I am equally to blame in this edit war and accept that my behavior is contrary to WP policies. I have attempted to explain my rational for the proposed changes that I have made to the article however it would appear that LahiruG has an ownership issue with the article in question. I am prepared to accept the consequences for my actions but would genuinely like to resolve the issue without punitive action being taken.Dan arndt (talk)10:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The one who has a problem with the ownership of this list isUser:Dan arndt, who has made significant changes to this article without trying to discuss them in the relevant talk page. As an editor who has been involved in editing this list for some time I have tried to discuss the issues at the talk page, but his is pushing his POV without reaching a consensus in the discussion. He is trying to convert this simple alumni list into a table which has irrelevant columns in it, without giving a valid rationale for its conversion. --LahiruGtalk10:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have any issue with ownership of this particular page at all. As you can see by my edit history I have been slowly working my way through a number of school alumni lists in an effort to improve then and make them consistent with 'best practice' as evidenced by other 'featured lists' of alumni.Dan arndt (talk)10:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dan arndt: I am afraid, you have a serious issue with the ownership of many Sri Lanka related articles. Many Sri Lankan users have left Wikipedia due to your dictatorial type behavior. --LahiruGtalk10:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that was completely out of the blue. I am dumbfounded by your completely unsubstantiated allegations. If you have any issue with my editorial style then this is not the forum for that discussion.Dan arndt (talk)11:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Possibly relevant reading? I'm seeing what would be constructive discussion from both of you but there's some sort of communication breakdown. I'd suggestWP:3O orWP:DR, but I see there's already a third opinion at the talk page, though I don't know if there's any prior interaction there and so cannot decide whether or not it's a fresh opinion. As such, I'll toss out my 2 cents here as well. This is just off the top of my head and I have no plans on getting involved beyond these suggestions.
Whether tables or lists are easier to read (not a biggie, I know): for what it's worth, on my laptop tables are easier to read, but on my phone lists usually win unless the table is kept narrow enough. That's just my phone using the mobile site, though; if I pull up the desktop site on my phone both of them are equally microscopic. That said, y'all do seem to agree that that's not really an issue.
Sourced but non-notable entries (what appears to be the crux): typically,notability only applies to whether the broader concept gets an article, not whether individual entries are to be included. Normally, as long as there's areliable source (preferably independent and non-primary because we're not the phone book) noting something as part of a list, it's ok to include it in the list. That said,WP:LISTPEOPLE does indeed spell out that it should be limited to individuals who are either notable, or would only fail notability because ofWP:BLP1E, or for completeness sake where an exhaustive list would be 99% notable anyway (e.g. I suppose a hypothetically non-notable US president would nonetheless be included atList of Presidents of the United States). So, I have to agree with Dan ardnt's point on this, though I do grant that his phrasing on the talk page could have been more succinct at time.
Now, I could block both of you, I could decide that Obi2canibe's participation on the talk page constitutes a sign of some sort ofcurrent (but not necessarily final) consensus, or I could leave both of you unblocked. If y'all are willing to keep it on the talk pageand quit making accusations, I don't really see a reason to block.Ian.thomson (talk)09:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Ian.Thomson I didn't think that the conversion of the list into a table was actually that controversial (apparently it is to some users). I've previously worked on numerous FLs, all of which are tables not lists. My main issue was the inclusion of significant numbers of non-notable alumni, which appears to be a case of different schools attempting to promote their superiority over other schools using Wikipedia. I reported this as I felt guilty of engaging in edit warring (contrary to WP policies) although at the same time I was trying to explain my rationale on the article's talkpage albeit generally a one sided conversation. I welcome a third party, such asObi2canibe, participation in the discussion. However I do feel aggrieved that LahiruG is trying to make this personal by making unsubstantiated accusations against me. I will use my best endeavors to try and be as objective as possible and hopefully it can be resolved amicably.Dan arndt (talk)09:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
23:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) "listen: IT'S IS MARKED AS BEING ---A PART--- OF THE POPULAR RESISTANCE. THAT'S WHY POPULAR RESISTANCE IS LISTED WITH ONE STAR AND SOUTHERN MOVEMENT 2 STARS. stop making deliberate falsehoods. rvWP:IDONTLIKEIT"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I personally haven't warned the user but other users have as can be seen in the page's revision history. Simple 3RR violation.DrStrausstalk23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank youUser:DrStrauss please if you don't mind to continue to review this page because not everyone can be incorrect and him being right if you look at his last edit he basically said he changed it due to him "not liking it" which means he is just adding his opinion and not reporting the news how it should be reported. Propaganda!
Result: Page semiprotected three months due to the numerous IP reverts that are not discussed on the talk page. (Apologies to the single IP cited in this report who did open a discussion). Rapid-fire editing does not give any opportunity for agreement to be reached. Due to its instability, this page may eventually be a candidate for extended confirmed protection.EdJohnston (talk)14:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
00:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC) "Congrats you just admitted that you either can't stand being wrong or you have a political agenda"
22:26, 31 January 2017 "That would be incorrect for you to put it underneath it would indicate that they are two separate entities when in reality they are the same it has to be inside the popular resistance tab.rv WP:DISRPUPTIVE behavior"
22:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC) "What are you talking about chilicheese is right it should be under the popular resistance tab stop spreading your political agenda."
01:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC) "Using your logic if I go to Syria or Yemen raise any random flag but have the same ideology as another group and some unreliable sources gives me attention we should listen them. Check the source under AQAP which I put."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Unlike the other report, aimed at denigrating me while I had done no 3RR violation, this report ofUser:173.49.17.74 and their obvious sock puppetUser:chilicheese22 (new user, no other contributions than the mentioned page, mobile edits just like the IP), demonstrates an actual violation of 3RR. --176.23.1.95 (talk) 06
56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Result: Page semiprotected peranother report. The diffs shown here represent a 3RR violation only if we believe your assertion that Chilicheese22 really is a sock, since you combined the edits of the IP and the account.EdJohnston (talk)15:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
23:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC) "listen: IT'S IS MARKED AS BEING ---A PART--- OF THE POPULAR RESISTANCE. THAT'S WHY POPULAR RESISTANCE IS LISTED WITH ONE STAR AND SOUTHERN MOVEMENT 2 STARS. stop making deliberate falsehoods. rvWP:IDONTLIKEIT"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Basically tried to meet in the middle with this person but basically said that because he "doesn't like it" the content which I put with sources he will continue to span the page also has another feud with another user about the same topic and not everyone can be incorrect and him being right
Comment@Flat Out andSuddenDeth: So like, the last edit to that article's talk page was 28 September 2016. That's a long time ago. Also, there was another user who approved of the contested change. So, can you guys please make an effort to discuss this outside of edit summaries?@SuddenDeth: multiple people disagree with your edit. If you continue making it without attempting to discuss it, you will be blocked. --slakr\ talk /09:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Userblanked large portions of cited text, stating that the material was being used to denigrate the subject. Material is negative in tone, but fully cited.
11:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "Your only contribution is adding/changing pictures (the excessive references that I removed were not your contributions)"
11:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "I also reduced the number of excessive references (for example, there were 9 references in a row saying that Tayyip Erdoğan has become authoritarian. 4 references are enough."
12:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "After your edits, it says "with Adnan Menderes as President" (Menderes was the Prime Minister). Are all Georgians this way?"
I am getting offended by his reckless edit revertions and edit summaries. I don't know what, but he is implying something to my nationality. He could've just incorporated his edits to mines but he acts like he owns the page and doesn't co-operate. Also you can checkTalk:Turkey. It isn't just me but also some others.kazekagetr12:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
12:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "Kautlya or Chanakya... what is your source u r quoting? And if on Gen. Rawat's wikipedia page, we write Allegiance asUttarakhand. Plus, it was already theSikh Empire, some overzealous Hindus changed it to what u r saying as legal."
09:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 763281640 byJim1138 (talk) irrational view point, CM or any commander of Armed Forces of India (irrespective to State or Dynasty owes allegiance to Republic of India."
Blocked – 72 hours for 3RR violation.This edit removes the source and then the edit summary *asks* for a source. If he sincerely wants a source this is a strange way to proceed. The edit summary also speaks about 'overzealous Hindus' suggesting he will not be able to edit neutrally on this topic. We should be considering aWP:NOTHERE block if he continues with this approach.EdJohnston (talk)04:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Obviously both editors are massively past 3RR, and since there's been no attempt to discuss this since yesterday, it's time you both took a break.Both editors blocked – for a period of48 hoursYunshui雲水14:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
19:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "for a small unit used in one campaign, why would you not want the exact composition of the tanks, it is not like the article is too long, same for the unique english translation - THIS IS NOT YOUR ARTICLE!"
19:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "The quoted text is properly cited, just like in an academic work, which makes it use fair and open!!!!"
22:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 763185507 byJudgeRM (talk) Seriously, discuss this on the talk page before removing.Reverted edits/restore, I give sources of the refutations originate fromserious/public-law sources"
17:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 762774833 byIronGargoyle (talk) Reverted edits/restore, because they not correct. I give sources of the refutations originate from serious/public-law sources."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User has been removing sections of the page without discussion since January 3. User refuses to discuss this, instead just reverting blindly.JudgeRM(talk to me)23:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
02:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC) "Infobox country |autonomy = yes |conventional_long_name = Republic of Ilirida" (plus multiple uses of template markup which resulted in this report being malformed on original submission).
The user has instated, then reinstated a 'country' infobox for a non-existent state, and is edit warring the article both using their account and logged out asIP 185.13.240.53. A discussion was opened by the userhere, where another editor (inLocal hero, who seems to be familiar with the user) responded, but ILIRIDAproud is justWP:NOTGETTINGIT. Fundamentally, this user doesn't understand policy or guidelines, and their English is extremely poor. Judging by their commentary, it's predominantly a case ofWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and is very disruptiveIryna Harpy (talk)02:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Subsequent to my protection I placed a DS notice on their talk page and relayed to them why using FYROM was discouraged.ILIRIDAproud is aware (I hope) that they're on very thin ice. --NeilNtalk to me20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The user has an abusive behavior, checkthis and also has a habit of pushing his POV. Reverting edits even after warning. Kindly take action.Shimlaites (talk)10:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This[8] arrangement violatesWikipedia:No original research rule. User ignoring to this erroneous arrangement. And User have given warning messages to other users who corrected this incorrectly.[9]-[10]. User defend this pov edit.[11]-[12]-[13].
And constantly against other users: Rough and disrespectful Claiming that they are puppet and disruptive editör. And without considering the warning messages The edit war continues.[14]-[15]. Instead of participating in the discussion, the user is requesting protection.[16]. Then the protection request was rejected[17]. And it was stated that the problem should be resolved in the discussion. By ignoring He demanded protection again.[18]. He canvassed the discussion.[19]. The lyrics are very rude and threatening.
When the user's change history is examined, He often enters into edit warfare. And constantly making Anti-Turkic changes. And he's not neutral. Often comes from ignoring the rules.Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Human like you (talk·contribs) is engaged in continued edit warring with several users in order to sustain persistent POV pushing, at the moment on the following articles:
Long term edit warring since22 Nov in an attempt to add content violating NPOV and BLP; user was edit warring on the same content as IP 213.74.186.109 before, therefore the article was protected; when the protection was lifted the user started edit warring again which resulted in the block[31], renewed protection andrevert byuser:Jim1138. Then edit warring again about the same content until getting blocked byuser:Black Kite (for other edit warring) andreverted byuser:2A1ZA. Now edit warring again about the very same content without consensus on the talk page (so far all other users onTalk:Salih_Muslim_Muhammad were against including this content and spent time to explain why).
Long term edit warring in an attempt to delete the fact the Northern Cyprus is not recognized and to push the Turkish name of Morphou Bay. Both as 'Human like you' and IP 213.74.186.109. Stopped byuser:Clpo13here with comment to use talk page. Now edit warring again about the same content without consensus on the talk page.
Edit warring in an attempt to remove link to Rojava articles, firsthere, then stopped by useruser:Wikishovel and getting blocked byuser:Black Kite (for other edit warring), now againhere with misleading reference to talk page (there is obviously no consensus to remove this).
The problematic behaviour ofHuman like you (talk·contribs) on similar issues (and partially the same pages) was discussed before:here, andhere (at that time editing as IP 213.74.186.109). This user was recently warned[42] and blocked for similar edit warring and disrupting behaviour.
Also wild accusations against other users, most recentlyhere,here, andhere.
Comment: Just my two cents. I encountered the reported user for the first time several months ago, when he did persistently put up several random warning templates on theSyrian Democratic Forces article without any serious attempt to explain, apparently with the intent to somehow taint an article the topic of which he did not like. Since then, I have faced and witnessed countless insults, slander and other forms of aggression on talk pages (and in edit summaries) from him in articles related to Middle East politics, where the reported user edits with a very narrow agenda of pushing (and frequently edit warring about) the Turkish Erdogan regime narrative with respect to topics in the news. As far as I can see, the problem with his disruptive editing style appears somewhat under control due to the attention of several editors, but his poisoning of talk page discussions still is a curse without effective cure. --2A1ZA (talk)15:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I deny the slandering accusations. Some intolerant users will keep complaining and I will keep trying to contribute to Wikipedia, whether some like it or not. Anyway, editors can see all our actions and will surely decide what is best.Human like you (talk)05:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment from an involved editor. In Petergstrom's defense, this editor has made more effort to discuss the disputed content on the talk page than the other involved editors combined. There's an unfortunate dynamic that seems to be taking place in that article, with disputed content being forced in by means of editor pileup rather than consensus building.Eperoton (talk)03:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment I initiated the discussion on the talk page and the edit warrior being reported User:Petergstrom responded by edit warring over the heading! He still continues to edit war on the article withUser:Ramos1990, as demonstratedhere (and just nowhere). A block is in order and it should be noted that he already hasan extensive history of edit warning, with his account only being created in October 2016.-Jobas (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[64]
Comments: ICTY has made a judgment about Slobodan Milosevic's involvement in 1992 to 1995 Bosnian war during trial of Radovan Karadzic. Dispute between me andUser:N-HH is about ICTY judgment, if this judgment has exonerated Slobodan Milosevic from war crimes committed during 1992 to 1995 Bosnian war. He claims that insufficient evidence has been found and I claim that Milosevic has been exonerated from this acts as the court has in fact found evidence that he was in opposition to them. See talk page above for further details. He keeps reverting my edits and disrupting the facts.JamesJohnson2 (talk)16:10, 05 January 2017 (UTC)
I have blocked JamesJohnson2 for one week. This user has been doing nothing but edit-warring at the article since they started editing last August, and against so many different editors I lost track.--Bbb23 (talk)16:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Due to the user's history of acting regardless of talk I chose to elevate this, the language was also not needed in the edit descriptionsLalichii (talk)00:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I've had trouble in the past with Mewulwe, concerning numbering of political offices in article infoboxes. Not certain why he's so against it.GoodDay (talk)02:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't you feel silly citing talk pages where I'm discussing the issue to no end as evidence of me "ignoring talk" when it's rather evident that opponents fail to counter my arguments? Lalichii hasn't argued the point at all, *he* in fact is edit warring without talking. GoodDay, for his part, has used the old trick of, when out of arguments, just repeating earlier-made, already-refuted ones. If anyone still wants to argue the issue, I'm gladly responding to any new point.Mewulwe (talk)10:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
TBH, I'd have less problems with your anti-numbering stance, if you would apply it evenly. For example: If you removed the numbering from the infoboxes ofall the Malawi presidents instead of just Banda orall the Bermuda premiers instead of just Cox & Stewart, you wouldn't be creating inconsistency in each series of leader articles.GoodDay (talk)17:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Shotgun slugs are single heavy lead slugs fired from shotguns. Shotgun projectiles normally do not rotate,rifles userifling to rotate their projectile and cause it to bespin-stabilised. Shotgun slugs are ribbed on the surface to reduce friction and this also leads to some slow rotation, much less than a rifle bullet. Does this count them as "spin-stabilised"?
There is a robust ref from the FBI ([69], p 37) saying no, with the text, "these ribs impart no significant stabilizing spin". The editor ignores this withWP:IDHT and claims that the same ref firstsupports his assertion, then adds aWP:SPS source (fairly obviously taken from the FBI ref, with a wild assertion added) and finally just a blanket, "I removed the statement because it is false".
This claim is not a trivially simple matter of spin or no spin: the ribs do produce someslow spin, this slow rotation does even out some manufacturing asymmetry of the slugs, but the key point is that the slugs are not stabilised by this spin and that they are not thus comparable to rifle bullets.
The contested edits are all reversions of the same form, removing the ref and the text "it is not spin-stabilised" to replace it withthe same ref (although stripped to a bare URL) and rewording to imply the opposite of what the ref states.
The editor is simply hard to follow with these blanket reversions, especially for their claims "reverting referenced material" (when they're the one removing) and the call to engage at talk, where they're simply ignoring the very clear statement in the ref. SeeTalk:Shotgun_slug#Spin.
