At first glance the IP's concern about verifiability seems to be misunderstanding of WP:LEAD and the standards for placing citations. See WP:LEAD#Citations: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." There is also a dispute about the hidden comment. I'm not aware of any consensus on whether to use hidden HTML comments, so there is no substitute for having a discussion on that and waiting for a result. User:Andy Dingley has set up a well-organized format on the talk page for resolving this (See 'Issues' in this section} and I hope others will join in that effort. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
20:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "The request has been made on talk page. You're the one changing the entire page's focus to an ancient city when the page even before my edits was clearly in reference to the modern city (e.g.: section on economy, modern educational institutions etc)."
19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC) "No change in meeting has been made at all by removing bolded words. You must obtain consensus to revert back to a poorly written leadz"
Willard84 has steadily been changing Taxila, known as an ancient "city" and a UNESCO world heritage site to be about the minor modern town (which he calls a city) of the same name. The primary topic for this article is the ancient city as I've tried to outline on the talk page. I'd reverted the lead and the primary infobox on the page to how it was prior to his many edits (many of which, I must add, improve the page) and asked him to obtain consensus first as per WP:BRD. He has however reverted my revert and has now spun off the primary topic of the article into a separate article at Ruins at Taxila. I'm pretty sure that I've not handled this very well either and my understanding of these procedures is vague, but here we are. I would like the lead and infobox to primarily be about the ancient city (as it was originally) as he makes the case for the modern town to be the primary topic for this article before he relegates the ancient city to a separate article. Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 20:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but why exactly would I be considered the disruptive user here? The user Cpt.a.haddock only began his drastic reversions and objections once I simply changed words that he had bolded in the lead paragraph back to italicized letters as I had originally written them as. Had he some deep seated objection to it, he would have reverted the page at that time rather than simply bolding the words. You can see his edit here:
Please keep in mind that he did not simply revert a single edit, but literally dozens of good faith edits. Dozens. This is after he tacitly approved of them by making the small tweak of bolding two words (incorrectly I believe) which I had originally italicized. He did not revert back to his own edit, he reverted back dozens and dozens of edits. Most of which were not even controversial.
1) If you'll also notice, the page that he asserts was solely in reference to some ancient city also had included sections on modern amenities like educational institutions, and the local economy. The page he is complaining about is not Ancient Taxila, it is Taxila. I created the Ancient Taxila page for disambiguation. I think this should have solved the problem.
2) Before I made any substantial edits to this page, you can see here that the very first sentence on the page said:
"Taxila... is a town and an important archaeological site in the Rawalpindi District of the Punjab, Pakistan, situated about 32 km (20 mi) north-west of Islamabad and Rawalpindi, just off the famous Grand Trunk Road. The town lies 549 metres (1,801 ft) above sea level. It is the headquarters of the Taxila Tehsil in the Rawalpindi district."
Cpt.a.haddock's assertion that this was a page in reference to only an ancient city is clearly wrong. You can see that it is referred to as "town" and as "headquarters" of the modern Taxila Tehsil. This means that the page is in reference also to the modern city of Taxila.
In the edit section of the Taxila page, he made a point that the modern settlement is "minor," which is baffling as it is actually quite a decent sized town (or 'city') that features an outpost of one of Pakistan's most prestigious educational institutions, and one of the Pakistani militaries most significant armament factories. Even a glance on Google Earth would show that the city is not some small minor town. But as noted above, the article was indeed in reference to the modern city as well.
3) After dozens of edits I made, he then decided that he would revert the page back to a poorly worded lead paragraph. Shouldnt the burden of consensus be on the one who wants to removed better worded, and better sourced information? It should once again be reiterated that Cpt.a.haddock himself began drastically opposing these changes after I removed the bolded font on words which he insisted on placing in the lead paragraph. It seems the underlying issue is that I did not believe an ancient name needs to be displayed so prominently on a page, which is why I pointed out that Tokyo, London, New York City dont all have Edo, Londinium, or New Amsterdam bolded so prominently in the lead paragraph before he decided to escalate this complaint.