I understand that you disagree, however saying that my edits are hard to follow is immaterial. What is wrong with the current revision? You can point to specifics in the CURRENT revision and I will take them apart point by point in the talk section. I have not removed referenced, correct information and I have not added untrue, unreferenced information. Rather than edit warring, it seems you are reporting me because you cannot understand the material being discussed. Yes, this is a bit abrasive to say, but your the responses in the talk section seem to belie a basic lack of understanding of the underlying subject material. I have made edits based on statements in the discussion, however there was no reason to make blanket reversions of my work in the first place. Since there are two editors who are reverting my work and were doing so before discussing it in the talk, it makes it difficult for me to make any substantive changes. --Winged Brick (talk)17:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
To do a revert without arguing against what appears in the talk page ids just bad habit and should be banned []. None of the given sources source that Breitbart News is a "The term is commonly used to describe right-wing populist ideologies known for extreme nationalism, Nazism,[1] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations". This is a break ofWP:BLP for all the people working for Breitbart and is a shame for Wikipedia:Talk:Breitbart_News#Far_Right_is_a_deteriorate_description_of_Breitbart.Nsaa (talk)20:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Further clarification about edit warring given to IP 2.28.71.127 on their user talk:[96]
Further clarification abuot edit wrring given to IP 2.28.71.127 on user talk page of admin who closed FFD discussion:[97]
Comments:
Edit warring involves multiple IPs (almost certainly the same person) and the non-free use ofFile:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg in various articles. The file was nominated for discussion atWikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 September 2#File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg. It was closed by administratorNthep as keep for one of the articles and a remove from the other articles.IP 2.27.75.26 was a participant in that discussion. After the FFD was closed,IP 2.28.71.127 appeared and started edit warring over the file in various articles. IP 2.28.71.127 basically decided to ignore the FFD, and informed the closing admin of suchhere.IP 2.27.81.170 then appeared to start a deletion review of the close atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 26. There were three "Endorse" !votes given in tht discussion and it was closed as such by administratorSandstein.IP 2.25.221.253 then appeared, questioned the DRV close atUser talk:Sandstein#File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg, and then proceeded to return to edit warring of the image's use in the same articles. It's quite possible that the IPs are confused about the FFD and the DRV closes, but that is something which should be resolved through further discussion, not edit warring. The same person does seem to be making all of the edits, even if the accounts are different, so using a new IP each time should also not be an excuse to edit war. --Marchjuly (talk)01:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[105]
Comments: The dispute is basically about the inclusion and wording of content cited to a primary source (as well as the messing up of basic copyediting in block reverts. I will also post either to the OR or RS noticeboard to get more eyes on the underlying dispute about the inclusion of material relating to another trial and the apparent interpretation of primary source material. It seems pretty clear-cut to me, but another opinion will help make the point if nothing else.N-HHtalk/edits12:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
User continuously removes a template asking for another look of the GA status, even though he is an involved editor and has been warned here:[106] twice and in edit summaries. The tag specifically states only an uninvolved editor can remove it. Here are his reverts:[107][108][109][110]
I have every reason to regard TheGracefulSlick's idea of having the article's GA status challenged as being in bad faith. And, so many of his past actions asABriefPasssingALongStay (when they harassed me) have given me reason. I did a large expansion on the article the last couple of years, but some, such as Ilovetopaint and TheGracefulSlick, said that it had grown to be to big (I actually agree to some extent). I have been working constructively to address Ilovetopaint's concerns. TheGraefulSlick is aware that I am preparing the article for FAC, and that calling into question its GA status is a backward step. In the ongoing discussions about the article (see talk page at Garage Rock)Softlavender had mentioned that she thought the article as it stood a few months ago (back when it was much longer) was near FA. However, I realize that other editors (such as Ilovetopaint and TheGracefulSlick) wanted a smaller article, so I have proceeded to remove approx. 150kb so far. People cannot say that I have not been trying to accommodate their wishes. I have done a great deal towards that goal, and have been trying to accommodate Ilovetopaint's concerns. But, I want to do it carefully in a way that does not haphazardly gut the article. And, the idea of challenging the article's GA status is disruptive and not helpful at this point. I take it to be in bad faith. Quite frankly, I feel like I am being bullied.Garagepunk66 (talk)08:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Please note admin I did not originally place tag. Isimply suggested it to offer a neutral alternative to the issues Garagepunk66 and Ilovetopaint were continuously having. One can not say this is in bad faith. I have, since I first started editing, been working around garage rock related pages so in no way am I targeting his work. Garagepunk66 simply cannot take criticism without being personally involved.TheGracefulSlick (talk)08:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, TheGracefulSlick is not an uninvolved party (either) at the Garage rock article (he has done edits there and has spoken on the talk page there), so he should not be putting such tags in here, or soliciting other involved editors to do so. In fact he made some rash remarks there a while back calling the article I worked hard to push to GA "a mess", which was unconstructive and hurtful, because he is someone I once regarded as a friend and we have both written about a lot of the same music. I reviewed three of his articles and listed them as GA. And, his attempt to get Ilovetpoint to challenge the GA status (see Ilovetopait's talk page) could also be perceived as canvassing. It would be best for TheGracefulSlick to recuse himself from commenting on my work.Garagepunk66 (talk)08:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no such policy stating an involved editor cannotplace a tag. I did not solicit the tag either, I simply offered it as an alternative to have a neutral editor outside the project agree or disagree with Ilovetopaint's major concerns. I was afraid if the debate escalated Garagepunk66 was in danger of a block. Several editors have also said you overreacted to my "mess" comment but here you are bringing it up again. The rest of your comment is just pointless banter to distract the admin from your edit warring.TheGracefulSlick (talk)08:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, this is one of numerous times you told me recuse myself from the article, a "nice" way of telling me to "get lost". Every time I disagree you either do that or bring up past unrelated history to bully me out of discussions because you cannot accept criticism. That doesn't work here, though.TheGracefulSlick (talk)08:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I have not told you to get lost until you said or did something disrespectful. It was actually you who askedBishonen a few months ago to block me out of the article. So, what else am I supposed to do? I get the feeling that you are trying use the conversation between myself and Ilovetopaint to muscle me out of the article. By the way, that editor is not neutral either. He (like you) is coming from the most "reductionist" stance amongst the host of editors who expressed themselves on the article talk page (the other day that particular editor removed almost the entire Canada section--I had to put it back, though I did do a few trims there). I am trying to do the right thing. I am trying to satisfy everyone's wishes, but I feel that I am being punished. I am trying to operate in everyone's best interest (if you don't believe me, see the removed Kbs in the edit history as evidence of my sincerity), so why try to challenge the GA there when I'm trying to do all of the things people want me to do? The article is getting close to FA.Garagepunk66 (talk)08:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The article is a far cry from FA. I don't have an opinion on GA because I never placed the tag, just reapplied it when you wrongfully removed it. You also just needlessly pinged Bishonen, another editor you believe will agree with you (canvassing). This is also not about Ilovetopaint's behavior. Once again, you misrepresent me (a common occurrence as of late) by saying I'm a reductionist. I eventually (and still have) sided with you against a split. However, I'm against namedropping and synth like Ilovetopaint which excuses his edits, but you keep reverting him with no legitimate reasoning. Anyways, please stick to the subject of your edit-warring. That is why we are here; stop trying to muddy that.TheGracefulSlick (talk)08:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Well that's funny, you gave me a Barnstar saying it was "the best music genre article at Wikipeia" (which I actually do not think that it was then or now--I have some of the same criticisms too--but I'm trying to get it closer to FA). Then, later, after calling it a "mess" you said you were just trying to "encourage me". Well, if you want to encourage me, then the last thing to do would be to make us go through the whole GA process all over again. Haven't we been through enough hooprings with the article? If there's going t be more scrutiny, then I'd like to keep the boat moving forward, please. By the way, isn't the conversation that Ilovetopaint and I are currently having one form of constructive deliberation? He and I may tussle at times, but we are slowly working things out and collaborating. So, why sabotage that process and use that to turn it into something negative? I didn't mind your constructive criticism a day or two ago. But, your more recent proposal to challenge the GA is not constructive.Garagepunk66 (talk)09:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
It was not my proposal, it wasIlovetopaint's. Please, tell me how it is constructive to remove a legitimate tag four times (with warnings) when Ilovetopaint continously brought up major concerns? Why did you ignore the fact an involved editor cannot remove the tag? Why did you feel that past unrelated behavior (used in a personal attack) was a constructive reason to remove the tag? Why do you think namedropping and synth, while ignoring key aspects of the genre, is appropriate for the article and does not deserve another review?TheGracefulSlick (talk)09:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
No, it was you who recommended the idea to him.