Also, I already made an Ancient Taxila page as a disambiguation, so the problem should already be solved. I even used the search feature to find links in Wikipedia that are in reference to ancient Taxila, rather than the modern city, and linked them to the Ruins at Taxila page to avoid ambiguity. Though even after making this new page, use Cpt.a.haddock undid some of those edits. Willard84 (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I am not interested in the content dispute—I am interested in the edit war crossing the 3RR line. El_C02:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]
Comments:
Regardless of huge consensus against his edits and at least 4 editors reverting his edits, he believes that everyone needs to agree with him in order to gain consensus, which is clear violation of WP:OWN. He has been making minimum efforts on talk page to describe his edits,[198][199] and sometimes resorting to personal attacks.[200][201] Though he received a few blocks for edit warring last year, he also got away from blocks for edit warring on Pamela Geller] on November, even after making 6 reverts.[202][203][204][205][206][207]OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
This is a 1RR violation. Two reverts on clearly I/P on 2 June. He was asked by me to self revert on his talk, per 1rr, to which he declined by deleting the request on his talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
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. However, you've made a decent case for this being long-term edit warring. I'm uncomfortable either blocking or saying "nothing wrong here" by myself, so I think it best if you move this report to WP:ANI for discussion. Be sure to take along the diffs, not just the comments. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I would like to know if anyone will do anything about it?. The user is not only using their main account to generate dispute, also uses ips, as can be seen here and here.--Philip J FryTalk04:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User is edit warring and although they've come to my talkpage[211] they've made no effort to discuss on the talkpage despite being told 4 times to do so, I'd given them 10 minutes to self rv and they chose not too so here we are, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk16:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]. I also requested discussion here, on the user's own talk page.
Comments:
Despite two editors reverting him, myself and User:TropicAces, the user is edit-warring by making similar edits that are WP:SYNTH analysis written in a magazine-y, non-encyclopedic WP:TONE with POV and WP:PUFFERY. He also appears to be behaving defiantly, judging from his edit summaries and his disinclination to discuss. -- Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
19:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Somaliland doesn't control the city. The Dhulbahante clan are the majority of the city and are not a secessionist. The city as well as the rest of Khatumo State just celebrated Sanitation Day on May 18. Stop dividing"
19:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "It is not part of the self declared region of Somaliland. And Somaliland is not its own entity anyway, so the location of the city is incorrect."
16:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "Changex the location of the city. Las Anod even though is a disputed city and its surrounding area between Somaliland and Puntland it has it's own administration under Khatumo State."
12:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC) "The city is a disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland. Even though the people that inhabit the city and its surround area have their own self determination to form a administrative state that best interest them. The people are from the Dulbu..."
06:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC) "The city is not in Somaliland. Somaliland is relatively not a country. It is a disputed region."
Editor continues to make disruptive edits despite warning and my attempt to engage discussion in the talk page. Koodbuur (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Editor also attempted to overwrite my comment about their vandalism as shown here, before it was restored by another editor as shown hereKoodbuur (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Persistant disruptive editing made:
18:41, 4 June 2017 Koodbuur (talk | contribs) . (Reverted to revision 783784365 by Koodbuur (talk): Please cease your disruptive edits. As mentioned previously, Las Anod has been under the control of Somaliland for over 10 years.
16:53, 4 June 2017 Koodbuur (talk | contribs) . (Reverted to revision 783753283 by Koodbuur: Look at the Sool page, In the summary it says: The city has been under full control of Somaliland for over 10 years, there is no other administration in Las Anod. Also the population figures you have changed...)
12:23, 4 June 2017 Koodbuur (talk | contribs) . (Reverted to revision 783602919 by Koodbuur: In the summary say: The city has been under full control of Somaliland for over 10 years. Please discuss any issues
Comments:
The editor keeps making persistent disruptive edits with are not fact-based. The editor keeps inserting his/her own political ideology, but we have the duty of fairness to give.
Editor continues to make disruptive edits despite warning and my attempt to engage discussion in the talk page. There's no room for myside bias. Please stop making troublesome editing on the page. Koodbuur
[[236]]
He has violated the 3RR. Seraphim System also seems to have dropped all efforts to discuss my points. Since I do not understand his POV clearly, he comes across to me as mostly presenting many haphazard fallacies and accusations.
While I have mostly been (1) trying to engage him in discussion and (2) reverting the text of the date section to the old consensus version-- his latest tactic is give me an official vandalism warning.
Also note-- I have held to old consensus version to follow Wikipedia policy, but it is no way my preferred version. I would prefer to drop all efforts to call the date "50 days" after Easter.tahcchat20:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Here I am asking him to post WP:RS and his response that he doesn't "need to cite that the sky is blue" [244] — the "fifty days after Easter" is sourced to Britannica, which I hoped would resolve this. The version he continues to restore uses archaic language that can only be sourced to primary religious texts, most of them from between the 13th-19th century. I eventually added "Easter inclusive" with a sourced footnote. He reverted that also, to restore the unsourced version. (unsourced because the source fails verification based on the quote given.) I have not seen a verifiable source for the language "Pentecost is the 50th day after Easter inclusive" The primary source I used for my footnote to this statement says it is 50 days from "Easter inclusive" to "Pentecost inclusive." Is that the same thing? I followed what the source says in my footnote, because that is what I am supposed to do, especially with these kinds of materials. I already filed for temporary SPP to avoid an edit war. What am I supposed to do — just let him vandalize the article? I reverted under the exemption for vandalism. I haven't been here that long, so if I did something wrong, it was unintentional and I'm sorry — I thought removing sourced content and replacing it with miscited/unsourced content counted as obvious vandalism edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalismSeraphim System(talk)21:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I accidentally requested SPP when I should have asked for temporary FPP - how can I change this? I asked for page protection because I felt there was too much edit warring going on over inserting unsourced material, and my attempts to resolve through discussion, which I tried, were not responded to — after I posted on talk there were just more reversions to the unsourced version without any response or further sources posted and then this complaintSeraphim System(talk)01:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Over the past week Seraphim System has been edit warring with me about the etymology of the word "Pentecost" and with Thac about the number of days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost Sunday (49 counting the days on a calendar in the usual way, 50 by liturgical convention of including the day being counted from). With regard to the former, there is an ongoing attempt at dispute resolution at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Pentecost which I thought was getting somewhere until this addition to the Pentecost talkpage – "I made the changes based on sources" (insisting for the so-manieth time that a text written by a known Nazi is as good a source on Jewish culture as any other) and "just so you could write "JEWISH!!!1!" all over the article" (a reference to my attempt to get a clear statement in the etymology section of the uncontroversial fact that the name of the Christian Feast of Pentecost derives from the ancient Greek name of the Jewish festival Shavuot). I have suggested to Seraphim System that s/he cool it and take a few days away from the article, but s/he just doubles down. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Lol, this is just a complete lie. I didn't use TDNT for any of those changes, I specifically used other sources — it is in the diff he cited. I should not have to deal with constant insinuations of anti-semitism for using what is a standard and authoritative source in the field. This is what he's upset about — the article used to say that Exodus and Deuteronomy used the word Pentecost for Feast of Weeks. When he tried to change it back to say "Pentecost is the Jewish Festival of Weeks" (at the beginning of the Etymology section) and replaced BDAG with a 19th century lexicon, I assumed it was a good faith mistake, and told him that Thayer is considered a dated source and should be not be used to replace BDAG where they disagree. This is a legitimate part of BRD, and there was ongoing discussion while the editing was going on. As he was editing also, and neither one of us ever mentioned edit warring, I thought we were editing, discussing and revising collaboratively, like we are supposed to and like I have done on other articles. Now he is saying I sourced the revisions to Kittel, when I sourced them to UBS to remove the problematic language from Kittel. He said the revised edits were good, so why is he calling it edit warring now? No the Greek word Pentecost is not derived from the Hebrew word Shavuot. You will not find a single WP:RS that says that, not one. It also does not derive from the Ancient Greek word for "Festival of Weeks" — that is an entirely unrelated word. We don't know where Pentacost came from, as a word. This shouldn't be considered a content dispute, because you have two editors who are determined to add verifiably incorrect (or unsourced) information to the article, even if they have to remove conflicting WP:RS as Andreas Philopater did and use sources from the 19th century and before — it seems mostly because they have decided it should be called "seven weeks" or "Weeks" even if they can't source it. I've been in content disputes before, usually they involve disagreement over WP:RS. The sad thing is, I would welcome collaboration from other editors sourcing and improving the sections where the relationship could be clarified. But neither editor seems interested in that. I did AGF when it happened, but now I am not sure. I really think the page should be protected while this is sorted out, maybe through dispute resolution. I am not sure what else to try. Seraphim System(talk)01:01, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Try not violating 3RR by simply not reverting and trying to gain the consensus needed on the talk page. As for "vandalizing the article" assertion: this is a content dispute—I don't see how 3RRNO applies in this instance. El_C01:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Additional attempts to discuss reversions to Norwalk, Connecticut were placed in JJBers talk page which were also reverted.