I told both of you that I will go in and change the wording in the statements in the article (which sound namedropping) as soon as soon I've finished paring down the text to including just the bands/acts that will remain discussed in the article. Both of you wanted to see less bands--I'm satisfying that request.
It is necessary to get the superfluous mentions of bands out first--then I'll got change the text of the remaining acts. I gave both of you my assurance that I will make the necessary changes in wording--I told both of you I agree that it should be done. Keep in mind that for each statement (about each band) that I change, I will need to go back and re-read the sources (including some sources that have been trimmed out of the article) first.
Though I already know more-or-less what changes to make in wording, I still have to go back and check the sources and re-read them first to make sure that they confirm whatever changes in statements I make. That may evolve bringing back old sources or finding new ones. So, please let me reduce set of the bands discussed first before changing the wording.
Luckily, I think that we may be near to the irreducible amount of bands (I trimmed out a bunch last night). I'll be busy for the next several hours, but tonight I might be able to begin making the changes in wording. I'll check to first see if any more bands need to be removed, then I'll start on the text changes as I promised.
I had asked for patience, not for you to challenge the article's GA rating. Doing so is not in good faith when I am working to resolve the issues. Do not take that I am trying to get the bands out first as meaning I am unwilling to help with the other changes you want to see--I want to make those changes too. I told you that I'll get to the changes in wording once I've trimmed out the unnecessary bands. Two days ago, I gave you my promise that I'd do that. I will do it. Give me a chance.Garagepunk66 (talk)17:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, it was not my proposal. I merely suggested it to him as a neutral way to solve the issues he continously keeps finding. If he said, "no, I'd rather not, I don't see the benefit", that would have been the end of it. Andagain, I'm not commenting on the integrity of the article or your process to improving it. This thread is for your edit warring, nothing else. You have yet to answer any of my questions I raised above without adding excessive explanations and promises about how you'll solve everything. Ilovetopaint may be right, another editor needs to clean up this mess, but that's an issue for another time. Like when this one is taken care of.TheGracefulSlick (talk)17:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment First of all, this report is malformed and doesn't even follow the instructions for this noticeboard. You are both edit warring on the Talk page, and both of you deserve a trout for letting your argument spill over here. Garagepunk66, please look atWP:GAR. Editors are allowed to place this template on a page if they think an article might need GA reassessment. An independent editor will come around and decide if that's warranted. It's not for you to decide. If this edit war continues on that Talk page, I'll block both of you.Laser brain(talk)18:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Deliberately adding infobox to the Kristen Stewart article, despite there being an ongoing RfC as well as a consensus not to add one. This can be counted as vandalism and the page would most likely benefit from protection.JAGUAR18:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This article was put under indefinite semiprotection last November, but it's not there currently, maybe due to a period of full protection in between. In my opinion the indefinite semiprotection should be restored.EdJohnston (talk)18:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree—it should be placed under protection for a while, or at least until the RfC has reached its consensus. I see that another user has added an infobox to the article, despite the ongoing RfC.JAGUAR20:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[125][126]
Comments:
The article is under a 1RR restriction and is subject to discretionary sanctions. In addition to violating 1RR, BlueSalix has also restored material which has been challenged - this is prohibited under discretionary sanctions unless consensus is achieved. Also, a quick look through the talk page shows that BlueSalix' attempts at "discussion" involve making personal attacks and aggressive behavior towards other editors, in particular, failure to discuss content rather than editors, as well making POINTy proposals.
Note also that the 1RR violation occurred AFTER the user was informed of the restriction and warned. So they did it with clear knowledge and intent of breaking the rule.Volunteer Marek (talk)00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The veracity of these two edits was reviewed and discussedby three separate admins on the Talk page already. MelanieN subsequently determined that a previously expressed determination on the Talk page that content in a DS article could be challenged through removal, and such challengeipso facto did not therefore amount to 1RR, was erroneous and explained why. With the situation resolved, I made no further edits of any nature to the article. I have, therefore, already received a written warning and the application of sanctions would serve no preventative or protective purpose but would be merely punitive.
I acknowledge Marek, who has a long and colorful block log for edit warring and harassment[127], has a right to shop around complaints if what he views as his "opponents" haven't been kneecapped to a desired level, but politely and demurely request he or she limitWP:OTHERPARENTing them to a maximum of three admins in order to promote content-focused editing.
I note Marek made multiple reverts yesterday[128],[129],[130],[131],[132], etc., despite indicating he or she was aware of DS[133]. Some of this content subsequently had to be painstakingly and manually restored by admin edit (see:"Restoring longstanding material deleted in a mass removal by VM. Discuss individual sources on talk page, please."[134]). I refrain from opining whether the encyclopedia does need protection from Marek but will, instead, leave it to the reviewing admin's good judgment.BlueSalix (talk)00:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Not blocked -BlueSalix's violation of ArbCom levied sanctions and his behavior toward other editors has been completelyunacceptable; but, since he is not showing any inclination towards a continuation of the edit war on this article, I see no need to block his account at this time. - BlueSalix is formerly warned to strictly adhere to any ArbCom sanctions he encounters in the future.—Coffee //have a cup //beans //05:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
13:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC) "←Created page with '== INTODUCTION:- == DONGARGAON a village of susner talluk(tehsil) of shajapur district now in agarmalwa district of madhyapradesh is a village which...'"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User continues to add completely unsourced content to a redirect for an article that already exists. User was warned and asked to improve the existing article rather than continuing at the redirect (which they clearly have ignored.)Chrissymad❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This is already being discussed elsewhereelsewhere. It was my impression that user pages are the domain of the user and adding the deletion tags was a continued form of badgering by AusLondoner, which is being discussed already at ANI. If I am wrong re: user pages, I apologize for the misunderstanding.--TM01:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
21:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "In this case the term upscale is a fact as it distinguishes itself from a "regional mall" or "class a super regional mall". It's necessary."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Talk:Crossgates_Mall#Upscale.3F: Long discussion where 5 other editors discuss this repeated addition with clear consensus that this material should not be included, while EdelweissofNE is the sole proponent, rejecting consensus, pursuingWP:IDHT.
Note that no one reverted my edit removing the old photo from the info box that I said "is this not unrelated"
No one disputed my argument or points on the talk page and I was given no reason to believe my consensus was incorrect or unsatisfactory. For some reason Todd doesn't like my edit but why does it give him the right to "rule over" the page and report me when he as given me zero reason to believe I'm wrong. I felt I was fair and completely competent.EdelweissofNE (talk)23:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
This IP is consistently adding an unsourced title despite many warnings and edit summaries. I went over to ANI to get this resolved, but I am now here since it's mounting to severe edit warring.Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑02:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected three months. The unsourced title is being added by more than one IP editor, and this is not the first time protection has been needed.EdJohnston (talk)03:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
12:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 764163017 byZoupan (talk) Albanian fascists may be POV. Take to the talk, include there inline citations and propose a more neutral sentence."
Blocked – 48 hours. This has overtones of ethnic warring.This edit which removes the Serbian alternate name of the district was performed with the not-too-helpful summary "Albanian alternative names are deleted too". The text of the article makes clear that the majority of Banja's inhabitants are Serbian. He has also warred on Albanian versus Serbian names atOur Lady of Ljeviš.EdJohnston (talk)03:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
User keeps violating the 1RR rule on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map and articles of SCW and Turkish related conflict time and time again.--Niele~enwiki (talk)11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
User has a large and long history of constant editwarring, being warned for edit warring continuously since his presence on wikipedia, being blocked recently for edit-warring and is not learning from it.--Niele~enwiki (talk)11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Openly pan-nationalistic Turkish has a persistent history of focusing only on targeting pages of minorities (Armenian, Kurdish, Greek, Alawite, Jezidi,...) pages that stand in the way of his ideals and NPOV pushing in favor of Turkish 'image', 'greatness' and 'alternative history' involving conflicts in witch Turkey is involved.--Niele~enwiki (talk)11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Tries to overrule newer pro-Turkish news-outlets for SDF-favored control, with older pro-Turkish tweets for pro-Turkish favored control while these specific tweets are already proven to be false for the other bigger village they where talking about. --Niele~enwiki (talk)11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
More specific: he tries with old to overrulemore recent pro-Turkish news-outlets that state that:
(1) Sajur-river is the border
(2) pro-Turkish militants can't cross the Sajur-river because of American Special Forces deliberate patrolling south of the Sajur river stationed there to prevent clashes/borderchanges between SDF and pro-Turkish militants.