Thank you!––→StephenTS42 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. The top edit isn't even me reverting anything. 2. I didn't even revert the same thing more than twice. 3. I was never warned. 4. Two of the reverts was to fixed misused parameters in the infobox. 5. The talk page diff is unrelated. — JJBers13:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
All I have to say is looking at the back and forth and talk page, JJBers and Ɱ are much more patient than I am. There is a lot of nitpicking and arguing over things that shouldn't be argued over. WP:TE... 129.9.75.193 (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Administrator noteAn editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. You can be sanctioned with 0RR for 72 hours, or a 24 hour block. Please choose, or I'll choose the latter for you. El_C20:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Is... this still a thing? Ping User:Mifter, who just protected, point out to casually to El_C that User:StephenTS42 has been blocked thrice since February over their ownership issues, and kindly suggest that in use template reverts should probably just not be counted at all in anything, since the inappropriate use of the template has been pointed out multiple times, and is still for some reason being used as a way to lock down the article while making about an edit every 20 minutes. TimothyJosephWood16:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Edit warring to replace an image they created. Reverting at least three editors, and now vandalizing my talk page with multiple copies of the image - shown in this diffScr★pIronIV13:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
14:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC) "If a person has a well-known common hypocorism used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks" (while MOS:NICKNAME does not support that. The supplied example shows the exact use.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Same editor has been making the same edits at other articles including Pat Finucane, Terry Wogan, and Terry Pratchett, for example, where following the edits and clicking on a link to go those pages, you wouldn't know you were on an article about Pat Finucane, Terry Wogan or Terry Wogan by reading the lede paragraph, you'd have to notice the person's common name in the infobox. This is very contrarian and pedantic reading of MOS:NICKNAME. Explained to the editor that depending on jurisdiction, the name a person commonly goes by is their legal name, but still got reverted again to entirely remove the person's common name from the lede. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I would support a block for making large-scale changes without consensus, along with edit warring pretty hard. — JJBers15:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's actually quite clear as can be seen from the example:
If a person is known by a nickname used in lieu of a given name, that is not a common hypocorism (diminutive) of their name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan. The quotation marks are not put in bold. If a person has a well-known common hypocorism used in lieu of a given name, it is not presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Tom Hopper which has just Thomas Edward Hopper.<ref group=note name=CommHypo>As a guide to what is a "common" hypocorism, consider consulting the [[Hypocorism#English]] subsections "Shortening, often to the first syllable" and "Addition of a diminutive suffix..."; consider treating names listed in the in "A short form that differs significantly from the name" subsection as non-hypocoristic nicknames, depending on the particular case (a few short forms that differ significantly from the name are well known common hypocorisms, such as "Bob" for "Robert", but most are not). Consider assuming that most non-English hypocorisms are not familiar to readers of this English Wikipedia, even if well known in their native culture.</ref> Also acceptable are formulations like "Alessandro di Mariano di Vanni Filipepi, better known as Sandro Botticelli", when applicable.
Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Additionally, I'd advise everyone to take the issue to the talk page instead of constantly reverting (consider WT:MOS if clarification is necessary). Regardless, enforcing the MOS (or a particular interpretation of it) is no excuse for edit warring. clpo13(talk)15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
14:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by Flashmanianus: Read the MoS yourself: "it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for Bunny Berigan, which has Roland Bernard "Bunny" Berigan". (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I discussed on the editor's talk page, but editor simply reverted and tried to bully preferred version (which was wrong the first two times, per the MoS, and is probably still wrong per the MoS now). I am at 3RR and should not have gone there. Flashmanianus is past 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User has for quite some months been removing "{{nowrap}}" from various Big Brother articles, They've been given various warnings (as can be seen on their talkpage) and even taken to DRN[245] but to no avail, They did discuss back in April [246] however they made 4 edits so there wasn't much effort in terms of discussing, They've also been blocked for edit warring in Sep 2016 [247],
Myself and VietPride10 have reverted here and there and I assumed they were discussing but since the last discussion in April 2017 they've not discussed anything so here we are, Thanks –Davey2010Talk15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
The diffs range from around 20th May - 6th June too so it's not a constant thing as such however it still is edit warring nonetheless, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk15:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – 1 week. This is a dispute about usage of the 'nowrap' template in tables. The disagreement was taken to DRN, but it was closed there in favor of an RfC which was opened on May 7 at Talk:Big Brother Canada (season 5)#RfC on Wrapping. Three other editors have participated in the RfC but Bgc7676 has not joined in. Instead they just continue to revert. Any admin may lift this block if Bgc7676 will agree to wait for consensus on 'nowrap' before editing Big Brother articles again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
May I clarify, was that vandalism, and was I edit warring? because they had a source (albeit deprecated) I am not sure it is blatant vandalism. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3X1 (talk • contribs)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [261] and [262]
Comments:
" To revert is to undo the action of another editor." The three revert rule was never breached. In other words, no reversions of *another editor* crossed the line of three. The user User:Sigersson has only been here for 5 days. Is this the conduct one would expect from a newbie? I'm not saying s/he is a sock-puppet but others will make their own judgments. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Just because an new user is familiar with how Wikipedia works, does not necessarily make them a sock. See WP:BRANDNEW and WP:NOTSOCK. Before I registered an account, I use to edit frequently as an IP. I merely joined as I started to become more active. The same may be the case here. So don't be so quick to accuse socks. WesWolfTalk20:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Spem_Reduxit also "found" their way to an article I have been working on recently - Moorgate tube crash - to remove an image there on spurious grounds. This is an odd action, particularly as he has subsequently accused me (with absolutely no evidence) of being a former banned user, which I have never been. - Sigersson (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record Ks0stm, I deem the reverted Moorgate tube crash content, depicted here at right, Train stop equipment to be both inappropriate and unreferenced, and potentially dangerous. I am surprised that the Tube have no policies on employee-generated photographs, but to each his own. I leave it up to your discretion whether the content should remain on public view, which it is right now as I have no wish to become involved again with the user who initiated this unsuccessful admin process. Spem Reduxit (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern, Ks0stm. As I have repeatedly remarked on several talk pages, the BBC article was entitled "London attack: PM's condemnation of tech firms criticised", and I thought it best to place the information in a paragraph dedicated to the PM's condemnation, rather than in a section about attacker IDs. I defer to your wisdom. Spem Reduxit (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
The impugned sentence
It was reported that one of the attackers had been radicalised by watching YouTube videos by the American hate preacher Ahmad Musa Jibril and had been reported by friends, but the authorities had apparently taken no action.
@Spem Reduxit: So long as you follow BRD, I've got no problem leaving you unblocked. If you keep up the pace of reverts, however, I'm liable to block you for edit warring, since single reverts of many different edits are just as disruptive as many reverts of a single edit. Given that, I would recommend you be more selective about your reverts and when in doubt, discuss before reverting. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)20:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor Ks0stm: considering you advised SR about following WP:BRD, they appear to have ignored your advice and manually reinserted the dispute between both users. I thought I would bring this to your attention. I also find this edit somewhat antagonistic - the edit summary doesn't exactly annotate their editing action. WesWolfTalk23:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The "many moons ago" quote is taken out of context. The editor with whom I was engaged had, by virtue of the "segs on fingers" comment (which I found decidedly unfriendly) placed the conversation on a jocular level. I responded in kind with "moons ago". I find widefox to have decontextualised this event and abused me with it. I care not for this style of treatment and if this is what WP means as civil or polite discourse then perhaps I have come to the wrong place for enjoyment. The "complex for me" is a similar story, perhaps I erred in my judgment on that one sentence. But why would I ask nicely for help if I knew that it would bring me such grief as at this instant juncture? As I said, I needed help to move an article which, in the end *24 hours later* to resolve wider orphan namespace issues, I did with no help from widefox. That he abuses me for it seems odd. I note with thanks that he has finally (on day 3) showed me how to "move" an article but only since I did so myself the only way I knew how, in a manual fashion, and only when he combined it with a "block" threat. In the process he flew off the handle and brought it to the attention of this forum. Is this type of behaviour that can be expected here on WP? In closing, I would appreciate if widefox were disallowed from the vote of my censure because he is too involved and may lack the objectivity this forum needs here. Spem Reduxit (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
To editor Spem Reduxit: Please confirm that you will not copy/paste move again, as your reply [265] claims " It was a legit edit" which not only doesn't recognise that your action is a serious copyright issue that you've understood and will not repeat, but indicates that you consider, incorrectly, that it's OK. Can you assure us that you won't do that again? Further, your reply to @Diannaa:'s rather restrained fixing of more copyright violations by you [266][267][268] is not acceptable per WP:NPA. Why shouldn't Diannaa or any admin block you? (note to admins, this is better at ANI, so would support close here and open there) Widefox; talk13:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Are we talking about the same issue? You say, directly above in the context of [269]: " which not only doesn't recognise that your action is a serious copyright issue that you've understood and will not repeat ". But that action WAS NOT A COPYRIGHT ISSUE. So I am unable to respond to your charge because your claim is unfounded. If you wish to try again I will be more than happy to respond to a well-founded charge. Is this what it feels like to be in a kangaroo court? The issue of @Diannaa: is best brought up under a separate process. You show that you are unable to be impartial, here, when you write " of more copyright violations", because your "more" is unfounded in this context: I repeat that your charge [270] is unfounded because it had nothing to do with copyright. How then can it be "more"? Your action of 15:11 7 June [271] was ill-timed. You had failed at 02:50 6 June to coach me on the "move-article" tab, and so I wrote on 7 June that "It was a legit edit to unify and clean up three or more issues with the namespace." I stand firmly on that edit sequence, as the full transcript shows: you started [272] on 7 June at 15:11 WELL AFTER [273] our initial contact, which was INITIATED BY ME IN SEARCH OF HELP on ***6 June at 02:50***. You did not help me until more than 36 hours later. You *MISTAKE* a "move-article" issue with a copyright issue speciously to bring in another editor, hopefully on your side. I will leave it for others to decide how best to characterise your behaviour in this case, whether they wish to associate themselves with you on this quest to blackball me, and also whether this behaviour and its consequences show wikipedia in the best possible light. Spem Reduxit (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Moving pages via copy and pasting is indeed a copyright issue, as it disconnects the content from the page history, which is required for attribution. Attribution is required under the terms of our Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Please see Wikipedia:Moving a page and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia for more information on this legal requirement. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your concise explanation, @Diannaa:. This "move-page is copyright issue" is news to me this very instant, and I thank you for it. In my defense, since the page was started by me and moved by me within 24 hours, and widefox (and him alone) had made to the page only a handful of minor changes, might this be categorised as a learning experience? I'm almost certain, although I cannot speak for him, that the contributions of widefox to the page in question, although valuable in their own right, pale in significance to his other more important and admirable ones in his long and distinguished record here. I will be more than a little perplexed if widefox (who has been awarded with the 1,000-most-active-wikipedians recognition) forces the issue especially in light of the fact that this award was what most attracted me to him when initially I set out in search of help. Spem Reduxit (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk section
Comments:
This report relates to edit-warring behaviour which does not violate the 1RR/3RR rule.
This report relates to a dispute on this page that has been ongoing for more than six months by now, and was the subject of the two earlier edit-warring reports I link to above. The latter of them resulted in short blocks for both users with a warning to refrain from further edit-warring behaviour, which is why I am filing this report rather than reverting the content.