(3) stating that the SDF is controlling the other south-bank of the Sajur-river.
Witholder (august 2016) tweets, coming a then based on pro-Turkish false claims/wishes that pro-Turkish militants took 2 villages south of the Sajur-river. The large village (Ayn-Al-Dadat) many new sources confirmed this was false and this large village is under SDF control
The smaller village Oshariyah is not mentioned again for 6 months after these 'proven'(see Ayn-Al-Dadat) false tweets. This while all (even small) shooting over the Sajur-river is constantly reported.
There is no bridge over the sajur-river connecting the small village of Oshariyah to Turkish-controlled north bank. Recent satellite-imagery (terraserver) clearly visualise there are no make-shift bridges or pontoons placed on the sajur-river to maintain one bridgehead south of the Sajur-river nor there are defensive walls or positions constructed between Oshariyah and the surrounding other SDF controlled villages south of the sajur-river. (Location:http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.645559&lon=38.069944&z=14&m=b&show=/12297476/Oshariyah)
Please note that a bridgehead of Turkish forces south of the Sajur-river would be a major element, and would most definitely not be only reported by some tweets from only pro-Turkish militants. And it would be a hotbed of conflict, skirmishes for the last 6 months but no so such things are being reported.
For such a claim as a TSK-bridgehead south of the Sajur-river you need major sources. Not some old tweets that are already proven wrong for the bigger village and are even contradicted by several newer pro-Turkish newsoutlets.--Niele~enwiki (talk)11:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Guy, please stop with edit warring, you started this. You have reverted my edit 2 times in the summer. This claim was confirmed by Sham Legion by its official account with pictures. You're showing anything as "source" which you've already changed in Wikimapia. You're showing Wikimapia as a source, however you do all edits on Wikimapia.Mehmedsons, look he's now reporting me, however you know how many edit he reverted which was unsourced and biased.
Niele is an user which have called me three times "racist" and called my several times "...phobic" however I'm not a racist. If there is an user which should be banned, it's youNiele
Beshogur fully reverted 3 times edit's of other users in a period of 24 hours. Not using the revert button, but making the exact same edit as the revert-button would do. This is ofcourse regarded as a revert. Wikipedia-system automatically warned even that it was those where a revert, bc it was the exact opposite-handeling of the previous edit. He very well knows this, beïng involved in dozens of edit-wars many with warnings. --Niele~enwiki (talk)13:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
He is obviously lying here and trying to distract with false things that has nothing to do with this. I never used any DNS fake acounts. He just randomly tries to link DNS-accounts every time a DNS-account reverts him without any evidence, link or real suspicion. Obviously there are large amounts of people trying to revert his edits, because his whole account-life is focused on making NPOV-edit on controversial topics from a pan-Turkish nationalist standpoint as he describes himself. Again calling a Turkish language law racist-motivated is not calling a user 'a racist'.--Niele~enwiki (talk)13:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
After he changed this SDF-controlled village in the summer from SDF to opp based on a twitter-rumor, I first reverted his edit bc it was using pro-Turkish unrealible and faulty proven tweets for pro-Turkish advance for something as important as a bridgehead over a river. Because I did'nt wanted to editwar with him, I left his re-revert then. Yet after 6 months there is still not one reliable source to back-up a controversial standpoint that Turkey established a bridgehead over the Sajur river. There are only reliable and pro-opp sources stating the Sajur-river is the border. While I gave him 6 months, he still can't provide any reliable source for the existance of somesort of one-village-counting-bridgehead, while it is completly impossible that there would be an one-village-counting-bridgehead on a location where there is no bridge/rivercrossing possibilitys on this frontline whitout any news from it for 6 months. If there was ever a bridgehead, it would be easy to find new reports, sources about this.--Niele~enwiki (talk)13:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. 10:30 and 22:41 are clear reverts. 11:53 is a revert of an edit made ten hours earlier at 01:55. That's three reverts on an article with a community based 1RR. If you're confused about what constitutes a revert, then please ask before making any other edits. If there are broader concerns about editing patterns and "he's racist, no he's racist" disputes, you may want to discuss atWP:ANI.Kuru(talk)13:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
User:CatapultTalks reported byUser:Volunteer Marek (Result: Declined Report should be made atWP:AE, which is the appropriate forum for any Discretionary Sanctions violations.)
So that's a few more 1RR violations and a 3RR violation.
Note: - in addition to the persistent edit warring several of these edits violate the discretionary sanction which states:" All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Several of CatapultTalks' edits have been challenged by several users via reversion, yet he persists in restoring his preferred version without much discussion, much less bothering to get consensus.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple warnings and notifications about edit warring and discretionary sanctions[160],[161],[162],[163].
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[164][165], then[166] and also[167],
Comments: Note also that the user makes untrue claims in edit summaries to hide the nature of their reverts ([[168]] <- that is NOT a "copy edit" nor is it just a removal of "duplicate content". And in discussions (ex.[169] <- they have NOT "opened a discussion", in fact they refused to discuss until pressured to do so on their talk.
Note that the user is perfectly aware that discretionary sanctions are in force on all of these articles as it has been repeatedly pointed out to them. Yet, CatapultTalks chooses to ignore the restrictions (as well as 3RR) and has been edit warring across several articles and against several users. The user appears to be impervious to appeals to reason. I've tried to be as nice as possible about it - which is why some of these diffs are from a few days ago - and convince the user to slow down, discuss and observe the discretionary sanctions but it hasn't worked and they insist on being obstinate. Since these articles fall under discretionary sanctions a block may not be sufficient and a topic ban from Trump related pages might be in order.Volunteer Marek (talk)05:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments: Note that the above five reverts were edit warring against four different editors over the same issue. Discussions of the books in question had been had multiple times on the talk page already. Editor is free to raise the issue at the article talk page of course, but continued edit warring like this is not acceptable.Fram (talk)07:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Almost all the edits by this account are promotional with regard to the dietary supplementnicotinamide riboside and its putative mechanism of action. This is the first time they have edit warred to try to get their edits to stick.Jytdog (talk)01:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Result: No action since the userself-reverted. It has been decided per an RM discussion that this emperor should be titled Peter II on Wikipedia rather than Peter IV.User:Kandi is reminded that they have never used a talk page, and this can cause problems when disputes occur.EdJohnston (talk)20:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Comments: A user who has been on Wikipedia for half a month — and I did take pains not tobite the newbie and to try to explainWP:RS citing atTalk:Demi Moore — has become contentious and is edit-warring in ways that violateWP:BLP,WP:RS,WP:TONE, andWP:NPOV. He removed direct, verbatim quotes from the article subject in order to push a whitewashing agenda, and even after agreeing on the talk page that certain information was extraneous (a photographer's name and background), he re-added it, seemingly out of spite.
For the record, I think it's important to state I was operating under what I understand to be theWP:NOT3RR exemption for "[r]emoving violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material". The latter two, biased and unsourced/poorly sourced, applied. --Tenebrae (talk)19:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After last warning:| 03:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 764297219 by Niteshift36 (talk)--please stop blanking content and edit warring; no valid policy basis for doing so -- see new Talk thread titled "Edit Warring""
23:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 764227820 byNiteshift36 (talk)--restored blanked content -- detail is codified in historical account of confirmation by multiple sources; several new sources added"
21:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Nomination for Secretary of Education */this is a pretty worthless quote and misrepresents the position of the Washington Post expressed in subsequent reporting"
User was already blocked for edit warring and was already warned in the past[208].User also warned other user about edit warring:[209] and immediately reverted again[210].