In short, in the six-month dispute, I initiated an RFC which was now recently closed, establishing finally a consensus version of the text. Debresser, to my surprise, began actively editing the newly established consensus text, to the extent of undoing my revert of his change, where in my edit summary I advised him to obtain consensus before restoring his version again, which he did not heed but made another revert, further threatening me on the talkpage to not undo his changes to the brand-new consensus text. I advised him to self-revert to the closed version of the text, which he didn't do, rather he made a facetious comment in response (Sand isn't used as a source in the material), further his facetious comment did not respond to the arguments I made in my immediately preceding comment, wherefore Debresser has ceased to engage concerning the substance on the talkpage.
Since Debresser was warned with a 31-hour block in the earlier case, and he has now chosen to continue exactly the same behaviour that led to the earlier block, I suggest he be given a longer block or topic ban.
That completes my report, the following is to pre-empt arguments Debresser is likely to make to accuse me of sinister behaviour: the closed version linked to as "ORIGINAL" above is verbatim the version suggested by DonFB in the RFC, which the closer stated is the new consensus. While DonFB wrote in the RFC a different qualifier might be used, he also said that would invite more debate and, crucially, another qualifier was not used in the text between quotation marks. "Leading" was used. Secondly, the closer allowed for tweaks to the text. Of course, such tweaks would need consensus and be in-line with sources and policy. The closer did not state that Debresser may re-write the text at will.--Dailycare (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC) Edit: This IP edit from December 2016 first changed the consensus version, six months ago. --Dailycare (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's start with the fact that my first and second edits are not to the same words at all, so are actually only one revert. Also notice that in my so-called third revert, which is actually only my second, I accepted part of Dailycare's edit.
Secondly, and equally important, is the fact that the first of my edits is from June 3, the other from June 4, almost 24 hours later, and the third from June 6. So there was no violation of WP:3RR. I am aware that is not the same as saying there is no edit war, but I still think it is important to stress this fact.
I am also reporting Dailycare for edit warring: his original edit, revert 1, revert 2. These last two edits are straight reverts, so Dailycare has made just as many reverts as I have. WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind.
Add to that his recent 31 hour block for edit warring on this very same page,[275] which he conveniently and sneakily forgot to mention, and a pattern becomes evident.
Please also notice that I explained my edits with detailed edit summaries and talkpage explanations, in which I explained to Dailycare that he has no leg to stand on, and Dailycare's WP:OWN issues become evident.
I also fail to understand why Dailycare talks about a "six-month dispute", since his first edit to the consensus version was made on March 4, precisely 3 months and two days ago.
The proposal on the Rc that was accepted read in part: A different or added qualifier for "historians/scholars" could be one of the following: 'some/several/many/most'. So my edit is completely within the limits of that proposal. Add to that the fact that the Rfc clearly stated: This close does not preclude wording tweaks, further refining, or other improvements that may be necessary or helpful., and it becomes clear that my edits are problematic only to the one editor who wants his version to be accepted verbatim.
In short, a problematic and not very serious editor is trying to report me for making solid edits. I ask the community to explain in no uncertain terms to Dailycare that he should stop pushing his point of view and harassing other editors. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Warned. Neither editors breached 1RR, but clearly there a recurrence of the previous edit warring for which the restrictions were added. Settle it on the talk page before making new changes. Consider the Consensus required provision to be in effect, if that helps. El_C05:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
OK! Are you recommending that I move this report to ANI? I read what you suggested, but this report is not related to the current ANI issue! It is a new, different, separate report. Thank you!——StephenTS42 (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [288]
Comments:
Kellymoat refuses to engage in meaningful discussion on this issue, claims that the issue had been discussed and a consensus has been reached, yet flatly refuses to provide any evidence for these assertions. When I provided a number of examples of similar articles that were inconsistent with her editing and consistent with mine, she edited one of the articles to change that: [289] This can be seen at the [[290]] Cjhard (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Per previous consensus, I reverted your edits. And sent you a warning. Ironic, how your next move after receiving the warning was to bring it here. The only article I changed was the one that was also involved with the consensus.
I don't need to agree with consensus, I just need to enforce it. And you don't have to agree with consensus, you just need to abide by it.
Sadly, as mentioned in the talk page discussion, you are trying to actively discuss an issue while also trying to actively post your edits. You can't have it both ways. Kellymoat (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [297]
Comments:
This is a long-running content dispute. Despite my attempts to get User:LibStar to discuss his or her mass-blankings on the article talk page (e.g. here), or to engage him/her on more fundamental issues with his/her approach via a conversation conducted across user talk pages (e.g. here), User:LibStar has failed to engage on the article talk page and has now refused to continue the conversation on user talk pages (here). If I am in breach of 3RR, I am happy to take whatever is regarded as the appropriate consequences. However, the substantive point is that User:LibStar should engage substantively on content rather than continually mass-deleting. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
LibStar is a long-time disruptive editor who constantly removes factual content, and whines incessantly whilst doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.196.183 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me that User:PalaceGuard008 could be blocked for making four reverts on June 6, thus breaking the WP:3RR rule. There may still be time for them to avoid a block if they agree to stop warring and wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I had repeatedly suggested to LibStar that consensus is sought by discussion, and I repeatedly reverted because LibStar reverted instead of engaging. So of course I appreciate the importance of seeking and obtaining consensus, and I do recognise that in the circumstances the more appropriate thing for me to have done was not to repeatedly revert, but to try other avenues to get LibStar to the discussion. I should also add that there is no active discussion on the article talk page becuase LibStar has stopped engaging. In the mean time I have made a couple of edits to the article to try to fix some of the referencing issues that LibStar relied on as justification for blanking. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
[303]Comments:
As you can see, there is an ongoing struggle between the old rabbi and members of the synagogue, in which the old rabbi has repeatedly written inflammatory and and libelous comments and reverted or changed edits taking them down. I have tried to post on the talk page asking for mediation. It wasn't answered. I need an unbiased admin to review the situation and act according to their judgement.66.65.34.135 (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
128Sugarloaf Blocked – for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and abusing multiple accounts. Sugarloaf128 blocked indefinitely as an obvious sockpuppet that continued edit warring after the original account stopped. If the IP is the same user, they'll get caught by the autoblock. clpo13(talk)21:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
01:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC) "It I NOT an "end of discussion" I you refuse to the talk page for consensus. which your 1 year on WP has shown youe NEVER USED!!!"
01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC) ""That's enough your actions have gone far enough"!!!! Oh lord dicatator, sinc ethis is your personal fiefdom go to talk an get consensus, sine I at least TRIED t iscuss instead of waring!"
01:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC) "See talk --> and you not OWN the page to dictate to wikpedia your arbitrary summarising rules! Ive added more details to the ACUALY dish as opposed editor paraphrase!!! "unusual" is vague not encyclopaeic"
01:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC) "the summaries are proper and with more information. + was going to fix data from EC (cone now)"
10:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 784641639 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Reverted on basis of no Reliable source. Please help to keep wikipedia free from any Racist and Religious hatred."
10:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 784637907 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Reverted on basis of no Reliable source. Please help to keep wikipedia free from any Racist and Religious hatred."
Subject has been previously warned about edit-warring: [315]. Is also engaging in similar behavior elsewhere: see [316]. User appears to have some competence issues. Vanamonde (talk) 10:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Turns out that I blocked them at the same time that El C was making this referral - and for the same reasons, edit warring and personal attacks. --MelanieN (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Warned / 
Page protected. No 3RR warning. Please take it to the talk page. El_C 03:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Blocked Widr (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR—there's only two reverts listed (consecutive edits count as one revert). Also, it's uncertain that the user knows about 3RR and edit warring in the first place, since {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-aw}} were not placed on their talk page. El_C 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 days The nominator has reported an editor who has repeated the same edit four times, with a maximum of three times in any 24 hours. The nominator has repeated the same edit six times, including four times within 24 hours. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Please follow the report format, including listing diffs. El_C 20:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note I only count three reverts. [208] [209] [210] You need to demonstrate what the other two edits are reverts of. El_C 21:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Request withdrawn - User has since self reverted so for now I'll withdraw, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed sock of Joseph Fanai (talk · contribs · count).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note 
Declined This is at WP:ANI. StephenTS42, see WP:FORUMSHOP NeilN talk to me 06:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)