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
A list of unrelated reverts dating as far back as December -- with no context whatsoever or associated talk age discussions -- is by no means evidence of edit warring on my part. A revert is not equivalent to an act of edit warring. Obviously, WP policy clearly dictates that there are times when reverts are perfectly appropriate. Nordid the editor who filed this complaint detail any instance of an attempt to resolve the alleged dispute. Furthermore, the bearing of a 24-hour 3RR violationfrom 4 years ago in this instance is nil and misleading. Overall, a rather suspicious and lopsided charge on several counts. There is no question that there has been growing conflict with Niteshift, and it has led to some back and forth reverting on both sides (his numerous countervailing reverts were not mentioned in the complaint), but it's baseless to suggest that I haven't engaged on the Talk page. In fact I have been repeatedly citing sound policy and using the Talk page where appropriate to resolve disputes, several times in the past few days alone.[222][223][224][225]
I have also left several past warnings to Niteshift to refrain from edit warring, as recently as today,[226][227] but these have gone unheeded. I have also been the subject of wikihounding by the same editor and was on the precipice of filing an administrative complaint.[228][229], and this was on the heels of another complaint I had to file against this editor for making personal attacks.[230] This seems suspiciously like a preemptive strike. Either way, at best, it's hyperbolically lopsided. I'd be happy to take this to dispute resolution or straight to ANI. It's long overdue.Rhode Island Red (talk)05:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Red, I posted in the article that I was taking a break from it. Please don't try to divert attention from your own actions by trying to point the finger at someone else. Nothing I did justifies your edit warring, nor are your reverts only involving interactions with me. Yes, you made a complaint at ANI that went nowhere. Yes, you've conjured up some bogus wikihounding story that can be easily disproven. Now you're even talking about this complaint being "suspicious". I think you're missing the point here.THIS isn't about the content dispute or any imagined wrongs.THIS isn't a "happy to take this to ANI".THIS is about your violation of the 3RR.Niteshift36 (talk)05:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s healthy or productive for Niteshift and I to engage with each other directly here. But just for the record, Niteshift announced that he was taking a break (5:30)[231] long after this ANI was filed, and after engaging in multiple reverts (without using the talk page or providing sufficient reasons in the edit summaries), and well after I had left the user an edit warring notice (at 03:49).[232] Again, I find the timing somewhat odd, as well as the rather ill-formed nature of the complaint.
In other words, there was no real attempt made to back away from the conflict despite the user suggesting otherwise, and, most importantly, the user never did articulate a valid rationale for the content blanking.WP:REMOVAL stipulates “unexplained content removal is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted.” My revert was consistent with this policy. I explained this on the Talk page but it fell on deaf ears.[233]Rhode Island Red (talk)16:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
If you talk about me, you should expect my participation. This report was filed at 2254. My post about taking a break was at 2259. Essentially, he and I were posting at the same time. 5 minutes is hardly "long after". It's 5 minutes. The first notification of this discussion was posted on my page at 2317. So please, stop exaggerating. You did finally try to discuss the issue on the talk page, but that was after a number of reverts by you and when I had finally started to disengage. As for your "odd timing" notion.... I can't recall ever interacting with the editor who filed this. It may have happened, but I don't remember one. If you have any sort of evidence about collusion, I strongly advise you to go directly to ANI. If you don't, I'd strongly advise you to stopcasting aspersions, as the ARBCOM considers it to be a form of personal attack.Niteshift36 (talk)17:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
All involved parties are expected to participate. My suggestion was merely that the involved parties present their arguments without personalizing them or engaging each other directly as doing so tends to propagate conflict.
Again, for the record, I posted an edit warring notice on Niteshift’s user page at 03:49.[234] This ANI against me was filed 5 minutes later at 03:54.[235] Niteshift was directly notified of this ANI fling at 04:17[236] and then stated that he/she would be backing off from editing more than an hour later (at 05:30).[237] This was long after the editor had reverted the content 3 times over a 24-hour period and without providing sufficient justification or using the Talk page.[238][239][240] This is not consistent with the claim here that Niteshift "did a good measure to try to end the edit-warring by giving up it". It’s important that we get the facts straight for the record before this ANI is closed.
This wasn’t the first incident like this either. Just a few days prior, the same editor pushed the reverting to the limit.[241][242][243][244] by blanking content, again without providing sufficient justification, and in this case, pretty much refusing editorial discussion on the Talk page.[245]
The egregious nature of this behavior begs the question as to why the filer of this ANI chose to make such a lopsided charge, singling me out but in effect exonerating the other party; And also why the filer described this as me undoing Niteshift’s edits, when in fact, the opposite took place. I added content and Niteshift blanked it – repeatedly and without an articulated and valid policy basis.Rhode Island Red (talk)22:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
don't know where you're getting your times because they don't match the record. Again, if you have anything to support your conspiracy theory, you know where ANI is located. Take it there. I'll listen for the sound of laughter.Niteshift36 (talk)02:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, I would say that@Niteshift36: did a good measure to try to end the edit-warring by giving up it, but that really shouldn't excuse him too from 3RR argument, clearly by just looking at the revisions, shows that the user did engage in this too. Thisdoesn't put any less fault on@Rhode Island Red:. This doesn't require a second discussion, but should at least be brought up on this clearly one on one argument. —JJBers07:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
HeyNiteshift36 did not violate the 3RR! In addition as Niteshift36 pointed out blp problems in the edit summary and I tend to agree that much of that addition is a blp violation and not subject to the rule.CaseeArtTalk17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I didn’t violate 3RR either, but that didn’t stop you from launching this ill-formed complaint. Niteshift never brought up the issue of a BLP violation regarding the material in question (he/she merely left one vague edit summary about relevancy),[246][247][248] and it’s clearly not aWP:BLP violation. This isn’t really the place to delve into a content dispute, but if you had such concerns, the onus would be on you to provide a comment on the TPG, which you never did.[249] This isn’t an exercise in mind reading. BTW, it would be nice if you signed your comments when posting here.[250]Rhode Island Red (talk)16:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The determination here is that I did not violate 3RR at all, and I did not say that Niteshift violated 3RR, but he/she did push it to the limit and was clearly edit warring. Your complaint was off-based, ill-formed, and painfully lopsided -- to the point where some might suspect tag-teaming.Rhode Island Red (talk)17:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You pushed it as well my friend and were edit warring every bit as much. That's the difference between us. I know I was on thin ice and I chose to disengage. You simply refuse to see your own actions for what they are. I will again remind you that your bad faithfalse allegation of collusion or tag-teaming is a violation ofWP:NPA and you should cease immediately. You've been told the policy, you've been told the remedy. If yourefuse to hear it, I wouldn't blameCaseeart if he filed a complaint at ANI (the real ANI, as this is not ANI). He'd certainly have a reasonable complaint, since your attempt to play the "some might suspect" game is very transparent.Niteshift36 (talk)20:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
How things seems to you and how things are in reality are two different things. The determination is that I did not violate 3RR. Continuing to insist otherwise is bordering on a personal attack, so kindly stop. Myopically focusing on my edits and ignoring the transgressions of the other involved editor (shielding him/her in fact) raises serious questions about your neutrality.Rhode Island Red (talk)17:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The diffes are here and it seems clear that you violated 3RR andNiteshift36. did not. It appears that other univovled users looked at your misleading comments without properly investigating. I would like to see how anyone proves it otherwise. Please don't try to scare me off with false accusations.CaseeArtTalk18:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Once again, the determination here is that I did not violate 3RR, so it is highly inappropriate to keep insisting otherwise. Concede the point on move on.Rhode Island Red (talk)17:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Caseeart, his accusations are completely baseless and he knows it. If he had the slightest bit of evidence to support his nonsense, he'd be at ANI. Given the number of times in this discussion that the allegation has been made toward one or both of us, even after being cautioned about it, it is clear that his personal attacks will not end.Niteshift36 (talk)20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not blocked However, I've placed aone-revert per 24 hour ArbCom sanctioned page restriction on the article, (as well as other stability provoking remedies). For more information please see theeditnotice on the article, or the Active Arbitration Remedies notice at the top of thetalk page. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.—Coffee //have a cup //beans //07:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
@Coffee: No 3RR???? I saw twice 5 reverts in 24 hours (different material). First time started 20:42, 6 February and ended 19:21, 7 February. And the second started 15:44, 7 February and ended 03:55, 8 February.?????? (Niteshift DID NOT violate 3RR).CaseeArtTalk17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to look into this matter. Revert battles are never a desirable solution to editorial disputes, but sometimes a simple well-explained revert or two seems the lesser of two evils when faced with the daunting prospect of a an exhaustive debate that goes nowhere or, worse, hostile talk page discussions that bypass all the relevant policy issues. Nonetheless, the imposition of 1-revert per day limit on the page is probably a good thing, although I can anticipate that it might still be exhausting since any editor can remove content from the article, even without justification, and put the onus on other editors to try to convince someone who may be completely unwilling to be convinced, no matter how sound the argument; which is what has often taken place on the talk page to date.Rhode Island Red (talk)15:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is exhausting. Having to have a RFC to show some editors that their reading of WEIGHT is wrong, then turn around and have another one to do it again (and get the same result) take a lot of time out of my day.Niteshift36 (talk)19:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
To the participants in this ANI discussion: The comment above is illustrative of the kind of non-constructive goading that has been taking place. Notice that this ANI has nothing do with any RfC or the subject ofWP:WEIGHT.Rhode Island Red (talk)22:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we please stop calling this ANI. This is not ANI. That kind of inattention to what s actually being said and then repeating it as fact is illustrative of the non-constructive discussions that have been taking place.Niteshift36 (talk)02:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
20:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 764769327 byModernist (talk) No I won't. This was already on the page before this guy started to delete things. My version is how the article was in the first place."
I just want ti add that this editor was blocked previously for edit warring, has been warned countless times to not edit war and to discuss, and as you can see from his edits and his edit summaries, he has no intention to stop or to edit in collaboration with other editors. He feels only he is correct and that others must abide by his edits.freshacconci talk to me20:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This is unbelievable. Are you kidding me? That guy Johnbod is deleting things without using the TP and without using proper sources. I'm restoring the page to the original version. I.e. the correct version that isn't mentioning clear nonsense. Stop being pathetic and get a life.C.Gesualdo (talk)20:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If I'm editing and people are constantly reverting my contributions and then refuse to engage in a discussion, then whose fault is it?C.Gesualdo (talk)22:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been looking at this situation throughout the evening and you should really bedisengaging about now. Looking at your past edits I see the following:
You have reverted the same content from multiple editors several times and are currently pastthe three revert rule.
This andthis edit are effectively assertingownership of the article by simply reverting it to the version you prefer.
You have only just been unblock twice for the exact same reasons. First there was a 24 hour block for 3RR, followed by a two week block for edit warring that expired days ago (block log).
When you are in an edit war you disengage and discuss it on the talk page and leave the article alone in the meantime. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong and equally it doesn't matter what revision is the topmost revision of an article. Wikipedia is more than a decade old and restoring an edit is as simple as two clicks, so it can likely survive despitethe wrong version of the article being displayed.Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)22:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Why should I be the first one to discuss this on the TP? This is really ridiculous, every time I make an edit and someone reverts it, I'm expected to start a discussion about it. It doesn't make sense. Correct information was deleted without starting a discussion about it. Or do I have to give a compliment even if they're writing clear nonsense?User:Modernist andUser:Freshacconci both have this arrogant attitude and apparently feel that they never have to participate in a discussion. And yes, that's the behavior of assholes.C.Gesualdo (talk)23:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If you disagree with another editors changes you can discuss them, walk away and work on something else or ask other people for feedback if you can't find any agreement. In either case you don't start an edit war nor should personal attacks be aimed at other editors. Your edits have no more inherent veracity than any other editors changes; Simply stating that your edits are correct and other editors write nonsense is a no-go as far as winning an argument goes. I can only say this and point to the above list and the previous two blocks as a caution. Your not a bad editor at all and I would very much prefer this entire thing just sizzles out, but the past two blocks combined with everything listed today is objectively already past the breaking point and it will certainly be if it keeps up.Excirial(Contact me,Contribs)00:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Clear reverts at 21:49, 21:24, 20:49, 20:46, 17:50, 01:24. Warned, obviously blocked for same issue multiple times.Kuru(talk)23:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 20:49, 10 February 2017 C.Gesualdo (talk | contribs) . . (43,265 bytes) (-207) . . (Undid revision 764769327 by Modernist (talk) No I won't. This was already on the page before this guy started to delete things. My version is how the article was in the first place.) (undo)
Comments: This user is deleting information without using the TP and without mentioning proper sources. He claims that the article was poor, but this is absolutely not true. He now refuses to engage a discussion about it on the TP.C.Gesualdo (talk)21:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Seriously what is your problem? He started spreading information that is clearly not true and when I corrected it he deleted it. What the fuck are you talking about?C.Gesualdo (talk)21:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No violation. I don't see how 20:52 or 04:54 are reverts. I do see 20:37 and 04:57, but that's just two. I really don't think antagonistic comments like the one above help your case.Kuru(talk)00:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Just take a quick look at the history of the article. The user insists on re-adding material that was removed by CONSENSUS. Thus, he's not only edit warring but is disrespecting the consensus on the talk page. Cheers.
PS: I had some trouble reporting this. I hope you don't mind.
Comments: I'd recommend thatno action be taken. Emotions might be a tad high at the article-in-question for the moment, but they'll cool down quick enough. If anything, page protection would be the better route.GoodDay (talk)22:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Returned from an edit warring block byNeilN for edits toPalindrome and immediately broke 3RR again making the same edits. There is no consensus in the talk page thread for these edits and his participation in the thread[262] immediately prior to his last revert seems to indicate that he will continue to edit war.Meters (talk)07:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how full protection of the page is warranted, or how it solves the problem. We have an extensive discussion of the issue on the talk page by multiple editors, including the one reported here. The reported editor has been making this change since December, has had multiple warnings, has been blocked for edit warring over this, and returned from his block to break 3RR again.Meters (talk)19:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
IP 12.111.217.25 continues to re-add unsupported content, including content about living persons, toWing Bowl#Past Wing Bowls. The article itself has been tagged with "Refimprove" since 2010 and also recently brought to AfD. Some of the content being re-added has previously been removed by other editors ([281][282]), but it keeps being re-added by without any attempt to discuss. Some dynamic IPs have also previously tried to add some of the same content, and they might be connected to IP 12.111.217.25's editing in someway. --Marchjuly (talk)00:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Explanatory comment from uninvolved editor: The dispute appears to be about whether to include tags for {{Overly detailed}} and {{Copyedit}} on theCareer section of the article.
DeclinedTag bombing is counterproductive. In fact, tags should not be used unless you're going to actually specify the problems you percieve on the talk page. Simply reiterating the text from the templates on the talk page and saying the (fairly short) article needs to be "checked" or "reviewed" is not sufficient.WP:SOFIXIT. However, semi-protecting now to stop the unproductive tag-warring.Swarm♠19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
16:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765090727 byIsaacl (talk) There is a consensus, no one bothered to get around to fixing it though. Look at talk page on Toronto Maple Leafs. Also: Common Sense"
16:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Trophies and awards */ The Toronto Maple Leafs only have 11 Stanley Cups. The Arenas and St. Patricks are defunct teams that are part of the Toronto FRANCHISE but are NOT the Toronto Maple Leafs"
16:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Teams */ The Franchise is called "Toronto" not the "Toronto Maple Leafs" The Maple Leafs are a team that is part of the Toronto Franchise"
15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 765063114 byRavenswing (talk) The change was done because The Maple Leafs themselves are not a Franchise. It's Toronto that is the Franchise, not the Maple Leafs"
07:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC) "/* Teams */ The Montreal Canadiens have won 24 Stanley Cups and only 22 NHL Championships or 24 Championships in total. It would be more correct to say they won 24 NHL/NHA Championships"
Note: This report is malformed. If you want it to be acted on please use the proper formatting. Next physical threats fall underWP:NPA EPB. You would do well to retract and apologize for it. Otherwise you risk a block.MarnetteD|Talk17:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
PamD,WP:NOTVANDALISM andPSGV (fancy acronyms). Even though it isn't vandalism, I strongly suggest to Elisee to stop these types of edit. They are certainly disruptive, especially the random warnings to uninvolved user's talk pages.Dat GuyTalkContribs18:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Momo Monitor has been CU confirmed as a sockmaster. Recommend closing this and the report above with no action against BkonradNeilNtalk to me03:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The edits do not comply with requirements for disambiguation. First, both links redirect to the same target. Second, there is no indication at the target that either are known by these initials. I don't care one way or the other about the subject matter, but unless there is some indication in the linked target that these are known by the initials, there is nothing to disambiguate.older ≠wiser14:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please add such references to the appropriate target of the links. Without any such indications in the target of the links, there is no basis for including on the disambiguation page.
Comment from uninvolved editor: Isn't it discouraged to use a sig that doesn't suggest your username in any way? Example:older ≠wiser looks nothing at all likeUser:Bkonrad. Would such a complaint go toWP:UAA, or somewhere else? I'd appreciate either a talkback or a note on my talk page if you wouldn't mind.J♯m (talk | contribs)02:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Adam the silly aside from this report not being formatted properly the person is rotating their IP. The way to deal with this is to file a report atWP:RFPP. I have taken care of this so, hopefully, the page will be protected soon.MarnetteD|Talk19:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
This user's edits have been relatively problematic lately – it seems to be a combination of language issues (i.e. ESL?) and a quasi-WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I'm not convinced that a block is the right way to go at this time, but if they don't knock off their recent approach to editing, blocking may be the only option, unfortunately. --IJBall(contribs •talk)20:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours I spotted the edit war at MH370 and blocked for that. Hopefully it should be enough.Mjroots (talk)19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
19:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Deleted. This is an extreme opinion, the nature of which is literally untrue, non-objective & biased. It does not deserve to be in print let alone in a Wiki article."
15:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "This is an extreme opinion and is not and cannot be true. Presenting it in the opening introduction of information on the film only serves extreme bias diminishing the integrity of Wiki articles."
13:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Added a respectable review that was not biased against the film and is apolitical, objective and measured in here review."
13:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "So this is how you hi-jack and bias a wiki article, just say the bias is a quote. Nice one. Whoever is editing and keeping the article so biased is a deceiver and probably paid to do this. If your edit/version is a quote, it should identify quoter."
I had opened a section on the talk page to invite the user to comment, but they did another reversion while I did so.331dot (talk)19:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[293]
Comments:User:Jayeko is repeatedly adding unsourced content (a pay-per-view buyrate figure) toChris Eubank Jr. Google searches yield no results for the content they're trying to add; no edit summaries; no talk page responses; and they are either working in tandem with or socking as a series of 129.xx IPs which are making the same exact edits:129.12.209.128,129.12.211.194,129.12.102.138. Furthermore, almostall other edits of User:Jayeko across other articles indicate a clear VOA:
20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)(+5,398) "overzealous overdeletion. No individual entries should be removed, and if you're concerned about items implicitly sourced to the magazine feature itself, just add a ref to the magazine rather than deleting the entry"
Diffs of Richterer11111's reverts
01:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)(-5,485) "BLP demands immediate changes. Before reverting comment on talk page. this is a clear violation of BLP and sources and previous discussions."
22:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)(-4,326) "BLP's require accurate sources, for which Playboy.com would not be, nor would adultfilmdatabase. These are simply not sources that can be used."
23:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)(-1,159) "I mean really even a most basic review of BLP would show this isn't authorized on Wikipedia. Please don't revert this without accurate sources, none of which are here."
I got here because I saw what looked like a bad-faith removal of content on the part ofUser:RonzUser:Richterer11111. I restored it without knowing the context, which was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that. It seems that there is an ongoing edit war about whether or not to blank a large part of the content and also some sources, I believe.J♯m (talk | contribs)02:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I had been using Huggle at the time, which is why I failed to notice any context.User:Ronz messaged me and asked me to undo my own edit, which I did, so I hope that that absolves me of any wrongdoing here. However, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, presumably having seen the edit war, immediately undid my self-revert.J♯m (talk | contribs)02:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Selected edits that illustrate the chronology of the edit war:
14:18, 9 February 2017 Amiryucky (talk | contribs) . . (839 bytes)(-13,626) . .(removal of unreliable sources and content not fitting for wikipedia. Inaccurate info and this isn't worthy of wikipedia.) (undo | thank)(Tag: section blanking)
09:49, 10 February 2017Richterer11111 (talk | contribs) . . (2,372 bytes)(-13,627) . .(Sources are not reliable. This is about living people and inaccurately reflecting their lives with one wrong minor source.) (undo | thank)(Tag: section blanking)
19:54, 12 February 2017 Richterer11111 (talk | contribs) . . (15,152 bytes)(-5,198) . .(There are no recognized sources for at least these individuals. Said information needs to be accurate to reflect living people.) (undo | thank)
16:42, 13 February 2017 K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) . . (15,165 bytes)(-5,185) . .(Reverted to revision 765130257 byRichterer11111 (talk): Adultfilmdatabase.com, wekinglypigs.com, etc. are not suitable sources for BLP material. (TW)) (undo | thank)
20:50, 13 February 2017 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) . . (20,350 bytes)(+5,398) . .(overzealous overdeletion. No individual entries should be removed, and if you're concerned about items implicitly sourced to the magazine feature itself, just add a ref to the magazine rather than deleting the entry) (undo | thank)
22:51, 14 February 2017 Richterer11111 (talk | contribs) . . (16,431 bytes)(-4,326) . .(BLP's require accurate sources, for which Playboy.com would not be, nor would adultfilmdatabase. These are simply not sources that can be used.) (undo | thank)
01:16, 15 February 2017 Richterer11111 (talk | contribs) . . (15,272 bytes)(-5,485) . .(BLP demands immediate changes. Before reverting comment on talk page. this is a clear violation of BLP and sources and previous discussions.) (undo | thank)
08:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) "Why are going to delete this page? This team was officially formed as (The) Golden Truth in WWE, consisting Goldust and R-Truth..., I don't know why you guys are doing this..."
23:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) "Please read: "no standardized legal definition for "puppy mill" exists." Naming a court case that was thrown out is irrelevant to this article!"
75.75.37.22, all of whose edits are on the page forBarbara Comstock, has added an unsourced statement to the lead section several times. The IP has provided neither a detailed edit summary nor a source. All of the IP's edits are recent edits to this page, so all relevant diffs can be seen by clicking on the above link to his/her contributions. Thanks,AndrewOne (talk)14:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I actually started a discussion at the involved editor's user talk page[307] and noticed the third revert of me while preparing it. Considering there are BLP concerns, I was not sure the article talk page would be appropriate.
Comments: OPTIONAL: It is also probably worth noting that the editor involved blanked the user page ofUser:Doug Wellerhere after Doug's first reversion of the material. That was actually what drew my attention to this matter in the first place.John Carter (talk)15:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Srinjoy Mukherjee may be an autobiography. I removed unsourced material from that page which he restored. I then noticed the official Facebook page of the subject of the article is https://www.facebook.com/sarodsrinjoy, the editor's name reversed. Literally every edit except a couple of talk page edits requesting help have been promotional. See alsoTemplate:Daily Observer which isn't actually a template but a link to a newspaper article about the subject.Doug Wellertalk16:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
This person has continued to delete CSD's when it violates guidelines for the page being recreated multiple times, even landed him a block. He has also continued to delete templates instead of contesting, and he started the article. I'm not going to participate in a war against him. (4im also issued for the fact of a potential edit war)*Xyaena~* (talk)16:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
No trying to vandalize or somethnig like that from me. Just wanted consistent information. Idea of erasing Inoki was wrong, but I'm glad he is grey now in second table. Cheers.88.156.93.97 (talk)23:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
05:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC) "Hi, please stop calling my substantive and good faith editing vandalism. Everything I've written is true, encyclopedic and sourced appropriately in the article."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I don't know wikipedia very well but this user has been following me around, reverting a lot of my edits ([315],[316],[317],[318]) and generally making me feel unsafe and unwelcome. I even added a bunch of sources to this article to better substantiate the claims butUser:Malik Shabazz reverted me three times in just a few minutes anyway.Denarivs (talk)05:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
And perWP:LEAD, the introduction to an article doesn't have to have sources if they are already in the article, which is true here. Nonetheless, I added more sources to the statements and changed the language over the course of editing. I don't think this qualifies as edit warrioring.Denarivs (talk)06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It appears that you are adding dubious sources to a BLP -Glen Beck'sTheBlaze and an unsigned article in the Unification Church's The Washington Times are rarely suitable sources for a BLP, and if better ones don't exist then they shouldn't be used. And why call him Jewish in the first sentence? It comes across as "Jewish left-winger bad". That's why you are being reverted. I would but I'll take the article toWP:BLPN now instead.Doug Wellertalk15:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution.slakr\ talk /08:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment@Flat Out andSuddenDeth: So like, the last edit to that article's talk page was 28 September 2016. That's a long time ago. Also, there was another user who approved of the contested change. So, can you guys please make an effort to discuss this outside of edit summaries?@SuddenDeth: multiple people disagree with your edit. If you continue making it without attempting to discuss it, you will be blocked. --slakr\ talk /09:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Note There is acompanion AN/I thread currently open about this editor's overall pattern of behavior, mostly pushing challenged edits repeatedly and refusing to engage in talk page discussion.Laser brain(talk)17:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours For continuing to edit war on other articles.NeilNtalk to me22:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely Sockpuppet.NeilNtalk to me22:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
WarnedShimlaites, you are edit warring just as much asKrimuk2.0 (and you also failed to notify him of this report as you are required to do). Continue and one or more of you may be blocked.NeilNtalk to me14:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
No violationWario-Man has only lightly and occasionally edited the article, not coming close to breakingWP:3RR.NeilNtalk to me14:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Stale 1RR was violated but the discussion appears to be proceeding smoothly on the talk page.King of♥♦♣ ♠00:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
![[73]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aNational_Bank_of_New_Zealand_logo.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d761980500){kind=link}
![[78]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aNational_Bank_of_New_Zealand_logo.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d763512203){kind=link}
![[79]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aNational_Bank_of_New_Zealand_logo.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d763562419){kind=link}
![[80]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dFile%3aNational_Bank_of_New_Zealand_logo.svg%26amp%3bdiff%3dprev%26amp%3boldid%3d763688609){kind=link}
